This week’s caption reads:

U.S. Soldiers assigned to 14th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 2-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 7th Infantry Division enter a cave to conduct Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) operations during Rotation 25-11 at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif., Sep. 16, 2025. Rotations at the National Training Center ensure Army Brigade Combat Teams remain versatile, responsive, and consistently available for current and future contingencies. (U.S. Army photo by Cpl. Jeffrey Garland, Operations Group, National Training Center)

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.

Faced with a growing threat from uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUVs), the USCG is seeking technology not just to detect these weapons, but to defeat them. Ports and other maritime facilities are vulnerable to this kind of attack vector, and our adversaries surely know it. The effort is being led by the Coast Guard Futures Development and Integration (FD&I) Directorate, which oversees research, modeling and simulation, technology forecasting, and field experimentation. It is part of the service’s role to protect U.S. maritime assets and comes as adversary militaries and non-state actors alike, are developing a wide array of UUVs for surveillance, strike and sabotage.

“UUVs are increasingly used in both public and military maritime operations due to their versatility, stealth, and ability to operate in challenging environments,” the Coast Guard noted in its request for solutions (RFS) posted Friday on the government’s online contracting portal. “However, the proliferation of UUV technology has introduced new threats to maritime security. Malicious actors can employ UUVs for a range of activities, including intelligence gathering, surveillance, smuggling, sabotage of critical infrastructure, and kinetic strikes. The covert nature and advanced navigation capabilities of modern UUVs make them difficult to detect, track, and mitigate using traditional maritime interdiction tactics.”

The most vivid example of this threat took place in December, when Ukraine claimed it used a UUV to strike an Improved Kilo class diesel-electric submarine, in the Black Sea naval stronghold of Novorossiysk. Ukraine’s state security service (SBU) told us at the time they used its Sub Sea Baby UUV to navigate through the harbor and hit the submarine.

It remains unclear how much damage the submarine sustained. However, the incident showed Ukraine was able to slip a UUV into a heavily defended harbor, in daylight, and detonate its warhead next to a prized Russian submarine, worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The following satellite image showed a view of the submarine after the UUV hit.

Here is a video of the attack:

In an earlier example of these vehicles being used as a weapon, the U.S. Navy found itself having to fire on a threatening Houthi UUV in February 2024, according to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).

“Between the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Sanaa time), Feb. 17, CENTCOM successfully conducted five self-defense strikes against three mobile anti-ship cruise missiles, one unmanned underwater vessel (UUV), and one unmanned surface vessel (USV) in Iranian-backed Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen,” the command stated on X at the time. “This is the first observed Houthi employment of a UUV since attacks began on Oct. 23, [2023].”

Hamas used UUVs even before that in an attempt to attack Israeli naval assets in 2021, according to the Times of Israel.

“While the small autonomous underwater drone was still close to the shore, an Israeli Navy vessel destroyed the device, and an IDF aircraft attacked the operatives that launched it in order to thwart the threat,” the military said, according to the outlet.

“Hamas has for years been believed to be developing autonomous submarines,” Times of Israel added. “The Israeli Navy believes that the models in the terror group’s arsenals are guided by GPS and capable of carrying some 30 kilograms (66 pounds) of explosives. Such weapons could be directed against targets both out at sea and along Israel’s coastline.”

The threat from these systems has come a long way. America’s near-peer adversaries are far more advanced in this regard and weapons that can travel great distances undersea, operating on their own, offer a distinct asymmetric advantage. As with Pearl Harbor, it is far more convenient to strike ships in port than to hunt them at sea. China, notably, has invested heavily in uncrewed underwater vehicles for years.

“There are effective technologies with the capability to detect and track UUVs, but few tested and fielded defeat/mitigation systems,” the Coast Guard said in the RFS. 

There are really two areas where these technologies land, in general. Providing early warning and tracking of UUVs over larger areas and coastal and harbor defense, the inner layer where UUVs are arguably most dangerous.

For the U.S., persistent and broad area undersea surveillance coverage has historically been provided by large networks of static hydrophones that are extremely costly to establish, operate, and maintain. They were also designed to detect large submarines, not far smaller UUVs. The U.S. Navy’s Cold War Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) network is perhaps the best-known example of such a system. Portions of SOSUS do remain in service, but are now used more for scientific research than watching for foreign submarines. SOSUS has been largely supplanted operationally by a mix of fixed sensor arrays, surface ships towing sonar, and processing stations ashore known collectively as the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS).

Last year, TWZ highlighted one of many alternatives being developed by industry, Anduril’s readily deployable undersea surveillance system called Seabed Sentry. It uses networks of small and relatively low-cost modular sensor nodes to detect and track undersea threats. You can read more about that system and how it operates in our story here.

Anduril, working with Ultra Maritime’s Sea Spear deployable sonar system, demonstrated the latest iteration of this system during the Navy’s recent Lanternfish exercise, which “brought together the U.S. Navy, United Kingdom Ministry of Defense explosive ordnance disposal units, Royal Australian Navy UUV Operators and defense industry professionals to build seamless interoperability,” according to the U.S. Navy.

The inner layer of defense benefits from ongoing development and evolution, from sensors for detecting divers and objects to marine mammals that can do the same. Still, UUVs offer unique new challenges to contend with.

Last month, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Panama City and Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Group (UUVGRU) One “executed a multi-national harbor protection demonstration to show how the advancement of technology plays a crucial role in protecting the Navy’s assets during exercise Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) 2026,” NSWC said.

The demonstration “showcased three emerging technologies including an expeditionary air curtain, an artificial kelp UUV net, and sea water neutralization charges which are designed to counter UUV threats,” the release added.

“The expeditionary air curtain is a rapidly deployable underwater system that is used to protect mission-critical assets below the waterline. The air curtain defends against UUV threats and can be used at Naval bases and military installations as well as ports and harbors by aerating the water to affect the UUV’s depth sensors, acoustic sensors, buoyancy and propulsion.”

“We are testing the air curtain to see how it disrupts and hinders UUV sensors. It is a quick, expeditionary solution because it can be deployed easily,” said Javi Handal, a Senior Electrical Engineer with NSWC Panama City.

He did not provide further details about these systems.

Regardless, the Coast Guard is looking to industry for other options.

“Defeat technologies are an essential piece in the kill chain, as detection is only the first step to stopping the threat,” its RFS explains. “The development and deployment of effective C-UUV defeat solutions will enhance maritime domain dominance (MDD), port security, and critical infrastructure protection, enabling reliable response actions to neutralize UUV-based threats.”

The Coast Guard said it is specifically interested in “solutions that have been tested and demonstrated to be effective in operational settings, with a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 5 or higher.”

The Pentagon describes TRL 5 as systems where the “basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so it can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include ‘high fidelity’ laboratory integration of components.”

The requested technologies should be capable of supporting Ports, Waterways & Coastal Security operations, “addressing the unique challenges posed by UUVs in these environments,” the Coast Guard added.

“We are looking for systems that can provide reliable performance in real-world conditions, including but not limited to sensor platforms, kinetic solutions, and integrated response solutions,” the RFS notes. “Respondents are encouraged to submit information on products or systems that are currently available for procurement, have undergone field testing, and are suitable for deployment in port, harbor, and waterway security scenarios. Defeat solutions should be scalable and adaptable for compatibility with existing detection systems and/or various configurations for different ports.”

The Coast Guard is limiting its search to “only systems with an effector or with direct mitigating capabilities, or with detection, tracking, identifying, and mitigating capabilities. Submissions that do not include defeat capabilities will not be considered at this time.”

Interested parties have two weeks to submit their proposals. We reached out to the Coast Guard to find out more details about timelines and budgets and will update this story with any pertinent information provided.

As Ukraine proved last year, the threat from UUVs is real and growing, giving adversaries hard-to-detect and difficult-to-defeat autonomous weapons that can be launched from great distances and potentially operated in concert. The Coast Guard request is the latest example of the U.S. government’s increasing effort to get after this emerging threat.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post U.S. Coast Guard Seeking Technology To Hunt And Kill Uncrewed Underwater Vehicles appeared first on TWZ.

The company has released its clearest official photograph yet of the demonstrator under construction. Seen at the top of this story, it shows the fuselage of the jet being built at the BAE Systems facility in Samlesbury. Meanwhile, the wings and fins are being built at Warton, from where the aircraft is due to fly before the end of 2027.

In aerospace, a demonstrator (or technology demonstrator) is an aircraft built primarily to prove technologies, manufacturing methods, aerodynamic concepts, and systems integration, rather than to become an operational weapon system. As a precursor to a prototype that would more closely represent a final configuration, they are nearly always smaller, simpler designs that leverage off-the-shelf components wherever possible to get them into the air faster and to prove core concepts and/or a package of concepts. The last such known fighter demonstrator in this class built in the United Kingdom was the British Aerospace EAP that first flew in 1986 and proved the concept for the Typhoon that followed it. 

The Combat Air Flying Demonstrator will inform the sixth-generation Tempest fighter, which is being developed for the air forces of the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan, for service in the 2040s and beyond. Canada also recently joined the program as an observer, and there are reports that Germany might also be considering coming on board.

A model of the Combat Air Flying Demonstrator presented at the Farnborough International Airshow in England earlier this week:

The new scale model confirms that the twin-engine aircraft has outward-canted twin fins and no horizontal tails. Another major difference that we know about relates to the powerplant. The Combat Air Flying Demonstrator will use the same EJ200 turbofans as the Typhoon. The production Tempest will feature an all-new powerplant that is now under development. Nevertheless, officials have said that the demonstrator will have fighter-style handling, despite its size and lack of thrust compared to the Tempest.

Overall, the demonstrator aircraft has some similarities to the F-35 (except the horizontal tails), including forward-swept intakes that are a DSI design and a prominent ‘chine’ on the forward fuselage. The center fuselage section is notably long and broad, something carried over, but to a lesser degree, from Tempest renderings and models.

The inboard leading edge of the wing is slightly cranked, there is some forward sweep on the trailing edge, and the wingtips are severely cropped. The result is something of a modified cropped-delta wing, very different to the lambda wing that appeared on the very first Tempest concept and closer to the large-area delta that appears on later Tempest concepts. As for the demo jet’s tailfins, these are simpler than those on the latest Tempest mockup, being trapezoidal rather than having five ‘sides’.

The canopy also appears to offer limited rearward visibility. The underside of the fuselage almost has area-ruled, hour-glass-like contours.

The factory-floor photograph includes technicians, assembly tooling, work platforms, and production fixtures that immediately provide useful reference points. Even allowing for perspective effects, the demonstrator’s center fuselage appears broad and deep.

Looking down the spine of the aircraft, the width of the centerbody is especially striking. The absence of skin panels exposes a substantial internal space, which accommodates low-observable serpentine intakes, while the distance between the outer mold line on each side further hints at the generous internal volume available inside the aircraft.

Of course, perspective can exaggerate proportions, and this remains a technology demonstrator rather than the final operational GCAP fighter, let alone a Tempest prototype. The aircraft that eventually enters service in the mid-2030s will undoubtedly differ in various respects.

Air Commodore Martin Lowe, the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) program director at the U.K. Ministry of Defense, has stressed this exact reality. He highlights that the Combat Air Flying Demonstrator is not a Tempest prototype, particularly not “in terms of shape or size.” The final configuration of the Tempest has yet to be settled, but it will surely be bigger and more complex than the demonstrator. A new, full-size mockup of the Tempest was also presented at the Farnborough International Airshow in England this week.

While the Combat Air Flying Demonstrator has a definite F-35 ‘look,’ the latest Tempest mockup owes more to the F-22 Raptor. In fact, in at least one recent render, seen below, it appears like a wider, squatter F-22, suggesting an even more generous internal capacity.

As TWZ previously reported, the future combat aircraft is being designed around “really extreme range” and a payload approximately double that of the F-35A. Just in terms of internal and external ordnance, for the F-35A, this equates to more than 18,000 pounds, according to the manufacturer. This would suggest the Tempest’s internal payload will be around 10,000 pounds compared to the F-35A’s 5,000 pounds.

Those requirements point toward a substantially larger aircraft with dramatically greater internal volume than today’s fighters. They also reflect similar concerns that have driven the development of the U.S. Air Force’s Boeing F-47 under the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative.

Range is heavily dictated by fuel load, which the Tempest will carry internally to preserve its stealth qualities. At the same time, carrying significantly more — and larger — internal weapons than current fighters demands larger weapons bays. Sixth-generation aircraft are also expected to require unprecedented electrical power generation and cooling capacity to support advanced sensors, electronic warfare suites, communications systems, onboard computing, and potentially future capabilities such as directed-energy weapons.

Previous renderings gave us an idea of the shape of Britain’s future stealth fighter demonstrator. However, the new model and photos from the production line provide useful new detail of the Combat Air Flying Demonstrator, including a better appreciation of its scale. Ultimately, once the Tempest appears, it will likely be an even bigger and more impressive aircraft.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post More Of The UK’s Stealth Fighter Demonstrator Revealed In New Images appeared first on TWZ.

Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden was asked about the prospect of orders for more than 100 B-21s during a quarterly earnings call earlier this week.

“The agreement we reached with the Air Force does allow them to consider accelerating production into a larger program of record, and we are working with them in that analysis,” Warden said. “They are undertaking it now. I expect that by year-end they will come to a conclusion on that, and we’ll certainly keep you updated.”

The deal, as it was announced earlier this year, centers on a 25 percent boost in annual B-21 production capacity. Raider production rate details have been and remain classified, but past reports have said that Northrop Grumman is understood to be able to churn out up to eight of the bombers a year.

As noted, emphasis was placed at the time on production acceleration to support fielding of the first operational B-21s next year. Any possibility of a larger total fleet size was downplayed.

U.S. officials have increasingly voiced support for a fleet of more than 100 B-21s for years now. Just in April, Secretary Pete Hegseth told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that he saw a need for “a lot more” B-21s. However, the Air Force has repeatedly said there has been no change in the official acquisition plan.

The first sign of actual change being on the horizon came in May. That month, Air Force Lt. Gen. David Tabor, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, made clear that the planned Raider fleet size, or so-called program of record, was at least under formal review at a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee.

“We’re in the process of sharpening our pencils, really getting down to exactly what that [revised program of record] is,” Tabor said at that time, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. “I think here in the next year, by the time we get to the ’28 [Fiscal Year 2028] budget, we’ll be able to give you a better answer, much more precise answer, and show you our homework.”

The Pentagon’s annual proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year is typically released sometime in the spring. During the earnings call this week, Northrop Grumman CEO Warden indicated that the final decision on a new B-21 fleet size target is actually expected to come months before then, which makes sense in the context of the lengthy budget planning process.

What that new B-21 fleet number might be remains to be seen, and it is not clear whether it will even be publicly disclosed. In February, an Air Force official told TWZ that any revised figure is expected to be classified. Cost, schedule, and other details about the Raider program continue to be shrouded in heavy secrecy even as the aircraft has moved into increasingly public testing ahead of its planned fielding next year.

In terms of overall progress, the Air Force and members of Congress have repeatedly described the B-21 as a model acquisition effort that has been able to stay within cost and schedule targets despite at least a few hurdles during development.

On “B-21, there’s been good execution throughout the years,” John Greene, Northrop Grumman’s CFO, also said on the earnings call this week. “So, that’s been an enabler to ensure the overall program profitability remains on a direction that’s headed north.”

Air Force officials have also been open about their excitement for what the B-21 will bring operationally, as well as the added capacity that will come from having even 100 of these bombers. The B-21 is notably smaller than the B-2, but it will offer extreme range and other substantially improved capabilities compared to its predecessor. There are also only 19 B-2s still in service, and those aircraft, though highly capable, are very much a ‘silver bullet’ force.

The Raiders will replace the Air Force’s aging B-1B swing-wing bombers, as well. There is no clear replacement plan for the B-52 bomber yet, with those aircraft set to continue flying through at least 2050. To ensure their relevance for decades to come, the B-52s are in the process of receiving an extensive array of upgrades, including new engines and radars, but there have been delays. How those efforts continue to unfold might also have implications for the B-21 even though the two aircraft fill very different roles.

By all indications, the B-21 remains on track to begin fielding next year. The Air Force just recently made an announcement about the operational crew complement for the bombers, which will be two pilots. You can read more about this decision and its significance here.

It will still be some time before the B-21 force reaches a true operational capability even after initial fielding begins. Raider deliveries are also set to continue for years, especially if the total planned fleet rises well above 100 aircraft.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Pathway To Larger B-21 Raider Fleet Was Baked Into Production Ramp-Up Deal appeared first on TWZ.

Photos that began circulating on Russian Telegram channels show wreckage consistent with the Dutch-produced Ruta Block 1. While the exact location and target of the strike remain unclear, the images represent the first publicly available evidence that the new long-range weapon has entered combat use.

The recovered debris includes fuselage sections, internal components, and part of the missile’s tailfin assembly. Although the imagery has not been independently verified, the remains appear consistent with the known design characteristics of the Ruta Block 1. The possibility cannot be ruled out entirely that the wreckage represents a previously undisclosed Ukrainian cruise missile design with broadly similar characteristics. Russian military bloggers claimed air defenses intercepted the missile, though that cannot currently be independently verified.

Footage purportedly showing a Ruta Block 1 missile flying toward its target has also appeared.

The Ruta Block 1 is a product of the Netherlands-based Destinus company, founded by the Russian exile Mikhail Kokorich. Earlier reporting indicated that the Block 1 was already being manufactured in the Netherlands and had been delivered to Ukraine since at least 2024.

Last month, then-Ukrainian Minister of Defense Mykhailo Fedorov announced that the Netherlands was paying for approximately 700 cruise missiles for Ukraine — almost certainly referring to the Ruta Block 1 — as part of a wider package worth more than $500 million.

According to the manufacturer, the Ruta Block 1 has a range of more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) and carries a payload of 150 kilograms (330 pounds).

The missile is ground-launched via a booster, then flies to its target at low altitude, using a combination of inertial, satellite, and visual navigation systems, providing resilience also in GPS-contested environments. The weapon is intended to strike high-value fixed targets and features pre-programmed terminal guidance.​

Unlike larger and more expensive cruise missiles, Ruta has been presented as a mass-producible weapon optimized for deep strikes against military infrastructure. The missile is designed around affordability and production scale, enabling Ukraine to conduct sustained long-range precision attacks while reducing reliance on scarce, more exquisite Western-supplied weapons. The Block 1 also comes with the major advantage that its turbojet engine is also manufactured by Destinus, so the company doesn’t rely on the United States for this part.

Ukraine has generally remained silent regarding operational use of many of its newest indigenous strike systems until well after they have entered service. Confirmation of the introduction of other long-range weapons often came first from Russian photographs of intercepted missiles or strike aftermath before official acknowledgment from Kyiv.

For Ukraine, the Ruta Block 1 forms part of a broader effort to diversify its expanding arsenal of deep-strike capabilities, alongside long-range drones, indigenous cruise missiles, as well as missile-drone hybrids. As production ramps up, these systems are playing an increasingly important role in sustained attacks against Russian energy infrastructure, as well as command centers, logistics hubs, airbases, ammunition depots, and defense-industrial facilities far behind the front lines. Ukraine is currently ramping up its long-range strikes on all fronts and doing major damage.

Destinus is also working on additional members of the Ruta family.

Earlier this year, the company presented the Ruta Block 2, which increases the missile’s range to over 800 kilometers (around 500 miles) and boosts its payload capacity to 250 kilograms (550 pounds).

Meanwhile, the Ruta Block 3 will have a range of 2,000 kilometers (around 1,200 miles) with a 550-kilogram payload. Block 3 is expected to enter flight testing in 2027 and is also suitable for air launch.

As well as bolstering the Ukrainian arsenal, the Ruta Block 3 has relevance for European nations looking to build up their long-range conventional strike capabilities.

Russia’s extensive use of ground-launched missiles in Ukraine, along with its deployment of long-range weapons in Kaliningrad, has highlighted the deficiencies in Europe’s deep-strike capabilities as NATO seeks to strengthen conventional deterrence against Moscow. The Block 3 could be part of the answer to emerging requirements, including the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA), which involves France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and which seeks to bring new systems into service in the 2030s.

Destinus is also working to expand its production capacity, including through a joint venture with Rheinmetall that will make use of that company’s manufacturing facilities in Germany.

Overall, the Ruta series is part of a wider trend toward lower-cost, highly producible cruise missiles, something also evidenced in the United States. Examples of these include CoAspire’s Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile-Extended Range (RAACM-ER), which you can read more about here, and the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles-Beyond Adversary’s Reach (FAMM-BAR) effort, which is seeking lower-cost designs with maximum ranges of 1,000 nautical miles or more.

Whether this particular missile reached its intended target or was intercepted remains unknown. What is clear, however, is that we have the strongest evidence to date that the Ruta Block 1 has transitioned from an announced development program into an operational weapon being employed against Russian targets.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Evidence Of Ukraine Using Dutch Ruta Block 1 Cruise Missiles Emerges appeared first on TWZ.

Earlier this week, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Statement of Administration Policy regarding the latest draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for Fiscal Year 2027 that is now making its way through the House of Representatives. The document offers support for and opposition to various sections of the proposed legislation, which is also known as H.R. 8800.

“The Administration appreciates that H.R. 8800 would provide authorization of the 18 ships requested in the Budget. These ships are a direct commitment to restoring America’s maritime dominance and maritime industrial base,” OMB’s statement, which was published on July 21, declares. “In addition, the Administration appreciates the bill’s support of the Battleship program by fully authorizing the $1 billion in advance procurement necessary to accelerate the delivery to the Fleet.”

“However, the Administration opposes the bill’s excessive reporting requirements in section 131 regarding the Administration’s priority Battleship program,” it continues. “The Administration strongly opposes any reporting requirements that delay the Battleship program without supporting national security requirements.”

On July 21, USNI News also reported that OMB was pressing members of Congress to include funding to start work on the first Trump class battleship in a proposed temporary spending bill, or Continuing Resolution. A temporary funding package could be needed if legislators cannot pass a more formal budget by September 30, when the current fiscal year ends.

When it comes to Section 131 of H.R. 8800, the provision is brief, but pointed. At the time of writing, it reads, in full:

“The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work for the construction of the lead ship of the Battleship program until the date on which the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the weapon systems planned for inclusion in such lead ship are at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level.”

The section does not name any particular weapon systems or define what level of technological readiness would be deemed sufficient. To date, the Navy has described the planned Trump class battleship as a 35,000-ton-displacement warship with a diverse array of weapons. The ship is set to be able to fire nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, from several very large Vertical Launch System (VLS) arrays. It will also have an electromagnetic railgun, a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns, various laser directed energy weapons, and additional weapon systems for close-in defense.

TWZ previously reported on this provision, which has been in the proposed legislation since at least May. As we wrote in the past:

“In terms of technological maturity, the railgun presents particular questions. Between 2005 and 2021, the Navy had an active railgun program. Despite promising developments, plans for an at-sea test were repeatedly pushed back before the entire effort was shelved. Major technical hurdles were cited as a key factor in that decision. The railgun itself was effectively placed in storage at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico.“

“However, it emerged earlier this year that the Navy had conducted a new round of testing of the railgun at WSMR in February 2025. Whether the Navy has any plans to pick up where it left off with this prototype design, which was developed by BAE Systems, or pursue a new one remains unclear. General Atomics, which previously supported U.S. Army railgun efforts, has publicly expressed interest in being involved in arming the Trump class.”

“While the Navy has been very active in developing and fielding laser directed energy weapons, this is another area where the service has faced continued challenges in expanding their operational use. The plans for the Trump class specifically call for a 300-kilowatt-class laser, which is far more powerful than any of the designs the Navy has integrated on its warships to date. The service currently has eight Arleigh Burke class destroyers with the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), as well as another one of those warships with the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS). HELIOS is a 60-kilowatt-class design, though there has been talk about scaling up its power rating to 150 kilowatts. ODIN’s power rating does not appear to be officially confirmed, but it is understood to be significantly lower than that of HELIOS. You can read more about all of this here.”

“The Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missile, another key component of the future Trump class arsenal, is also still in development. The first test launch from a warship, the stealth destroyer USS Zumwalt, is expected to come next year. IRCPS is the Navy half of a joint program with the U.S. Army, which is working to field a land-based version of the same missile. The Army refers to its complete weapon system as the Dark Eagle. The Army had suffered significant setbacks in the past with the Dark Eagle, but the service had blamed those issues on the launcher rather than the missile.”

For its part, OMB’s July 21 statement does not respond to any particular concerns that might be raised by Section 131, either.

Section 131 represents just one small portion of the questions, concerns, and criticism that members of Congress have leveled at the Trump class battleship program. The first one of these ships, currently set to be named the USS Defiant, has an estimated price tag of $17 billion. This would make the vessel more expensive than each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers. The future USS Defiant is also not currently expected to enter service until 2036. The Navy has already outlined plans to order 14 more of these battleships between Fiscal Years 2029 and 2055, as well.

With this in mind, as noted, the House Armed Services Committee has separately asked for a report from the Secretary of the Navy, to be delivered no later than March 1, 2027, on the potential industrial impacts. A particular issue is the strain that work on the Trump class could have on America’s limited nuclear shipbuilding enterprise. Currently, there are only two U.S. shipyards qualified to build nuclear-powered vessels and only one supplier of naval reactors. Currently, the only nuclear-powered ships in the Navy are aircraft carriers and submarines. The service has not operated a nuclear-powered surface combatant in decades, and it has been even longer since one was built in the United States.

TWZ has repeatedly raised questions about the basic industrial capacity to support the battleship program since it was first rolled out to the public in December 2025. It is worth noting here that third, fourth, and fifth Ford class carriers now under construction – the future USS Enterprise (CVN-80), USS Doris Miller (CVN-81), and USS William J. Clinton (CVN-82) – have all suffered delays. Concerns are also regularly voiced about potential setbacks in the construction of new Virginia class and Columbia class submarines. Navy officials have been saying for years now that there is little, if any, margin left in the Columbia class delivery timeline, which is a critical matter of national security. It is essential for those boats to be delivered on a tight schedule to ensure there is no gap in the ability of the leg of America’s nuclear triad to meet operational requirements.

The battleship effort is of particular significance to President Donald Trump and has been presented as a signature program for his administration. At the same time, the schedule that has been laid out so far means that major decisions about how to proceed in acquiring these ships, if at all, will run into the next administration. Any delays will only push that timeline further to the right at a time when there are already major competing priorities for defense spending. Some members of Congress have openly questioned whether the battleship effort is the best use of available resources already.

The annual NDAA is still far from being finalized. The House’s version will need to be reconciled with the one being advanced in the Senate before the bill can be put to a vote, let alone sent to Trump’s desk to be signed into law (or vetoed). This is a process typically marked by lengthy negotiations, and Section 131, as well as other provisions, could change in the future or be removed entirely.

Whether or not a larger political fight around the Trump class battleship emerges remains to be seen. However, OMB has now made clear publicly that the administration is against the inclusion of the guardrails around the program that the current version of H.R. 8800 proposes to establish.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Congress’ Proposed Trump Class Battleship Program Guardrails Met With White House Pushback appeared first on TWZ.

Collectively, the engagements underscored how helicopters are emerging as key contributors to distributed maritime strike, complementing fighters, warships, submarines, and land-based missile batteries with precision-guided anti-ship weapons.

The Apache strike, conducted July 11, saw AH-64s assigned to the 16th Combat Aviation Brigade, 7th Infantry Division, Multi-Domain Command–Pacific engage the former Ticonderoga-class cruiser ex-USS Mobile Bay during the live-fire SINKEX. The Army’s previous demonstration of an Apache destroying a much smaller boat with a Spike NLOS was something TWZ was first to report, but employing the weapon against a full-sized cruiser during the world’s premier maritime exercise marks another significant milestone in the service’s expanding maritime mission.

The Apache’s participation in RIMPAC reflects the Army’s steadily growing role in maritime operations across the Indo-Pacific. Long associated with close air support and anti-armor missions, the AH-64 is increasingly being tasked with engaging naval targets. This is something that has also played out in recent combat operations against Iran.

Spike NLOS has emerged as one of the key tools enabling that mission. The Israeli-developed missile provides an operator-in-the-loop datalink that allows course corrections and aimpoint refinement throughout much of the missile’s flight. That capability makes it particularly useful against moving or time-sensitive maritime targets, where target discrimination and battle damage assessment can be especially challenging.

AH-64 fires Spike NLOS during integration tests at the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground in 2023:

Compared with the AGM-114 Hellfire and AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), Spike NLOS dramatically extends the Apache’s reach while retaining the flexibility to engage both land and maritime targets.

According to manufacturer Rafael, the latest version of Spike NLOS has a maximum range of roughly 20 miles, giving it a substantial stand-off advantage over the Hellfire and JAGM. The variants of those weapons currently fielded on U.S. Army Apaches have maximum ranges of less than 10 miles, though they are typically employed at considerably shorter distances in operational use. At the same time, extended-range versions of both missiles have been demonstrated, with Hellfire tested at approximately three times its standard range and JAGM at roughly double its baseline reach.

The Royal Australian Navy’s contribution highlighted another facet of the growing helicopter anti-ship mission. An MH-60R Seahawk embarked in the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Wayne E. Meyer conducted a live AGM-114N Hellfire engagement against a target ship. While Hellfire lacks the standoff reach of Spike NLOS and is primarily associated with engaging smaller surface vessels, it remains a highly capable maritime strike weapon and is a standard part of the MH-60R’s surface warfare arsenal.

Imagery released by the New Zealand Defense Force showed a Royal New Zealand Navy SH-2G(I) Seasprite embarked aboard the Anzac class frigate HMNZS Te Mana launching an AGM-119 Penguin anti-ship missile against the decommissioned amphibious assault ship ex-USS Peleliu. According to the NZDF, the missile penetrated the hull before detonating inside the vessel, inflicting significant internal damage and compromising its integrity.

The Italian Navy also revealed that an SH-101 helicopter embarked aboard the multirole combat ship Giovanni delle Bande Nere launched a Marte anti-ship missile during RIMPAC 2026, although it did not specify which target the missile was fired against.

Together, the Apache, Seahawk, Seasprite, and SH-101 illustrated just how diverse helicopter-based maritime strike has become. Although each of the weapons described above is optimized for different targets and mission profiles, all three point toward helicopters assuming an increasingly prominent role in coalition anti-surface warfare operations.

The U.S. Army’s maritime application for Spike NLOS aligns closely with the Army’s Multi-Domain Operations concept, which increasingly envisions aviation units contributing to sea-denial missions alongside their more traditional roles. Apache crews have repeatedly demonstrated maritime strike capabilities during exercises across the Pacific, and RIMPAC provides one of the largest and most complex venues yet to refine those tactics alongside allies and partners.

Beyond the Army’s work with Spike NLOS, the U.S. Marine Corps has been experimenting with arming its AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters with small cruise missiles, dramatically expanding their reach and giving them the ability to strike ships from well beyond the range of traditional helicopter-launched weapons. Above all else, it’s yet another example of the attack helicopter’s changing role in the maritime environment.

Although helicopters featured prominently, they represented just one layer of the larger SINKEX strike package.

Video released this week also showed a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet carrying AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM), along with live launches from U.S. Army M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and Japan Ground Self-Defense Force Type 12 coastal defense missile batteries. U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft were also seen supporting the event. Based on the imagery that has been published, submarines were also involved in the SINKEX strikes. Full details of which weapons and platforms ultimately sent which retired ships to the bottom remain unclear, and TWZ has asked officials for additional information.

As well as the decommissioned Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser, the Tarawa class amphibious assault ship ex-USS Peleliu also served as a SINKEX target. As we have discussed previously, the pair represented two very different classes of major warship, providing participants with valuable opportunities to employ and evaluate a wide range of anti-ship capabilities.

Live-fire events like RIMPAC’s SINKEX remain among the most valuable aspects of the exercise, providing opportunities that are difficult to replicate in synthetic training environments. They allow participating forces to observe weapon performance against full-sized ships, refine targeting procedures, and integrate air, sea, and land-based fires while operating within a coalition framework.

RIMPAC 2026 brings together 30 nations, more than 30 surface ships, five submarines, 15 national land forces, over 206 aircraft, and approximately 30,000 personnel operating in and around the Hawaiian Islands from June 24 through July 31. Now in its 30th iteration since beginning in 1971, RIMPAC remains the world’s largest international maritime exercise, designed to improve interoperability while strengthening the partnerships that underpin maritime security and freedom of navigation across the Indo-Pacific.

While long-range anti-ship missiles launched by fighters, warships, submarines, and coastal batteries remain central to modern naval warfare, this year’s RIMPAC SINKEX also demonstrated that helicopters are increasingly indispensable members of the maritime strike team. Whether armed with Spike NLOS, Hellfire, Penguin, or Marte missiles, allied rotorcraft showed they are increasingly expected to contribute directly to the joint force’s anti-ship kill chain. For a region where distributed operations and coalition interoperability are becoming ever more important, that evolution is likely only to accelerate.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Helicopters Just Took Center Stage In Rim Of The Pacific Sinking Exercises appeared first on TWZ.

“The American aggressor army, which used to launch cruise missiles from its vessels in the Indian Ocean in its aggression after the official resumption of the war, with the end of the missile reserves of the aforementioned vessels, yesterday switched to using B1 planes flying from Fairford Air Base, England,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-connected Tasnim news outlet claimed on Telegram. “As the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated, any base that is used to invade Iran’s territory is our legitimate goal.”

Asked about the threats, British officials told us that the country is prepared to defend itself.

 “Our Armed Forces are ready to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attacks, whether it’s on our soil or from abroad,” a government official told TWZ. “The UK stands ready 24/7 to defend itself. This includes through operating a layered approach to air and missile defense, provided by Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force assets equipped with a range of advanced capabilities, working closely with our NATO allies.”

“In the Defense Investment Plan we have made air and missile defense a priority after years of underfunding, dedicating £790 million to enhance protection of the UK homeland and overseas bases from air, drone and missile threats,” the official added. “That is complemented by more than £2 billion of funding to deliver further air defense and counter-drone capabilities, and to upgrade and sustain our Typhoon fleet.”

Iranian officials did not specify how they would strike RAF Fairford, and it is unclear how they could. In March, Iran reportedly fired two missiles at Diego Garcia, a joint U.S.-U.K. base on an island in the Indian Ocean. That’s about 2,400 miles away, or about the same distance as Fairford is from Iran. However, one missile was reportedly shot down by a U.S. warship while the other failed in flight. Given that, whether Iran could actually launch a successful attack on Fairford using those weapons is questionable at the least. Far more likely, if Iran would actually even try anything at all, would be a near-field attack like Operation Spider Web launched by Ukraine in June 2025 against Russian bombers using short-range drones hidden in trucks near airfields. One-way attack drones launched from vessels at sea is another very real attack vector Iran has trained for and equipped itself to execute, a threat you can read all about here.

You can see video of one of those strikes below.

The threats came after Axios reported that B-1B bombers from the base took part in Tuesday’s strikes on Iran. TWZ cannot independently confirm that and CENTCOM declined comment. However, open-source trackers made that claim early Wednesday morning before the Axios story was published.

As we noted earlier and have discussed in the past, RAF Fairford has served as a major hub for aircraft heading to the region as well as long-range bomber missions on Iran.

“U.S. Air Forces in Europe operating locations, including the 501st Combat Support Wing at RAF Fairford, routinely host transient U.S. military aircraft in accordance with access, basing, and overflight agreements with Allies and partners,” an Air Force spokesperson told us in response to our questions about the Compass Calls.

The EC-37s landed shortly after 7 a.m. British Summer Time (BST), or about 2 a.m. EDT, according to local aviation photographer Matt Belcher, who was kind enough to share photos he took of the aircraft.

The Compass Calls are heavily modified Gulfstream G550 business jets. They leverage the Conformal Airborne Early Warning (CAEW) configuration developed first for the Israel Defense Forces, which has large ‘cheek’ fairings on either side of the fuselage, among other distinctive features.

The Air Force is planning to procure 10 of these jets to replace the aging and decreasing fleet of turboprop EC-130H Compass Call planes, of which only four remain. The 43rd Electronic Combat Squadron flew the first training sortie for the EA-37B on May 2, 2025, and one made the type’s maiden voyage to Europe in January.

Many of the EA-37B’s mission systems are directly ported over from the EC-130H, which is why the two very different aircraft share the same nickname. Both aircraft are designed to provide critical stand-off jamming support, including against enemy radars and communications systems. They also have a secondary intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) function given their ability to spot, track, and geolocate various types of emitters.

The EA-37B also offers new capabilities that go beyond what is found on the EC-130H. The Air Force has said in the past that the aircraft’s designation reflects its ability to not only attack, but also destroy certain targets, as you can read more about here.

The Compass Calls had previously been deployed to RAF Mildenhall in the early days of Operation Epic Fury. On April 1, CENTCOM announced for the first time that they had been used in combat as part of Epic Fury. The possibility that they are returning to the region, or adding additional electronic warfare capabilities to the total force deployed there, can be considered a potential indicator of what’s to come. These are often the last assets we see move into place ahead of major combat operations.

All this comes as the U.S. is building up forces amid increasing intensity of attacks on and by Iran and President Trump’s statement to Axios today that “I am considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it.”

In addition, Houthi attacks on Saudi ships in the Red Sea raise the specter of a U.S. military response there. 

Last week, we reported that at least 12 F-16 Fighting Falcons were deployed to Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan from Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany. Other aircraft have rotated into the CENTCOM area of operations as well.

In addition, “special-operations forces have deployed to the region from their U.S. bases,” The Wall Street Journal reported, citing flight-tracking data and U.S. officials. “Squadrons of jet fighters have been staged across the Middle East, and bomber aircraft at bases in the U.S. and U.K. are on high alert to ramp up operations, according to one of the officials.”

Beyond aircraft, “more than 150 medics have arrived at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany in recent days,” the Journal added. The hospital is the primary location for treating troops injured in combat in the Middle East.

Other assets have been rotated out, like the B-52 Stratofortress bombers that departed from Fairford earlier this month. The U.S. also returned F-22 Raptors that were flying out of Ovda Air Base in Israel back to the United States. Other aircraft, such as A-10s and F-15Es, have also returned home from or have been replaced in the CENTCOM region. So clearly there is a lot of shifting of aviation assets taking place even amid current operations.

While adding new forces to Europe and the Middle East does not necessarily mean that Trump will dramatically escalate the conflict, it gives him options to do so. In addition, the public nature of some of these movements also has a messaging effect, letting Tehran and the Houthis know that Trump is ordering more assets to the region.

Regardless, the direct threat against RAF Fairford, no matter how nebulous, is new and will certainly be taken seriously by security officials at the installations and others in region.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post EA-37Bs Arrive At RAF Fairford As Iran Threatens To Attack The UK Air Base appeared first on TWZ.

Patriot was an important topic of discussion during a Raytheon quarterly earnings call this morning. Raytheon is the prime contractor for the Patriot system and the PAC-2 interceptor. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the separate PAC-3 family of interceptors for Patriot.

“Raytheon booked nearly $20 billion of awards, resulting in a book-to-bill [ratio] in Q2 [second quarter of the 2026 fiscal year] of 2.4[%],” Christopher Calio, President and CEO of Raytheon (now formally called RTX), said on today’s call. “These bookings included over $5 billion of GEM-T Patriot effectors, driven by international customers, and our first domestic GEM-T production order in over 30 years.”

Calio did not elaborate on the domestic order, but this appears to be a reference to a contract the U.S. Army quietly awarded back in April. That deal was valued at $441.6 million and was said to be in support of Operation Epic Fury against Iran.

GEM-T stands for Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical. The GEM-T configuration, which has received various upgrades over the years, is the only version of PAC-2 still in production today.

Before the contract in April, it’s not entirely clear when the U.S. Army last ordered any new-production PAC-2 series interceptors, and the nomenclature here can be a little confusing. Raytheon began production of the baseline Guidance Enhanced Missile (GEM) variant, also designated the MIM-104D, in the mid-1990s. Compared to earlier versions of the PAC-2, GEM had improved engagement capability against smaller targets or ones otherwise with smaller radar cross-sections thanks to a new seeker. Changes were also made to the missile’s fuze to improve effectiveness against fast-moving ballistic missiles. A GEM+ configuration was subsequently developed, offering even better accuracy, performance, and reliability.

The U.S. Army subsequently sent stocks of baseline GEM and other older PAC-2 interceptors back to Raytheon to be brought up to the GEM+ standard. The resulting missiles were collectively designated MIM-104Es, with deliveries starting in the early 2000s. The GEM-T moniker was originally applied to MIM-104Es rebuilt from MIM-104Ds, which were further optimized against tactical ballistic missiles in the process. You can read more in detail about the PAC-2 lineage, as well as that of the separate PAC-3 series, in this previous TWZ piece.

Whether or not the new U.S. order for GEM-T interceptors is entirely for American military use, or includes purchases on behalf of allies and partners, is unclear. GEM-T remains in active U.S. Army service, as well as with other Patriot operators globally, even as newer PAC-3 interceptors have arrived. Current-generation trailer-mounted Patriot launchers can be loaded with mixtures of PAC-2 and PAC-3-series missiles at the same time, increasing their flexibility against different threats. PAC-2 missiles are distinctly larger than PAC-3 types.

However, as Raytheon has highlighted today, the U.S. military had not placed any orders for new-production GEM-Ts in decades. Members of the House Armed Services Committee notably questioned this logic just in June, in a report accompanying a draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act, for Fiscal Year 2027.

“The committee supports the Army’s continued investment in Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) to address the spectrum of current and future aerial threats and notes the ongoing efforts to address munitions production capacity within the domestic defense industrial base,” per that report. “The committee further notes that the Army’s procurement of Patriot interceptors in recent budget requests has been for the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE), and not for the PAC-2 Guided Enhanced Missile-Tactical (GEM-T), which has complemented the MSE in real-world engagements.”

At that time, the House Armed Services Committee also asked for the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing, no later than March 1, 2027, on Patriot interceptor inventories. Lawmakers specifically asked for the briefing to include the following:

• “An overview of the capabilities and limitations of both PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors against current and emerging theater ballistic missile and air breathing threats.”
• “Current stockpile levels for PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors, planned deliveries of both types across the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), and an assessment of inventory sufficiency relative to approved force growth, and remaining shelf-life.”
• “A description of the Army’s Total Munitions Requirement for the Patriot family of interceptors.”
• “Any recommendations to address shortfalls in inventory, to include additional procurement of PAC-2 interceptors, modernization of the PAC-2 missile, and development of a new interceptor for the Patriot system.”

Whether or not the committee was aware at that time of the GEM-T contract earlier this year is unclear. When missiles from that order are expected to start arriving is also unknown. PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors are long-lead-time items, and it typically takes years for deliveries to come after a contract award.

All of this speaks to the larger issues around Patriot interceptor stockpiles, which become something of a poster child for munitions supply chain concerns more broadly. Questions surrounding munitions expenditures in the course of fighting against Iran this year were front and center at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing just yesterday. The Trump administration is currently seeking $67.1 billion in supplemental funding to help cover the costs of the conflict, including replenishing stockpiles of critical munitions.

Just how many Patriot interceptors the U.S. Army has expended in the course of operations related to Iran this year is unknown. A detailed report the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank published in May estimated the figure to be somewhere between 1,060 and 1,430. Those numbers were not further broken down between PAC-2 and PAC-3 variants.

The U.S. Army, as well as the armed forces of Israel and Gulf Arab states, have fired even more Patriot interceptors in the course of a succession of crises in and around the Middle East in the past few years. The Ukrainian military has been another heavy user of Patriot in its ongoing fight against Russia. In all of these instances, demand for Patriot, specifically, has been heavily driven by ballistic missile threats, which is exactly what PAC-2 GEM-T is optimized against. For Ukraine, in particular, Patriot systems loaded with PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors are its primary answer to incoming barrages of Russian ballistic missiles.

Concerns have been raised for years now about the impacts this is having on stockpiles of Patriot interceptors in the U.S. and elsewhere globally. There have been efforts to address this surging demand. This includes Raytheon’s establishment of a first-of-its-kind production facility for GEM-T missiles in Germany in cooperation with MBDA Deutschland.

Lockheed Martin has separately been working to dramatically ramp up production of PAC-3 interceptors. This week, the company also unveiled a new PAC-3 variant, called the Adapted Capability Effector (ACE), designed to be lower cost and easier to produce.

Earlier this month, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would grant Ukraine a license to domestically produce PAC-2 and/or PAC-3 interceptors. However, there has been no clarity yet on what the timeline might be for any such deal to be finalized. Though this would be a boon for Ukraine, especially in the long-term, it is years away at best from yielding fruit, as TWZ previously explored in detail.

The U.S. Army has also put forward its own requirement for a new interceptor compatible with Patriot with a unit cost of no more than $1 million. For comparison, the price of a single current-generation PAC-3 MSE variant is $5.3 million, according to the Army’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. With a lack of U.S. orders for GEM-Ts for years now, the price point for those missiles has become more opaque, but it has been reported to be at least in the $2 million range, if not much more expensive.

In the meantime, strain on existing Patriot interceptor supply chains, as well as for complete Patriot surface-to-air missile systems, has created problems for current and future customers. Switzerland notably saw its orders for new Patriot batteries deferred last year due to demand from Ukraine. In April, Swiss authorities raised the prospect of canceling the deal altogether due to the delays. Concerns have been raised about the ability of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin to meet even Ukraine’s needs. Earlier this year, Lockheed Martin also reportedly warned Germany, Japan, Poland, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Saudi Arabia about potential uncertainty surrounding PAC-3 deliveries.

The U.S. Army’s first PAC-2 GEM-T order in decades makes clear that domestic need for Patriot interceptors is now pushing American authorities to other sources of supply, and toward maxing out production of PAC-2 and PAC-3 types. Though perhaps less capable than the latest PAC-3 MSE variant, GEM-Ts are clearly still operationally relevant, and represent an additional avenue to bolster stockpiles. Not every target necessarily requires the employment of the highest-end interceptor, either. This is something Lockheed Martin has been stressing around its announcement of the new ACE variant of the PAC-3, which is explicitly stated to be less capable than the MSE version.

With this in mind, the first U.S. GEM-T order in decades is a significant development, but one that also speaks to the immense strains on stockpiles and supply chains, which could take years to fully address.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post U.S. Army Is Buying Older PAC-2 Patriot Missiles For The First Time In Decades appeared first on TWZ.

Despite its primary mission set, air-to-ground capabilities are inherently a part of the F-15EX’s design. The Eagle II is a member of the extended F-15E Strike Eagle family, having been derived from the F-15QA developed for Qatar.

Last week, the Oregon Air National Guard’s 142nd Wing shared that one of its F-15EXs had dropped training bombs for the first time ever during a trip to Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho back in May. The 142nd, based in Portland, Oregon, is currently the Air Force’s only operational unit flying the Eagle II.

“The crew dropped a total of 24 BDU-50s and 12 BDU-56s over 10 missions with zero safety incidences and satisfactory scores,” according to an official release. “These ‘bombs’ were loaded onto the F-15 EXs and dropped in the Mountain Home firing range complex.”

The BDU-50/B and BDU-56/B are inert training bombs with the same shape and weight as live 500-pound-class Mk 82-series and 2,000-pound-class Mk 84-series bombs, respectively. In U.S. service today, bombs in the extended Mk 82 and Mk 84 families are far more commonly employed in combination with Paveway laser guidance or Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GPS-assisted guidance kits.

The BDU-50s and BDU-56s are still useful tools for training more general ‘dumb bombing’ skill sets for aircrew and for handling of air-to-ground weapons on the ground. This includes things like going through the procedures for targeting and safe release from an aircraft, as well as loading and unloading the bombs from planes.

Basics are especially important for the members of the 142nd, which previously flew F-15C Eagles with no operational air-to-ground capability. It’s also worth noting here that the F-15C was a single-seat type, while the F-15EX is a two-seater. However, the Air Force’s plan, at least initially, has been for a single pilot to fly the Eagle II, something we will come back to later on.

The 142nd does have some personnel with air-to-ground mission experience from prior assignments, but this is still a new mission set for the unit as a whole, which requires new training regimens.

Three pilots from the 142nd “attended a 9-month training course to understand the science behind dropping bombs and the tactics involved. They were tasked with creating a program to train the rest of the wing’s pilots on the basics so they could make the first steps to be able to drop munitions,” according to the official release. Earlier this year, weapons loaders from the Wing also “traveled to Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. where they worked with F-15 E-models assigned to the 59th Test and Evaluation Squadron to become certified on loading bombs.”

The Air Force’s Test and Evaluation community has already been validating the F-15EX’s air-to-ground capabilities. This testing is now extending overseas. Earlier this month, the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron brought an Eagle II from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida to Kadena Air Base in Japan to support a munitions load training event. An F-15E Strike Eagle also took part in that training. Pictures the Air Force released on Monday show that live GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb IIs (SDB IIs), also known as StormBreakers, were among the munitions that ground personnel at Kadena practiced loading onto the jets.

Two active duty squadrons of F-15EXs are set to be established at Kadena, taking the place of units previously based there that had flown F-15Cs. The Air Force has been deploying F-15Es and other fighters to the base on a rotational basis to fill the gap in the meantime.

The Air Force has previously announced plans to stand up National Guard F-15EX squadrons in California, Louisiana, and Michigan. The service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year outlines plans to dramatically expand the total size of the Eagle II force, which could lead to a dozen squadrons or more flying the jets in the end, as you can read more about here. How this might change the Air Force’s plans for employing the jets remains to be seen.

In its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request, the Air Force continued to stress that “the F-15EX aircraft will be used predominantly in defensive and offensive counter-air missions at both Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Combat Command (ACC) operational squadrons.” However, it did also note that the “F-15EX will perform the Homeland Defense mission and provide Combatant Commanders (CCDR) with strike packages capable of operating in Highly Contested Environments (HCE).”

As TWZ has been reporting for years, it has been more or less clear from the start that the F-15EXs would eventually take on more of a multi-role mission after entering service, despite the emphasis on the air-to-air role. This has also raised the possibility that Eagle IIs could be flown with Weapon System Officers (WSO), another pilot with multi-role skills, or a mission specialist, in their backseats, just like their F-15E cousins.

“We currently don’t have conformal fuel tanks [CFTs] for it [the F-15EX], but there is a plan to get us conformal fuel tanks. And then when we do, we can start talking about putting all kinds of air-to-ground capabilities into the airplane, potentially putting WSOs or other experts in the backseat as well to have us do any number of multi-role capabilities that it’s just physically not possible to in the C model,” now-retired Col. Michael Kosderka, then commander of the 142nd, told TWZ in an interview back in 2024. “So the X has tremendous growth capability. It’s really exciting.”

The F-15EX is capable of being fitted with the same CFTs as the F-15E, which give the aircraft more hardpoints for stores on top of providing extra fuel. The current status of the plan to get CFTs for the Eagle IIs assigned to the 142nd is unclear. The initial pair of jets for the Wing were delivered without them. The picture released of the F-15EX at Mountain Home for the air-to-ground training in May, seen at the top of this story, shows that jet, at least, still lacks them. The default configuration for Eagle II test jets includes the CFTs, as seen below.

“Basically, what it’s going to do is turn a wing with a primary mission that is on life support, frankly, into something that has America’s newest fighter, and we’re going to be relevant with that airplane for decades to come,” Kosderka added at that time.

“Gen. Kelly made it very clear in his public address here that the F-15EX is going to have an inherent capability that we need to put to work from day one, to include limited air-to-ground capability,” Lt. Col. Robert Waller, then commander of the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, also told TWZ in a separate interview in 2024. Waller was referring to now-retired Gen. Mark “Grace” Kelly, who was head of Air Combat Command at the time.

All of this makes perfect sense given the F-15EX’s inherent ability to carry a lot of payload, including both air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions, over a long distance. The Eagle II can also accommodate outsized stores. These are attributes that have already made the F-15E one of the most heavily in-demand platforms in the Air Force today.

Strain on the aging Strike Eagle fleet, which has been further magnified by the total loss of four of those aircraft this year during operations against Iran, might prompt the Air Force to consider further expanding the air-to-ground role of the Eagle II. Additional planned F-15EX purchases could very well enable the retirement of at least some older F-15Es, as well as other aircraft. In 2024, Congress blocked an attempt by the Air Force to divest roughly half of its Strike Eagles.

There is already substantial overlap between the F-15E and F-15EX communities, as underscored by the 142nd Wing’s milestone air-to-ground training at Mountain Home in May.

Air-to-air missions still look set to be the dominant task for the F-15EX fleet, at least in the near term, but work is being done now to ensure the jets can also take on air-to-ground missions if the call comes.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Air-To-Ground Capabilities Are Already Creeping Into The F-15EX’s Mission Set appeared first on TWZ.

“The Yemeni armed forces have carried out a significant military operation targeting two Saudi oil tankers that violated the ban imposed by the armed forces in the Red Sea,” the Houthis claimed on Telegram. “The operation involved a number of ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as drones. Thanks to God’s help, the strikes were accurate and caused a large fire on both vessels.”

TWZ cannot independently verify the Houthi claim. However, in a post on X, UKMTO stated that a master of an oil tanker “reports being struck by an unknown projectile which has caused a fire onboard that the crew are currently fighting.”

The incident took place 70NM southwest of Al Shuqaiq, Saudi Arabia, the organization added. “There are no reported casualties and no environmental impact. Authorities are investigating. Vessels are advised to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity to UKMTO.”

The increasing tensions on the BAM come as U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to destroy Iranian bridges and power plants each time Iran hits a ship transiting the Strait of Hormuz, which has been a major flashpoint of tit-for-tat exchanges of fire. Trump also threatened that he will retaliate for the deaths of three U.S. Army soldiers during a July 17 attack on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base (MSAB) in Jordan. He made those statements at a dignified transfer ceremony for the soldiers, plus one killed in Iraq, at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware today.

The incident in the Red Sea took place a day after the U.S. Navy warned that the Houthis had moved weapons near the BAM.

“Recent Houthi statements indicated a readiness to target shipping (specifically Saudi-affiliated) if directed,” the Navy’s Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC) warned on Tuesday. “According to regional reporting, Iran has instructed the Houthis to stand ready to close the Red Sea oil route should the United States strike Iranian power infrastructure.”

“Sources close to the group stated that the Houthis have completed preparations to attack shipping, including the deployment of missiles and drones positioned near Bab al-Mandeb.”

The Houthis have also “told shipping companies not to load or discharge cargo at Saudi Arabian ports ‌or they may be targeted, according to an email the group sent to companies,” Reuters reported.

As we have frequently detailed, a Houthi blockade of the BAM threatens to add further pressure on oil exports from the Middle East, already drastically affected by the Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the resumption of the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports. Saudi Arabia has diverted millions of barrels of oil per day through pipelines to its Yanbu port on the Red Sea in an effort to minimize the energy shortages due to the hostilities in the Persian Gulf. This also raised the specter of the U.S. having to get as involved as it did during the previous Houthi campaign against shipping that ended last September, which could pull resources away from Iranian-focused operations.

Before the attack claim, global trade intelligence firm Kpler pointed out on X that while traffic continues through both straits, “operational confidence remains under pressure.”

“Traffic declined sharply across both chokepoints on 21 July, with Strait of Hormuz crossings down 31% day-on-day to nine vessels and Bab al-Mandeb down 34% to 29 amid a worsening security backdrop,” Kpler added. “Four confirmed vessel U-turns near the Gulf of Aden suggest operators are becoming more cautious following Houthi threats against Saudi-linked shipping. At the same time, confirmed maritime attacks continue around the Strait of Hormuz, reinforcing concerns that uncertainty across both regional chokepoints could reshape routing decisions, increase freight costs and sustain higher geopolitical risk premiums for energy markets.”

As noted earlier in this piece, Trump visited Dover Air Force Base to take part in the dignified transfer ceremony honoring 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Hawaii, Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Texas, Sgt. Angel Rampersad, 28, of New York and Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton, 30, of North Carolina.

Feehan, Gonzales and Rampersad were killed during the July 17 Iranian barrage of MSAB. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) previously announced Rampersad as missing, but her status was updated to a Duty Status–Whereabouts Unknown and she is believed to be deceased.

Swinton was killed during a controlled detonation of a downed One-Way Unmanned Aerial System on July 19, 2026, at Erbil Air Base, Iraq.

Feehan’s family, from Georgia, was given a ride back to that state on VC-25B, which was heading there for Trump’s next appearance.

Speaking to reporters, Trump said his administration would share the results of the investigation into the MSAB attack and vowed that Iran would “pay a big price.”

Those comments followed an earlier statement the president posted on Truth Social vowing to target key infrastructure sites each time Iran strikes a ship transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

“From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket, Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran,” Trump proclaimed.

Not surprisingly, Iranian officials reacted to Trump’s comments by issuing their own threats in response.

“Iran will retaliate against regional infrastructure and energy facilities with American interests if the United States strikes any Iranian bridge or power plant, responding directly to a new threat from US President Donald Trump,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-connected Tasnim news agency stated on X.

Earlier on Wednesday, Jordanian officials said the country was once again targeted by Iran.

“An official military source at the General Command of the Jordanian Armed Forces—Arab Army stated that air defense systems detected six missiles coming from Iranian territory targeting the Kingdom’s territory today, and engaged them immediately upon their entry into Jordanian airspace,” the Jordanian military stated on X. “Air defenses intercepted and shot down four missiles, while the other two fell in two remote, uninhabited areas, without causing any casualties or material damage.”

“The Kingdom’s airspace is under continuous operational monitoring, and the Armed Forces will deal with any aerial threat targeting Jordanian territory according to the applicable rules of engagement, in a manner that ensures the protection of the Kingdom’s sovereignty and the safety of its citizens,” officials added.

Iranian media posted video it claimed showed a direct hit by a drone on the Jordanian port city of Aqaba. TWZ cannot independently verify the claim.

The situation in Jordan is so intense that the U.S. Embassy in Amman issued a security alert.

“President Trump, Secretary of State Rubio, and the Department of State have no higher priority than the safety and security of American citizens,” the embassy cautioned on X. “We remind U.S. citizens that Iran has attacked civilian and critical infrastructure across the Middle East, including hotels, airports, diplomatic facilities, and other civilian locations.”

Over the course of the past 12 days, Iran has lobbed missiles and drones at several Arab nations, taking particular aim at U.S. military installations.

Satellite imagery continues to emerge on social media purporting to show damage at these bases. The images below claim to show a 117-FPS radar at Al-Jaber Air Base in Kuwait destroyed by an Iranian barrage. While the image clearly shows what appears to be a radome destroyed, TWZ cannot independently verify the date, location or provenance of the imagery. CENTCOM, which does not talk about battle damage, declined comment.

Imagery has also emerged purporting to show that U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tankers and other aircraft have evacuated Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest American base in the region. Again, we cannot confirm the details and CENTCOM, which also does not typically talk about the movements of assets, declined comment.

However, Axios reported last week that the Trump administration “notified Israel it is sending dozens more refueling planes to the country ahead of a potential expansion of military operations against Iran.”

“Israeli officials say the U.S. wants to send several dozen more refueling planes in the coming days, bringing the number of planes to the same level it had at the beginning of the war,” Axios added. “Israeli officials say the U.S. military prefers operating the refueling planes from Ben Gurion Airport, because other air bases in the region are more exposed to Iranian attacks and less safe for U.S. planes. At the moment, the Iranians are still deterred from launching attacks on Israel, because it will likely trigger a massive retaliation.”

The U.S. still sits ready to conduct long-range bomber strikes from bases in the U.S. and the U.K.

There were recent unconfirmed claims by open-source trackers that B-1B Lancer bombers out of RAF Fairford in England took part in yesterday’s attacks on Iran. Again, we cannot verify that and CENTCOM declined comment.

However, Israel’s KAN news outlet claimed that “Israel has been informed by the United States that it intends to escalate attacks on Iran in the coming days and to carry out attacks using heavy bombers for the first time in the current escalation.”

In addition, other U.S. Air Force assets – including EA-37B Compass Call electronic warfare jets – appear headed to the region, according to online flight trackers. While we don’t know for sure these jets will actually head to the Middle East, it could be another sign of the U.S. bolstering assets ahead of an increase in intensity of attacks, which have been largely focused over the past 12 days on Iranian coastal targets.

Amid these rising tensions with Iran, the Houthis have now apparently raised the stakes and it will be absolutely critical to keep the BAM open as the world already sits on the razor’s edge of a full-on energy crisis.

UPDATE: 7:17 PM EDT –

CENTCOM announced a new round of attacks on Iran.

“At 5:30 p.m. ET today, U.S. forces began launching more strikes against Iranian military targets at the Commander in Chief’s direction,” the command stated on X. “The mission will continue to further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten civilian mariners and commercial vessels transiting regional waters.”

UPDATE: 10:13 PM EDT –

An official source at the Saudi Transport General Authority (TGA) “stated that the vessel Encelia, owned by a Saudi company, was targeted while sailing in the Red Sea, resulting in a fire at the bow of the vessel,” the Saudi SPA news outlet reported. “The source confirmed the safety of all crew members and that all relevant authorities have taken the necessary measures to secure the vessel and its crew and protect the marine environment.”

“These attacks constitute a violation of international laws and conventions that guarantee the safety of commercial vessels and their crews,” the outlet added.

UPDATE: 11:01 PM EDT –

CENTCOM says it concluded its 12th consecutive night of attacks on Iran at 10:30 PM ET.

“U.S. forces struck Iranian military targets including maritime capabilities, missile and drone storage facilities, coastal surveillance sites, and air defense assets,” the command stated on X. “The strikes further degrade Iran’s ability to attack civilian mariners and commercial vessels.”

U.S. forces “targeted dozens of Iranian military sites on land while resuming a blockade against Iran at sea,” CENTCOM added. “As of today, CENTCOM has redirected nine commercial vessels and disabled one to prevent ships from entering or departing Iranian ports.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Houthis Now Attacking Saudi Oil Tankers In Red Sea, Major Energy Supply Implications (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly confirmed the milestone during a hearing before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee in Washington, D.C.

He told lawmakers:

“I want to highlight the incredible work that the Ukraine industrial base is doing as they scale their air-to-air capabilities,” Caine said. “It ranges from their surface-to-air capabilities to their air-to-air capabilities.”

After being asked by Senator Richard Durbin about the potential impact of a three-year halt in funding for Ukrainian air defenses, Caine added:

“I’ll note that recently we had the first air-to-air kill where a Ukrainian F-16 shot down a Russian fighter. So I think their ability to scale their layered air defense has come a long, long way over the past couple of years with the help and assistance of many.”

No further details were provided, leaving unanswered questions about when and where the engagement occurred, the identity of the Russian aircraft, the weapon employed, and the evidence that led U.S. officials to conclude the kill had taken place.

Nevertheless, it marks the first time a senior U.S. military official has publicly stated that a Ukrainian F-16 has destroyed a crewed Russian combat aircraft in air-to-air combat.

Since beginning operations, Ukraine’s F-16s have already downed huge numbers of Russian cruise missiles and one-way attack drones while also conducting air-to-ground strike missions.

The engagement referenced by Caine may have been the July 8 shootdown of a Russian Su-35S multirole fighter. Ukrainian military officials announced the destruction of the aircraft at the time, while pro-Kremlin Russian military bloggers also acknowledged the loss, claiming the pilot survived and returned safely to base.

A Telegram channel affiliated with the Ukrainian Air Force, Sunflower, claimed the Russian was “the very same experienced enemy pilot who had been causing us a lot of trouble in this area.”

Earlier speculation suggested the Su-35S may instead have been destroyed by a Patriot surface-to-air missile after being lured into range by one or more Ukrainian F-16s. No evidence was presented to substantiate that theory.

Regardless of the precise circumstances, destroying a Su-35S would represent a notable achievement given the aircraft’s superior long-range air combat capabilities.

The Su-35S is among Russia’s most capable fighters and has long been regarded by Ukrainian pilots as one of their most dangerous opponents.

At the outset of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the late Ukrainian MiG-29 Fulcrum pilot Andrii Pilshchykov, better known by his callsign “Juice,” described the Su-35S as the greatest airborne threat because of its powerful radar and R-77-1 active radar-guided air-to-air missiles. The upgraded R-77-1 reportedly has a range of around 68 miles, improved resistance to electronic countermeasures, and a true fire-and-forget capability—something Ukraine’s Soviet-era fighters lacked.

The Su-35S later gained an even more formidable weapon: the R-37M very-long-range air-to-air missile. Introduced into combat during the summer of 2022, the missile reportedly has a range of up to 124 miles, allowing Russian fighters to threaten Ukrainian aircraft while remaining deep inside Russian-controlled airspace. That range likely refers to only larger, less agile aircraft targets and is very much a “sales brochure figure,” with all the caveats that entails. Nevertheless, Pilshchykov bluntly described the weapon as “fucking dangerous.”

The longest-range modern air-to-air missile available to Ukrainian F-16s is the AIM-120C-8 version of the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). An active-radar-guided air-to-air missile is something that Ukraine long campaigned for. Pilshchykov told TWZ back in 2022: “The lack of fire-and-forget missiles is the greatest problem for us.”

As we have discussed in the past, while official performance figures are classified, the AIM-120C-8 is generally assumed to be able to hit targets at a distance of between 75 and 100 miles. Of course, in practical applications, a whole range of factors impacts any missile’s reach, above all, the energy and altitude state of the launching aircraft and the target.

Combined with the Su-35S’s sophisticated electronic warfare systems and Russia’s numerical advantage, these technical capabilities have allowed Russian fighters to operate with relative confidence. In 2022, Pilshchykov recalled occasions when as many as two dozen Su-35s patrolled along the Russian side of the border, waiting for opportunities to engage Ukrainian aircraft.

Based on available reports, Russia was initially satisfied with the results of its R-37M tactics, which relied heavily on surprise. Fighters launched air-to-air missiles at moments the target did not expect, after first employing diversionary and deception measures to mask the attack. However, increased Ukrainian aircraft losses forced Kyiv to develop new tactics to counter the threat.

According to Russian accounts, Ukraine’s tactical changes were enabled by NATO intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets, which provided Ukrainian forces with near-real-time information on Russian fighter activity and detected long-range missile launches. Armed with this warning, Ukrainian pilots reportedly had sufficient time to execute defensive maneuvers, combining aggressive evasive flying with electronic jamming to break the missile’s lock and reduce the likelihood of a successful kill.

Whether or not these tactics helped the F-16 score a famous air-to-air kill is unclear, but they reflect the cat-and-mouse nature of the air war in Ukraine.

Certainly, the Su-35S is far from immune to Ukrainian air defenses.

According to the Oryx open-source tracking group, nine Su-35s have been destroyed in the war. The figure could be higher since Oryx only tabulates losses for which it has visual confirmation.

There have also been close calls.

Russian accounts describe a Su-35S flown by Colonel M. Stefanov landing at an airfield, where, during a post-flight inspection, maintainers counted 28 holes in the fuselage.

If Caine’s statement reflects U.S. intelligence assessments — as seems likely — it suggests Ukraine is becoming increasingly proficient at integrating its Western-supplied F-16s with its broader, layered air defense network. At the same time, Russia has never enjoyed air supremacy over Ukraine, its aircraft even being at risk in some of the areas on its side of the front lines and even in Russia itself.

Even so, this should not be viewed as a turning point in the air war. Russia still fields significantly larger numbers of combat aircraft, retains extensive long-range surface-to-air missile coverage, and continues to pose a serious threat to Ukrainian aviation.

One successful engagement, even against one of Russia’s premier fighters, does not fundamentally alter the balance of air power. It does, however, demonstrate that Ukraine’s expanding fleet of Western fighters, integrated air defenses, and increasingly experienced air defenders of all kinds continue to raise the risks faced by the Russian Aerospace Forces.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Ukrainian F-16 Scored First Air-To-Air Kill Against A Russian Fighter: Top U.S. General appeared first on TWZ.

The Brontanax prototype was presented today at the Farnborough International Airshow in England, during an event attended by the United Kingdom’s newly appointed Defense Secretary Wes Streeting. The prototype — rather than a technology demonstrator — was built in secret at BAE Systems’ facility in Warton, Lancashire.

The aircraft is now being prepared for ground-based testing at Warton prior to flight testing within U.K. airspace, and there are reports that it could take part in a NATO exercise as early as next year.

The appearance of the Brontanax also comes a day after BAE Systems revealed details of how it’s exploring using the Eurofighter Typhoon to control CCAs as part of a broader effort to roll out new capabilities for the jet. Ultimately, however, it appears that the Brontanax effort will also, at the very least, inform the kinds of drones that will also accompany the U.K. F-35 and the future Tempest combat jet into battle.

BAE Systems says the Brontanax is roughly the size of its Hawk advanced jet trainer, which is around 41 feet long, with a wingspan of approximately 33 feet. The manufacturer did not, however, provide details of its planned performance, nor of its critical autonomy system, and the degree to which it will be able to perform missions and functions, absent from human control.

The name Brontanax means “thunder king” in ancient Greek.

We had already gotten a look at the outward appearance of the Brontanax when BAE Systems published a rendering of a pair of the drones when the Storm Fighter program was launched last week.

As we stated at the time, the notably stealthy aircraft has some features reminiscent of renderings of the Tempest, including large-area trapezoidal wings and cropped outward-canted vertical stabilizers. There is a prominent chine line and a faceted fuselage. It also features a shovel-like nose plus low-observable apertures. The drone has a wedge-shaped ventral air intake, partially shrouded by a prominent ‘lip,’ and this feeds a serpentine inlet. The end result is not likely to be a very low observable (VLO) overall design, but certainly low observable (LO) one.

Now that we have seen the finished Brontanax, it is also apparent how deep the fuselage is, suggesting generous internal space for fuel and stores. The landing gear, with a twin-wheel nose unit and substantial mains, looks notably robust to deal with heavier loads, likely with an eye toward carrier launch and recovery and austere airfield operations.

A front view of the drone reveals a blister in the nose, likely housing a camera for flight testing, and there are data probes for the same function. It looks like there is a low-observable aperture behind that blister, which could accommodate an infrared search and track system, or other sensor, in an operational configuration.

Initially, the Brontanax prototype is fitted with a Williams turbofan engine, but thought is also being given to using Rolls-Royce’s Orpheus powerplant family.

In terms of missions, BAE Systems says the Brontanax is intended to provide electronic warfare, precision strike, and air-to-air capabilities. Previously, Luke Pollard, the U.K. minister for defense readiness and industry, had said that the Storm Fighter program would “deliver guardian angel and attack dog drones.”

BAE Systems has also described an experimental scenario in which CCAs armed with very long-range Meteor air-to-air missiles extended the reach, effectiveness, and the combat mass of Typhoons in the air defense role. BAE Systems officials confirmed today that the Brontanax drone’s internal weapons bay is compatible with all weapons currently in service with the Royal Air Force.

The focus on electronic warfare reflects growing U.K. interest in this area, with other examples including Storm Shroud, which will provide the Royal Air Force with a new uncrewed electronic warfare drone that will enter service this year. Last week, the Royal Air Force announced another new EW drone, named Storm Chrome.

Surprisingly, the ability of the Brontanax, or a variant of it, to operate from aircraft carriers is not referenced beyond a short clip in a BAE Systems video. Under Project Vanquish, the Royal Navy plans to demonstrate a fixed-wing, short takeoff and landing autonomous collaborative platform (ACP) from a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier before the end of 2027. The ACP terminology has been used in the United Kingdom in the past and is broadly equivalent to CCA, and BAE Systems may well plan to adapt the Brontanax for this naval requirement, or a follow-on one, too.

Simon Barnes, the group managing director of BAE Systems’ Air sector, provided more details about the Brontanax, including the fact that, as well as being operated by a Typhoon pilot, the drone can be controlled by a mission commander on the ground.

An open architecture and modular design are intended to future-proof the Brontanax, making it easier to adapt to meet evolving threats, while maintaining operational relevance.

Although it hasn’t commented on its level of ‘attritability,’ BAE Systems is clearly looking to offer a lower-cost air combat platform that can also be produced at scale, if required. According to The Telegraph, the company says the Brontanax will come with a price tag around a quarter of that of the Typhoon. The unit cost of a Typhoon varies dramatically depending on where you look and from what time period. If using a general figure of $115M each, the drones would cost around $28.5M each. This is in line with the cost of CCAs being developed in the U.S., for instance. Still, all this depends on how the cost of the Typhoon is being calculated, and the price range can be pretty vast.

“We recognize armed forces are being challenged to meet the demands of speed, adaptability and scale,” Barnes said. “Our collaborative combat aircraft will provide the ability to extend the reach of crewed aircraft, generating greater combat mass at lower cost, while keeping pilots out of harm’s way.”

On an industrial level, the new CCA has been designed and built by BAE Systems’ FalconWorks, its rapid prototyping team, paid for using the company’s own research and development budget.

Cognizant of the fact that other companies, including more established CCAs, will also be competing for the Royal Air Force’s Storm Fighter requirement, BAE Systems is stressing the homegrown nature of its Brontanax.

“This capability represents a significant company investment in the U.K.’s future of air power and builds on our long-standing commitment to innovation,” Barnes explained. “Alongside supporting defense priorities, it will strengthen the U.K.’s sovereign defense ecosystem by creating opportunities for SMEs, suppliers and partners across the country.”

Competition is still likely to come from the United States, in particular, including the Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat, in which BAE Systems is also involved, and the British firm is also working in collaboration with Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works division, which is also heavily involved in CCAs. Other U.S. pitches could come from Northrop Grumman, Kratos, or General Atomics, which has pitched to the United Kingdom a carrier-capable member of its highly modular Gambit drone family.

In its Defense Investment Plan, published last month, the U.K. government confirmed a $406-million investment in the Storm Fighter CCA program.

Since BAE Systems is already working alongside the Royal Air Force on its CCA effort, the Brontanax would appear to be well placed to win a domestic order, if the U.K. government is serious about fielding a sovereign loyal wingman capability as well as supporting local industrial capability. When it comes to low observable capabilities and stealthy drones, BAE Systems’ experience dates back many years, including a proof-of-concept UCAV testbed called Taranis.

Speaking today, Defense Secretary Streeting heralded the Brontanax as“a testament to the extraordinary talent and innovation across our sovereign defense industry.”

The Chief Of The Air Staff, Air Marshal Sir Harv Smyth, described the Brontanax as “a major step” toward the Royal Air Force’s ambition to become Europe’s first “sixth-generation air force.” He also said that the Brontanax prototype is expected to fly next year.

At this stage, the “sixth-generation air force” rubric is somewhat unclear, although Smyth described it in terms of an ecosystem in which “uncrewed air systems integrate seamlessly with our crewed platforms, exponentially increasing our survivability, our lethality, and ultimately our conventional deterrence.”

Whether the Brontanax ultimately enters Royal Air Force service remains to be seen. BAE Systems is entering an increasingly crowded field where other CCA developers already have years of flight-testing and autonomy work behind them, while integrating uncrewed aircraft with crewed fighters remains a major technical challenge. Australia, China, the United States and even Russia are ahead in terms of actual flight testing collaborative drones for fighter aircraft, so the pressure is on for the United Kingdom, especially as it grapples with fighter fleet-size constraints, which could be at least partially alleviated with the introduction of CCAs. At the same time, this drone could give the UK a banner sovereign airframe to export to allies around the globe, which could be extremely lucrative in the years to come.

All told, the appearance of the Brontanax is the clearest sign yet of Britain’s ambition to field a sovereign collaborative combat aircraft capability, underscoring the central role uncrewed systems are expected to play in the Royal Air Force’s future airpower vision.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Brontanax Fighter Drone Is The UK’s Big Leap Into Collaborative Combat Aircraft appeared first on TWZ.

CoAspire announced today that it had received what is known as an Other Transactional Agreement (OTA) in support of the Navy’s Coalition Heterogenous Affordable Offensive Strike (CHAOS) program. The OTA process is a contracting mechanism that U.S. government agencies use to help speed up advanced research and development and prototype efforts.

“Under a $70m Prototype Other Transactional Agreement (OTA) with CMG Networks on behalf of Naval Aviation Systems Consortium, CoAspire will design, build, test, and deliver to Program Acquisition Executive for Munitions and its program office, PMX-201, an affordable, ground-launched, mid-range, cruise missile system that can attack both land-based and moving maritime targets,” according to a press release from CoAspire. “The end-use Foreign Military Sale (FMS) customers are allies and coalition partners needing an affordable yet highly effective maritime strike weapon that can be easily manufactured at scale.”

Whether or not the Navy has also selected other companies to move ahead with their designs under CHAOS is unknown, and TWZ has reached out to the service for more information.

RAACM-ER is a turbojet-powered cruise missile. It has a body with a trapezoidal shape that is reminiscent, in very broad strokes, of Lockheed Martin’s stealthy AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and derivatives thereof.

“Physics is physics,” Doug Denneny, founder, CEO, and owner at CoAspire, told TWZ‘s Jamie Hunter at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space exhibition earlier this year. “When people look at shapes, they look similar, but just like an Airbus looks like a Boeing, but what they have different inside is really what matters, and that’s how we differ in many ways.”

CoAspire’s missile has a GPS-assisted navigation system and a long-wave infrared seeker in the nose. The guidance package allows for the engagement of moving targets, as well as static ones based on fixed target coordinates. Passive infrared seekers are immune to radiofrequency countermeasures, such as jammers or decoys. They also do not pump out signals that could alert a target to the incoming danger. All of this creates advantages over active radars for terminal homing.

When RAACM-ER made its public debut, the company said the design could be fired from ground-based launchers or ones on ships, as well as be employed by aircraft. However, an air-launched version was the only one on display. Surface launch requires the addition of a rocket booster to the tail of the missile, as seen on the model in the picture at the top of this story. That booster falls away after launch.

As an aside, CoAspire is also now developing what it says is a separate surface-launched version of RAACM-ER, called GHOST, for the U.S. military’s Low-Cost Containerized Missiles (LCCM) program. The core RAACM-ER design also evolved conceptually from an earlier missile simply called RAACM, but they are entirely different. The original RAACM was developed under a U.S. Air Force program called the Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM), which has also been aimed primarily at supporting allies and partners, starting first with Ukraine.

When designing RAACM-ER, “our engineers came to us and said, ‘Hey, if we’re going to make a bigger one, should we make it look just the same?’ I mentioned earlier that RAACM was made that shape just to ease integration,” Denneny also told Jamie Hunter at Sea-Air-Space. “We’re an engineering company, so we said, ‘Let’s optimize fuel volume, let’s optimize survivability features, let’s optimize physics so that this thing can go as far as possible and take the sensors needed. That’s why it’s in this slightly different shape.”

How far RAACM-ER, now described as a “mid-range” missile, can go in any of its configurations is unclear. When it was first unveiled, the missile looked to be well suited for the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles-Beyond Adversary’s Reach (FAMM-BAR) effort, which is seeking lower-cost designs with maximum ranges of 1,000 nautical miles or more. This is roughly the same reach as is offered today by variants of the surface-launched Tomahawk cruise missile.

However, at Sea-Air-Space, Denneny separately told Naval News that RAACM-ER had roughly twice the reach of the original RAACM, which would be around 485 nautical miles (900 kilometers) based on previously stated ERAM program requirements. This would put the design more in the category, at least range-wise, of the air-launched AGM-158B JASSM-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) land-attack cruise missile. An extended-range version of the JASSM’s Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) cousin that is now in development is expected to have similar reach.

“CoAspire hasn’t discussed range capabilities of our products, so any assumptions/estimations would be speculation,” a representative for the company told TWZ today when asked for further clarification.

Even with a range of 485 nautical miles, RAACM-ER would offer a notable boost in capability over many other anti-ship cruise missiles in service today with U.S. allies and partners, as well as the U.S. military itself. For example, the reported maximum reach of extended-range variants of the Harpoon is in the 150-mile realm. Current-generation versions of the increasingly popular Naval Strike Missile (NSM) have a stated range of at least 162 miles.

In more general terms, extended reach expands the total area that a single launch platform can hold at risk, while also keeping it further away from potential threats. Longer-range munitions also offer additional flexibility to respond to targets that might emerge suddenly or other changing developments in the battlespace.

How large a warhead RAACM-ER carries is unclear. Trading warhead weight and bulk for fuel, as well as reducing total payload weight, would help extend range. A smaller warhead would have impacts on the missile’s effectiveness. At the same time, certain targets would also not necessarily require something like the 1,000-pound-class warheads found on many Tomahawk variants to achieve the desired effect. When it comes to ships, especially, destroying or even just severely damaging key systems on a ship can achieve a mission kill that substantially reduces the vessel’s combat effectiveness or might even force it back into port for a protracted period of time.

Providing increased capability at a cheaper price point is also a key aspect of the CHAOS program. It was also top of mind for CoAspire in the development of RAACM-ER, though an estimated unit price for the missile has yet to be released. Current-generation Harpoons can range in price from $1.4 to $2.25 million, depending on variant, based on publicly available cost data. NSMs are also in the roughly $2 million price range. The latest versions of the Tomahawk are even more expensive.

“The most important thing is affordable mass. [This] means keeping the cost down, so that the nation and our allies can purchase these at scale. That’s number one,” CoAspire’s Denneny told us at Sea-Air-Space. “Number two is to use as many commercial off-the-shelf parts, so that we are not locked into a single supplier for anything. The final thing is to have something that can survive enemy countermeasures, and also hit the target, whether it’s stationary or moving. Those are the main requirements.”

“An additive approach also allows for rapid modifications and a reduction in tooling and touch labor that results in cost reductions and program improvements without breaking a production line for re-tooling,” CoAspire’s press release today also notes. “It also allows for the development of new variants in months compared to years needed by other missile manufacturing methods.”

Providing new standoff strike weapons in mass to allies and partners would have knock-on benefits for the U.S. military in future coalition operations. This would distribute an additional tier of capability across more friendly forces, helping to reduce reliance on American forces and foreign militaries that field higher-end munitions.

All of this could make the ground-launched version of RAACM-ER, and any other missiles developed under the Navy’s CHAOS program, attractive to the U.S. military, as well. As already noted, the GHOST version of RAACM-ER is already under development now as part of the LCCM program, which is a U.S. Army effort.

As TWZ regularly draws attention to, munitions expenditures in recent operations against Iran and other conflicts globally in the past few years have underscored the increasingly critical need for new designs that are both cheaper and easier to produce. This is vital for ensuring sufficient stockpiles of key munitions, including stand-off strike weapons, at the start of a conflict and making sure that the arsenal can be replenished as fighting continues. It is important to note that lower-cost types are not expected to supplant more expensive and exquisite capabilities now or in the future, but instead complement them.

Just in the past few months, the U.S. military has moved to lay the groundwork for the acquisition of tens of thousands of new, lower-cost stand-off munitions over the next three to five years. CoAspire is one of several companies to have received framework deals as part of these efforts. These agreements cover surface and air-launched designs being developed in support of the aforementioned LCCM and FAMM programs, respectively. It’s also worth noting here that the ERAM program, which was also foreign-focused at the outset, has already been feeding into FAMM.

With all this in mind, today’s announcement regarding CHAOS is another important win for CoAspire. This also underscores U.S. military-wide efforts to reduce reliance on traditional prime contractors and do more to leverage small and non-traditional firms for new major weapon system programs.

With the new vote of confidence from the Navy, along with the previous LCCM framework deal, CoAspire’s RAACM-ER continues to emerge as a particularly notable development for the U.S. military and its allies and partners.

Update: 2:25 PM ET –

The U.S. Navy has now provided TWZ with some additional details regarding today’s announcement about the CHAOS program.

The Navy awarded an Other Transaction Authority agreement to CoAspire for Phases 1 and 2 of the Coalition Heterogenous Affordable Offensive Strike (CHAOS) prototype effort, July 17, marking PAE Munitions’ direct investment in the emerging low-cost cruise missile market,” according to a Navy spokesperson. “The award is a significant milestone in developing an affordable maritime strike capability for security assistance partners while expanding the defense industrial base through competition and accelerating a new entrant into the Navy’s precision strike portfolio.”

“The Navy has requested appropriated funds to begin integration of this low-cost maritime capability on Navy platforms as part of the FY27 budget request,” they added. “PAE Munitions expect[s] at least one more industry agreement on CHAOS as part of its competitive strategy.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Navy Picks RAACM-ER Low-Cost Cruise Missile For Program To Help Arm Allies (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

“The Special Mission Vessel is envisioned as a versatile ‘mothership’ designed to significantly enhance maritime domain awareness and response capabilities,” the spokesperson added. “These operations are crucial for conducting command and control, surveillance, and interdiction missions across vast stretches of the open ocean.”

The Navy was responding to our questions about a request for information (RFI) about the ship that was published Monday on the government’s contracting website. The request comes as a contract for the ship currently performing this mission expires in 2028, which we will discuss in more detail later in this story.

The need for a vessel like this exists as U.S. forces continue a long battle with drug traffickers in the region, including ongoing strikes on boats claimed to be operated by smugglers. The strikes have generated a great deal of controversy, with claims they violate the rules of armed conflict and have been carried out without Congressional or judicial approval. The White House and Pentagon have pushed back on those claims.

You can see one of the most recent incidents in the following video.

To obtain this special mission ship, the Navy is looking for “both the design and new construction of a vessel, as well as the acquisition and necessary modification of an existing vessel,” the RFI explained. Interested parties should “seek to use existing, non-developmental platforms to the maximum extent possible.”

While the Navy is open to how the ship is ultimately developed, there are a number of requirements it must meet. 

The Navy wants a steel monohull or catamaran that’s between 300 and 400 feet long and can travel at a 10-knot minimum sustained speed with a range of 9,600 nautical miles.

The ship should be capable of “conducting primary operations and surviving in a Beaufort Wind Scale 6 or greater” and be capable of “performing boat launch and recovery operations in Beaufort Wind Scale 4,” the RFI added.

Under the Beaufort system, Scale 6 refers to conditions with wind speeds of 22 to 27 knots and maximum wave heights of 12 feet. Scale 4 is wind speeds of 11 to 16 knots with maximum wave heights of five feet.

In addition, the ship should be able to stay at sea for “at least 30 days without underway replenishment or resupply for maximum number of personnel,” the RFI noted.

The ship’s flight deck/helicopter pad needs to be able to launch and recover Sikorsky SH-60, MH-60 Seahawk, MH-60T Jayhawk and MH-65 Dolphin helicopters. It should also be capable of “launching and recovering vertical take-off Class 2/3 UAS platforms” and have a minimum of “20×20 ft dedicated clear deck space for UAS recovery and storage” as well as “sockets for minimum of two [20-foot-equivalent] containers for UAS control and maintenance.”

When it comes to small boats, the ship is required to have a “non-deck-crane-based small boat launch and recovery system capable of supporting various boats between 24 ft and 44 ft in length and weighing up to 35,000 lbs,” according to the RFI. It also needs a “small crane (fixed/portable or ‘yellow gear’) for emergency recovery of UAS/USV or other watercraft.”

This ship has to serve as a floating gas station for a wide array of other craft.

“The vessel shall be capable of receiving and storing various grades of fuel for propulsion, ships auxiliaries and delivery to small boats and craft,” according to the RFI. “The vessel must be designated as a refueler vessel and meet U.S. Coast Guard requirements to ensure safe and effective refueling operations.”

When it comes to crew and passengers, the ship needs berthing for up to 69 people, with 20 to 25 civilian mariner staterooms, and open berthing for 29 to 44 embarked crew members. It also needs secure detainee space “with suitable AC/ventilation for 10 – 12 people.”

The mothership is not required to be heavily armed, but should support Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection .50 caliber machine gun mounts. It additionally must have a 160-square-foot armory for storing, maintaining and issuing military small arms and a 100-square-foot magazine for storing ammunition and ordnance.

In a broad sense, many of the requirements the Navy is seeking match the Kellie Chouest, the vessel currently performing a similar mission for SOUTHCOM. It is a 310-foot ship that can travel at 13 knots, berths 53, has a helicopter pad, several 20-foot containers and cranes and winches for launching and recovering smaller ships. As we noted earlier in this story, the Kellie Chouest, which has been chartered for years by the Navy’s Military Sealift Command (MSC), is nearing the end of its latest four-year contract, set to expire on March 31, 2028, the command told us.

That timeline fits with the Navy’s plans for the ship described in the RFI.

“The Navy intends to issue a formal Request for Proposal upon receipt of FY27 appropriations,” the service’s spokesperson explained. “The RFI is a standard part of the federal acquisition process, allowing the U.S. Navy to conduct market research and understand the capabilities available in the industry. The proposed Special Mission Vessel is included in the President’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget. By issuing this RFI, the Navy is inviting industry partners to propose innovative concepts that meet the foundational requirements for a vessel designed for this critical mission set.”

It is possible that the Navy could decide to just renew a contract for the Kellie Chouest, or this new ship could be added alongside her if her contract is renewed. We’ve reached out to the Navy, MSC, and SOUTHCOM for more details. SOUTHCOM declined comment about the Kellie Chouest‘s current operations, or what kinds of drones it launches now, but in a previous interview after the command posted an image of the vessel, a SOUTHCOM official offered some insights into what the ship does.

“It provides support to get after cartels and illicit trafficking,” a SOUTHCOM official told us several months ago. “When we do an operation, it provides our partner nations a platform. They use the ship as a base of operations where they can get intelligence, get fuel, get life support.”

“The Ship Special Mission (SSM) Kellie Chouest is contributing to missions to disrupt cartel and narcotrafficking networks across the Eastern Pacific,” SOUTHCOM said in an April 28, 2026, post on X. “The ship…is serving as a forward operating base for partner nations across the Eastern Pacific — directly supporting counternarcotics operations alongside Panama, Costa Rica, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico.”

Four days earlier, in a post about the Colombian Navy’s seizure of 3.2 tons of marijuana in the South Pacific, valued at $3.4 million, the command explained that the Kellie Chouest “provided direct assistance to Colombian forces, demonstrating our longstanding and highly effective partnership in dismantling drug cartels and narcotrafficking networks throughout the region.”

The ship’s last reported position was off the coast of Guatemala 20 days ago, according to the MarineTraffic tracking site.

The Kellie Chouest is one of several converted vessels used by the U.S. military as special mission ships. The Carolyn Chouest, another ship built by the Edison Chouest Offshore conglomerate, is another example. Operated by MSC, it was converted into a sea base platform specially configured to support U.S. special operations forces in the Pacific region and is currently located near Indonesia, according to MarineTraffic. You can read more about it in our story here. 

Another commercial ship that has been turned into a U.S. military sea base is the MV Ocean Trader – a roll-on/roll-off cargo vessel modified to carry special operators, their vehicles, and all their other gear. This ship is far larger and more advanced than the other vessels mentioned here, though. Given its ability to support special operations missions, including launching a variety of smaller boats, UAVs and multiple helicopters, Ocean Trader often appears in conflict zones around the globe. It was spotted in the Caribbean last year during the Trump administration’s pressure campaign on Venezuelan drug cartels that culminated with the capture of Nicolás Maduro. You can read more about Ocean Trader and its capabilities in our deep dive here.

The Navy could get a new vessel purposely built for this maritime security role, or one — like the Kellie Chouest — converted to it, or sign a new contract for that vessel. The service could also keep the contract in place for Kellie Chouest and add this new vessel to operate in addition to it. Considering the focus the Trump administration has put on Central and South America, this wouldn’t be surprising.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Mothership Sought By Navy For Southern Command Operations appeared first on TWZ.

At this point, BAE Systems is working on concepting how Typhoon/CCA could work and is also investing as a company in CCAs and crewed-uncrewed teaming more generally. The work involving the Typhoon and CCAs has accelerated over the previous 12 months. Officials from BAE Systems outlined the work so far in a briefing at the Farnborough Air Show today, just a week after the U.K. Royal Air Force launched a new CCA program, named Storm Fighter, which you can read more about here. That program should lead to a CCA that can fly into combat with the Typhoon, F-35, and Tempest.

Speaking at Farnborough, Chris Moon, Typhoon Future Capability Director, BAE Systems, explained:

“Unsurprisingly, what we’re finding is that in the enlarged battlespace of the future, we’re able have a Typhoon — some people use the phrase ‘quarterback,’ choose what you will — with its extensive radar capabilities at range, and speed and agility, processing, to be able to work alongside collaborative combat aircraft and increase the combat mass that is needed from our air forces into the future, and the persistence and the range at which they’re able to reach, and bring more missiles into the fight.”

The CCA capabilities are planned to be added to the Typhoon under a much wider effort known as the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) program. This is expected to roll out a number of other features that will ensure that the jet can get the most out of teaming with CCAs. These features include the large-area display (LAD) cockpit, European Common Radar System (ECRS) Mk 2, and the Striker II helmet-mounted display system.

In terms of technology, the ECRS Mk 2 is especially interesting here. As well as the various advantages of an active electronically scanned array (AESA), it has a swashplate repositioner, an articulated mounting that means the antenna can be swung to face at far greater angles off the centerline. This allows a much wider field of regard, with a significant boost in angular (azimuth) coverage. It allows the Typhoon to retain missile guidance even when beaming and hiding in the Doppler notch of the enemy’s radar, which functions much like a blind spot.

In the past, Eurofighter has claimed that the repositionable array provides a field of regard that is “some 50 percent wider than traditional fixed-plate systems.”

All of these components have been tested in a CCA environment in a specially equipped Typhoon simulator.

Moon highlighted one particular scenario, off the east coast of Scotland, in which a pair of Typhoons worked with a four-ship of CCAs to extend the range, coverage, and persistence of the crewed jets. The scenario can be expanded to include the entire east coast of the United Kingdom, adding more Typhoons and CCAs as well as F-35Bs.

More detail was provided by Andrew ‘Blyty’ Mallery-Blythe, Typhoon Operational Requirements Manager at BAE Systems.

A huge advantage here is the new LAD cockpit, replacing the Typhoon’s current three-multifunction display (MFD) configuration with a single unit.

Using the LAD means that “everything is available,” Blyty said. “You can see everything at the top level. You have to do very little manipulation to the display. The LAD provides a literal big picture of the combat scenario, including friendly assets, among them the various CCAs, with their heading, height, speed, and what they’re carrying in terms of sensors or stores.

“What we’re trying to take advantage of is combat mass,” Blyty added. “Obviously, combat mass I don’t really need to explain in any great detail. We’ve got four CCAs and two Typhoons. Clearly there’s an improvement and an increase in combat mass without having to have those additional very expensive, complex aircraft. We can bring more weapons to the fight through the use of the CCAs.”

In terms of attrition, the Typhoon is classed as a strategic asset in these concepts, while a CCA is more of a tactical asset.

“We certainly don’t want to put ourselves in a position where we’re going to lose one of those [CCAs], but it’s a tactical asset,” Blyty continued. “That means that we can position them far closer to the threat, potentially taking a little bit more risk with those assets. They’re also smaller, they have a lower observability, and that is also an advantage that our friendly Typhoons exploit.”

Having a better overview of the battlespace via the LAD cockpit, ECRS Mk 2 radar, Striker II helmet, and the CCAs themselves is only one part of the equation.

BAE Systems is also trying to minimize the workload on the pilots. This is especially important for the U.K. Royal Air Force, which has reduced the number of two-seat Typhoons in its fleet, scrapping all its Tranche 1 ‘T-birds.’ Other nations are meanwhile working on developing CCA concepts by relying heavily on two-seat combat aircraft, with the back-seater a ‘drone controller.’

Blyty: “We don’t want to be in a situation where the pilot is having to close-control each of those assets. There’d be far too much workload. So through our rapid prototyping, and the way that we’ve been doing this, we’ve been looking into how we minimize that workload and how we give simple commands through the extant HOTAS [‘hands on throttle and stick’ controls] to send those CCAs to carry out our task with the minimum workload that we can achieve.” It is meanwhile widely understood that drones require an advanced autonomy package to facilitate this level of ease of use by a single pilot.

Blyty went on to run through an engagement scenario, again aided by the LAD’s ‘god’s eye view’ of the battlespace. A kill box was drawn on the LAD before the hostile aircraft entered that area.

“Once that was activated — we do that through a button on the screen which is just off the top — we effectively give the CCAs the authorization or the command that they can engage anything that enters that kill box.”

With that command, the CCAs start employing weapons, including very long-range Meteor air-to-air missiles, the ramjet-powered weapon that the Typhoon also carries.

The aspiration to have CCAs armed with Meteor is a significant one, due to the very particular set of capabilities that the missile brings. The Meteor is among the longest-ranged of any Western air-to-air missile, generally considered to be able to engage certain types of targets out to around 130 miles. Critically, while CCAs are already a forward extension of the fighter, a missile of this kind would provide a major increase in engagement range when combined with the uncrewed jet, allowing the Typhoon to stay outside the engagement range of the enemy.

The missile also uses a two-way datalink, which feeds it with in-flight updates as it flies out to its target and provides the pilot in the launch aircraft with information on the Meteor’s fuel, energy, and tracking state. Adding CCAs into the mix, provided they have their own sensors, would allow them to pass data to the Typhoon and to the Meteor, regardless of which platform launched the missile.

Ultimately, of course, the CCAs might end up with different missiles entirely, including a successor to the Meteor that is now being developed. Regardless, air-to-air combat at extended ranges is very much part of the U.K.’s CCA thinking. Meanwhile, we are already seeing CCA-type aircraft firing beyond-visual-range missiles in tests in the United States and elsewhere.

In this particular scenario, Blyty said the Typhoons were at a distance of roughly 114 miles from the enemy.

“Let’s say that’s outside the range of Meteor,” Blyty continued, downplaying the likely true range of the missile, which is a closely guarded secret. “The CCAs, less than half that. Let’s say that’s within the range of Meteor. So, we’ve got a clear tactical advantage that those CCAs have over the Typhoons. They’re on a little bit more risk out there than the Typhoons are. But that’s entirely appropriate to how we manage those Typhoons with the ECRS Mk 2 as a more strategic asset, and we quarterback the CCAs as a more tactical asset.”

Blyty said that BAE Systems is working on a lot more features to minimize pilot workload, without providing more details.

Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been working alongside QinetiQ on crewed-uncrewed teaming in the air, with a synthetic trial in which a Typhoon, a swarm of QinetiQ Banshee drones, and a Malloy Aeronautics T-150 small heavy-lift uncrewed aerial system (UAS) were flown using current operational military datalinks including Link 16.

Clearly, concept demonstrations of how crewed combat aircraft could operate alongside CCAs, highlighting the role of crewed-uncrewed teaming in future air operations, are a high priority as the Typhoon continues to evolve. The United Kingdom has not exactly been quick to adopt the CAA concept, at least compared to the United States and China, but with uncrewed platforms very much at the forefront of the recent Defense Investment Plan, that looks like it is set to change.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Typhoons Paired With CCA Fighter Drones Armed With Meteor Missiles Eyed By UK appeared first on TWZ.

Hegseth and Caine are appearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee to explain why the extra money is needed. It is included in a nearly $90 billion supplemental budget request made by the White House last month. Of that, the administration is seeking $67.1 billion to address “operational costs incurred by the Department of War (DoW) during OEF [Operation Epic Fury], including funding for military personnel and readiness expenses, operational costs to rebuild stocks expended by DOW, classified programs, and other key expenses,” the White House stated. 

As we noted earlier, the largest line item in the request is $21 billion for the munitions fired off during the conflict. We have frequently highlighted concerns over U.S. stocks of high-end offensive missiles and bombs and air defense interceptors and the difficulty in replacing them.

An official told The Washington Post that “the expansion of U.S. operations will be limited by dwindling stockpiles of air defense and long-range munitions and constraints on the ability to surge more troops and aircraft into the area because of battle damage.

Meanwhile, the money being used to fund the conflict is having a cascading downstream effect on the U.S. military.

“The funding crunch is already leading the Pentagon to limit training and maintenance that help maintain military readiness,” The Washington Post reported, citing four current and former officials. 

As Hegseth and Caine head to Congress, Iran is continuing to hit targets in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain, as well as ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Jordanian air defense systems “intercepted and shot down three Iranian missiles targeting the Kingdom’s territories,” the Jordanian military stated on X. “The interception and downing operation resulted in no human injuries or material damage, and that Royal Engineering Corps teams handled the shrapnel impact sites, securing them in accordance with established procedures. The source indicated that the Jordanian Armed Forces – Arab Army continues to monitor the Kingdom’s airspace and maintains its readiness to address any threat to its security and sovereignty.”

Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti Air Base (MSAB) has been particularly hard hit of late, including an attack that killed three U.S. troops and wounded many others. 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, and Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas, were identified while officials are waiting to identify the remains of a third servicemember.

The Pentagon this morning also announced that Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton, 30, of Fayetteville, North Carolina, was killed in action during a controlled detonation of a downed One-Way Unmanned Aerial System on July 19, 2026, at Erbil Air Base, Iraq. The incident is under investigation.

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump seemingly blamed Jordan for the casualties at MSAB.

“They did slip something through in Jordan and if we had other operators, you know, it would have — would not have happened, unfortunately,” Trump said during a press conference with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun. “But we, because we have the best equipment in the world, you know, we’ve stopped almost everything. But when you let other people do your job with the United States, we let other people do the job, and sometimes it doesn’t work out so well.”

“Kuwaiti air defenses are currently confronting hostile missile and drone attacks, following the sinful Iranian aggression,” the Kuwaiti Army announced on X. “The General Staff of the Army notes that if explosion sounds are heard, they are the result of the air defense systems intercepting the hostile attacks.”

Kuwaiti officials say Iran had been specifically targeting the country’s water and power infrastructure for days.

“In light of the continued Iranian aggression against the State of Kuwait, several power and water desalination plants were attacked yesterday evening – for the fourth consecutive day – resulting in fires breaking out in a number of their facilities,” the Kuwaiti government announced on X Tuesday. “The Ministry’s emergency teams, in coordination with the General Fire Force and security authorities, immediately responded to the incidents and were able to control and extinguish the fires. The damage caused by the attacks has been assessed, and the teams are working on implementing plans to repair the damage and rehabilitate the facilities.”

As a result, “a number of generating units have been taken out of service in accordance with the precautionary operational procedures followed, and in order to ensure the safety of equipment and the stability of the electrical and water systems,” Kuwaiti officials explained.

Officials in Bahrain said that country also came under attack again on Tuesday.

“The siren has been sounded,” the Bahrain Interior Ministry announced on X. “Citizens and residents are urged to remain calm and head to the nearest safe place.”

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed that it struck an Amazon data center in Bahrain, according to the IRGC-connected Tasnim news agency post on X. TWZ cannot independently verify that claim.

In addition to attacks on land, Iran is continuing operations against vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, ships are reacting to the Houthis’ declaration of a blockade of the Bab al-Mandeb Strait (BAM). Lloyd’s List reported on X that a Cosco Shipping vehicle carrier heading toward the BAM turned around in the Gulf of Aden to avoid it.

Several other ships already in the Red Sea, including Saudi oil tankers, also opted to avoid crossing the Strait.

As we reported yesterday, the Houthi blockade of the BAM threatens to add further pressure on oil exports from the Middle East, already drastically affected by the Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the resumption of the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports. Saudi Arabia has diverted millions of barrels of oil per day through pipelines to its Yanbu port on the Red Sea in an effort to minimize the energy shortages due to the hostilities in the Persian Gulf. This also raised the specter of the U.S. having to get as involved as it did during the previous Houthi campaign against shipping that ended last September, which could pull resources away from Iranian-focused operations.

On Tuesday, Trump addressed the issue of the Houthi blockade.

“I want to see what happens,” he told reporters. “So far, it hasn’t happened. Might happen, but we take care of things. If something like that happens, we take care of it. You know, we’ve done that with the Houthis before, and we haven’t heard from them in a while since we did what we did originally. That was about 45 days of very powerful action we took against the Houthis, and we’ve had no problem with the Houthis. They’ve had no problem with us for a long period of time, including during this conflict. I think that if there is something like that, we’ll just have to take care of it.”

Trump, as we noted earlier in this story, also repeated his threat to strike the very hardened Iranian facility known as Pickaxe Mountain.

Asked about whether he was concerned by reports that Iran was storing centrifuges there to enrich uranium – a possibility we addressed last week – Trump said “it doesn’t mean anything unless they have the material.”

“We follow the material,” the president added. “That’s where the action is, and we’ll be hitting that area very probably pretty soon. There’s not a thing they can do about it. You know, normally I wouldn’t say that. If I thought they could do something about it, I would never say that. But we’ll be hitting that area pretty soon, and very heavily.”

Meanwhile, there are still attempts to find an off-ramp.

An Iranian official “began meetings with mediators in Pakistan as diplomats seek to salvage the collapsed interim deal between Iran and the United States,” the Times of Israel reported on Tuesday. “The visit by Iran’s Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni comes as Pakistan has intensified diplomatic efforts in recent days to resuscitate the deal. However, it remains unclear just what new arrangement could be reached to end the fighting.”

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Hegseth said: “Iran’s been given every opportunity to negotiate, to show that they’re reasonable on the Strait of Hormuz—but if they’re going to shoot at commercial shipping, then we’re going to hit them, as the president said, 10 times harder. Every night, we’re degrading them further and further.”

As we have often pointed out, there is tremendous global and domestic pressure on Trump not to expand the war. The shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, exacerbated now over concerns about the BAM, has increased energy prices around the world. Meanwhile, the U.S. midterm elections are rapidly approaching and this conflict is extremely unpopular among voters. How much these factors will come into play over the next days and weeks remains to be seen.

UPDATE: 4:29 PM EDT –

New British Prime Minister Andy Burnham “has approved the use of British military bases by the U.S. for what the U.K. calls defensive strikes against Iran,” Bloomberg News reported.

Senior ministers decided to continue the existing policy that “bases at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, England could be used by U.S. planes flying missions aimed at countering the Iranian missile threat and sites used to target the Strait of Hormuz,” the outlet added.

As we noted in the past in a story about a previous debate over the use of these bases, they are important to any American plans to use long-range bombers against Iran. 

UPDATE: 7:09 PM EDT –

The Department of War announced “the believed to be death of an active-duty Soldier who was supporting overseas operations in Jordan.”

Rampersad was assigned to 1st Battalion, 57th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 52nd Air Defense Artillery Brigade, 10th Army Air & Missile Defense Command, Ansbach, Germany.

There have been 18 troop deaths so far in support of this this mission, according to the latest Pentagon figures.

UPDATE: 8:05 PM EDT –

CENTCOM announced on X that its forces “began striking military targets in Iran at 7 p.m. ET today for the 11th consecutive night. The strikes are designed to continue degrading Iran’s ability to threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

UPDATE: 8:46 PM EDT –

CENTCOM announced that it completed its latest round of attacks on Iran at 8:15 PM ET.

Assets from the command “targeted Iranian military operations centers, maritime capabilities, aircraft hangars, drone storage facilities, and military logistics infrastructure to further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” CENTCOM stated on X.

“Over the past three months, Iran has attacked more than 30 commercial vessels transiting the international waterway vital for regional and global trade,” the command added. “The unwarranted attacks have endangered hundreds of innocent mariners and undermined freedom of navigation.”

“Despite Iranian aggression, the Strait of Hormuz remains open for commercial vessel transit,” CENTCOM proffered. “Since early May, CENTCOM forces have helped facilitate the transit of approximately 900 commercial vessels and 450 million barrels of crude oil.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Munitions Expenditures In Iran War Take Center Stage At Senate Hearing (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

Whether the MRV, or a derivative thereof, could be employed in an offensive role explicitly came up during a quarterly Northrop Grumman earnings call this morning. The company does not appear to have ruled out the possibility.

“As part of our satellite servicing portfolio, we’ve developed the first commercial robotic spacecraft capable of repairing, relocating, and servicing satellites in geosynchronous orbit via two robotic arms,” Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden had highlighted in her introductory remarks at the start of the call. “It can also install life extension jetpacks onto other satellites for government or commercial customers, prolonging their useful life for up to eight years.”

“The spacecraft is known as the Mission Robotic Vehicle, or MRV, and our first MRV is scheduled to launch later today, weather permitting,” she added.

“You probably can’t provide quantitative terms here, but just from a qualitative perspective, what’s the potential market for an offensive version of that spacecraft that could be used to disable adversary satellites?” Scott Mikus, Director for Aerospace, Defense and Space Research at Melius Research, asked later on during the call.

“So I appreciate the question. I will leave it up to the U.S. government to decide how that capability might fulfill mission objectives that they have in that regard,” CEO Warden said in response. “But certainly, it’s our objective to offer our clients options for technology deployment, and for them to determine policy for when and how they might deploy that technology.”

To take a step back, if all goes to plan, a SpaceX Falcon 9 space launch rocket carrying the MRV will blast off from Cape Canaveral sometime in a four-hour window starting at 5:15 PM ET today. The rocket will also carry three Mission Extension Pods (MEPs), which are the “life extension jetpacks” that Warden mentioned.

As noted, the MRV has two robotic arms that allow it to place the MEPs onto other satellites in orbit, as well as perform other tasks. The arms are part of what is formally called the Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites (RSGS) payload. The RSGS system was developed through a program led by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in cooperation with the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). It is worth noting here that RSGS is the product of U.S. government work in this vein stretching back decades. There have also been other similar developments elsewhere globally, including in China and Russia, as we will come back to later on.

The MRV’s upcoming mission will include rendezvousing with satellites belonging to Australian firm Optus and SES in Luxembourg and attaching MEPs to them, according to a report from Spaceflight Now. Both of these companies are commercial telecommunications providers.

Northrop Grumman’s fact sheet on the MRV says the spacecraft is capable of performing an array of on-orbit inspection and servicing missions beyond refueling via the MEPs. The robotic vehicle can also be used to ‘tow’ satellites from one position to another and help clear debris. All of this requires the ability to maneuver very closely with other target objects in space. This, in turn, brings us to the question of the MRV potentially offering an offensive anti-satellite capability.

For years, TWZ has highlighted how robotic arms on spacecraft are an inherently dual-use capability that could be used to launch attacks in space. In general, arms like this could be used to damage or destroy key systems on adversary satellites, such as optics or solar panels, or to just pull them out of orbit. In the latter case, the target could be towed into a degrading orbit where, if control could not be reestablished, it would re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere and be destroyed.

The U.S. military itself has repeatedly pointed to adversary satellites with robotic arms as one of many potential threats to its own space-based capabilities.

“We’re basically responding to a warfighting domain where our adversaries have already put interceptors in space, and we want to make sure that we rebalance that in terms of deterrence,” Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman, the Space Force’s top officer, said at a roundtable at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. Saltzman was responding to a direct question from our Howard Altman.

“Interceptors by definition refer to a handful of well-acknowledged capabilities that other countries have, like ground and air-launched anti-satellite missiles or capabilities like the SJ-21 [the Chinese Shi Jian 21 satellite], which has a grappling arm,” a Space Force spokesperson also told TWZ at that time when asked for clarification about the “interceptors in space” Saltzman had mentioned.

‘Inspector satellites’ that could have dual-use purposes have been a hot topic of discussion for years now, with Russian developments drawing particular attention. A ‘killer satellite’ with close maneuvering capability could employ a variety of means beyond robotic arms to try to disable, damage, or even destroy a target in space. This could include electronic warfare jammers, directed energy weapons, chemical sprays, and small projectiles. The space-based inspector could itself be used as a kinetic kill vehicle and deliberately smashed into the target.

Close inspection of other satellites in space also provides opportunities to gather intelligence about their capabilities and monitor their activities. U.S. satellites, as well as those belonging to Russia and other countries, have been observed doing just this over the years. Some commercial satellite imagery firms are even now offering space-based situational awareness as a service.

As underscored by DARPA and NRL’s work on RSGS payload, the U.S. military already has a clear interest in the MRV spacecraft’s core capabilities. On-orbit refueling, in particular, is seen as offering vital freedom of maneuver to help safeguard friendly satellites from attack. Right now, ‘running and hiding’ is the most immediate option available for responding to threats, but doing so requires satellites to burn precision fuel, eating into their operational lifespan.

The Space Force also has an entire unit dedicated to a still-evolving “orbital warfare” mission set that has defensive and offensive elements.

“Protecting and defending satellites can’t simply be done by protect and defend. You can’t run away from a bully forever. Sometimes you got to turn around and punch,” Lt. Gen. Gregory Gagnon, head of U.S. Space Force Combat Forces Command (CFC), said at another roundtable at the AFA Warfare Symposium in February. “So protect and defend, although necessary, is insufficient to deliver space control. We also need, as part of our joint force, the ability to attack.”

Gagnon cited China’s massively expanding space-based capabilities as a key driver behind this viewpoint. He’s also mentioned plans for Space Delta 9, the formation tasked with orbital warfare, to begin exploring new offensive and defensive tactics using an experimental satellite.

“This prototype will be operated by my Orbital Warfare Delta. This is the only Orbital Warfare Delta in the United States government. Their job will be working on their maneuvers, which is one of the seven joint functions of warfighting, so that they can deliver offensive and defensive capabilities that are precise and not imprecise,” he explained. “They’re going to work on driving that spacecraft in a way that we couldn’t drive spacecraft before.”

The scale and scope of demands to protect U.S. satellites in orbit is only set to grow significantly in the coming years, fueled further now by the Golden Dome initiative. Golden Dome is a multi-faceted effort aimed at delivering a hugely expanded national missile defense architecture. A core element of the plan as it stands now is space-based anti-missile interceptors, which will be supported by large, distributed sensor and communications satellite constellations. In a report released in May, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assessed that 7,800 interceptors in orbit could be needed to make the concept work.

As already noted, the U.S. military has a clear interest in the on-orbit refueling and servicing capabilities that Northrop Grumman’s MRV spacecraft is designed to provide now. This could also be key to protecting and sustaining elements of Golden Dome, as well as other critical new space-based sensor and other satellite constellations.

The scheduled launch of the first MRV spacecraft today is a very important milestone all around, and one that might open the door to a very different kind of ‘armed’ space-based capability.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Could This New Northrop Spacecraft Use Its Robotic Arms To Attack Enemy Satellites? appeared first on TWZ.

The USAF’s CCA program is really picking up steam, with both of the Increment One down-select aircraft – Anduril’s YFQ-44 Fury and General Atomics’ YFQ-42 Dark Merlin – having been chosen for production. Now, the next step in their ongoing development is imminent. Both types will be hosted by Creech for an exercise that will test the CCAs’ ability to operate from austere locales with minimal logistical footprint, and often on the move from location to location, under the USAF’s Agile Combat Employment (ACE) combat doctrine. This operational concept was baked into the CCA requirements from the get-go, which you can read all about here.

A USAF spokesperson responded to our inquiry about Fury’s arrival at Creech with the following statement:

“From July 20-24, 2026, the Air Force Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) Experimental Operations Unit (EOU) is conducting an Agile Combat Employment (ACE) exercise at Creech AFB, Nevada. Military operators are leading end-to-end ground and flight operations for both the YFQ-42 and YFQ-44 to build tactical concepts, test lean sustainment, and refine Air Force-led human-machine teaming alongside observers from the Royal Netherlands Air Force.“

“CCA testing is taking place at a combination of government-owned and contractor-owned facilities. Testing is occurring at sites that allow us to evaluate CCA performance in realistic operational scenarios. Further details are protected for operational security.“

The CCA EOU was stood up exactly for these kinds of trials. The unit is working to blaze a path for the service to operationalize its CCA ambitions, and its personnel certainly have their work cut out for them. Some of the biggest concerns surrounding the CCA concept have more to do with logistics, maintenance, integration with the manned fighter force, and above all else, building trust, than with how they will shoot down other aircraft. This exercise is clearly aimed at reducing risks in these areas and adding clarity to what pages will be needed in the USAF’s future CCA playbook.

The timing is especially relevant, too. The EOU just got done with testing the same ACE concepts in the Pacific with Boeing’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat CCA as part of Exercise Valiant Shield. This should provide a good baseline to compare with the capabilities of the YFQ-44 and YFQ-42.

A similar exercise happened at Edwards Air Force Base in California in April of this year, but, at the time, just the YFQ-44 Fury could attend. The Dark Merlin had an accident and was in a stand-down period while the cause was understood and resolved. Dark Merlin has been back in the air for some time now, and the USAF placed a huge vote of confidence in both designs with their decision to move them into production.

It’s also worth noting that the Fury that flew to Creech AFB, serial number 25-1003, was the same one that recently made history as the first American CCA to fire an air-to-air missile.

There is a remarkably large amount of pressure on the CCA program, overall. Much is being bet on this technology as a way to help provide the USAF’s aging force with a tactical edge and to furnish the combat mass needed to confront a near-peer opponent on their own turf – China. And this adversary is moving ahead with its own loyal wingman efforts at what appears to be a rapid pace.

Regardless, there is still much to learn about actually employing CCAs in a true end-to-end combat context, and this appears to be what this latest exercise at America’s premier drone base is all about.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

The post Fury Loyal Wingman Arrives At Creech AFB For Agile Combat Deployment Trials appeared first on TWZ.

The new drone is a military adaptation of BETA Technologies’ Alia 250 electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, which can carry five passengers or an equivalent load of cargo, plus the pilot. TWZ and other journalists today spoke to officials from BETA Technologies at Farnborough.

“The basic physics of the MV250 enable significantly longer range, higher speed, and a lower cost of operations when compared to tiltrotor and legacy platforms,” said Kyle Clark, founder and CEO of BETA Technologies. However, the claim that the MV250 exceeds the performance of a tiltrotor doesn’t stack up, based on published figures. “I believe we should be offering our military the most robust and best equipment in the world to maintain superiority and thus deterrence,” Clark added.

The uncrewed MV250 is primarily intended for cargo transport, with freight loaded and unloaded through an upward-opening nose visor. It can also deploy air-launched effects (ALEs) from a set of side-mounted launch tubes. A similar concept is currently being pitched by Sikorsky, with its uncrewed version of the Black Hawk helicopter, dubbed the U-Hawk, which is also intended to be able to fire dozens of ALEs, such as surveillance and reconnaissance drones and loitering munitions.

Other roles include casualty and medical evacuation, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR).

BETA Technologies has also proposed that the drone can be used as a forward-located tactical power source, providing up to 500 kilowatts to troops on the ground for command and control, counter-drone, electronic warfare, or directed energy weapon applications.

In terms of cargo capacity, the MV250 has a cabin volume of 250 cubic feet for a payload of 2,000 pounds.

Published performance specifications include an operational radius of more than 250 nautical miles, a cruising speed in excess of 170 knots, and a ferry endurance of 12 hours at 20,000 feet.

The propulsion system involves four fixed-pitch propellers which provide for the VTOL capability. These are mounted on long booms that connect the 50-foot-span wings with the V-shaped tail.

Meanwhile, forward propulsion is provided by a single variable-pitch pusher propeller mounted in the rear of the fuselage.

Since it has a hybrid-electric drive, the turbine engine — mounted above the rear fuselage — doesn’t directly power the various propellers. Instead, it directly feeds a high-voltage bus, recharging the batteries, and powering the electric motors that spin the propellers. The engine can also be stopped, and the battery can provide power, which is highly reliable.

The MV250’s turbogenerator has been developed with GE Aerospace and is compatible with a range of NATO-compatible fuels.

Proving hybrid-electric concepts in military aviation has long been a goal, as operators seek to harness the benefits promised by the combination of fuel efficiency, reduced emissions, and enhanced operational flexibility. The last of these points is reinforced by the reduction in the number of moving parts compared to more conventional configuration, including losing the traditional drive train, reducing the risk of component failure and easing the burden on spare parts and maintenance man-hours.

Hybrid-electric propulsion offers inherent advantages when it comes to reducing infrared and acoustic signatures.

The drone relies on Sikorsky’s MATRIX system to provide full autonomy. At a minimum, the MV250 should be capable of autonomously navigating along predetermined routes using programmed waypoints, establishing a practical baseline for uncrewed logistics operations. Beyond this, more advanced autonomous capabilities — such as dynamically replanning flight paths and responding in real time to emerging threats, obstacles, or changing mission conditions — would significantly enhance operational effectiveness, particularly during resupply missions in contested or high-risk environments.

Like other disruptors in the defense sector, BETA Technologies is looking to leverage its experience in the commercial realm to shake up the development cycles that the U.S. Army, Marines, and Air Force have previously relied on.

“Those organizations would wait years for external defense government funding to then build a very complicated and expensive, bespoke defense-only project,” Larry Smith of BETA Technologies said. “That typically will result in it being over schedule and over budget. Well, alternatively, what BETA is doing is using internal funding to rapidly create viable prototypes, not mockups, based on our commercial core technologies.”

Also speaking today, Kyle Clark emphasized how BETA Technologies can use advanced design and manufacturing techniques to influence the speed and scalability of production. He described “a really thoughtful composites integration,” in which all the components are bonded using something much like “a big panini press.” Clark continued: “There are no fasteners in that fuselage, so we can make it inexpensively and meet the demands of the military. When the call comes and says, ‘Can you give us 600 of these aircraft?’ The answer is yes, and the cycle time is graduated in hours and not months.”

As an example of how the design and manufacturing process has been refined, Clark noted how the company went from 14,000 fasteners and 580 parts in the wing, to fewer than 300 parts and zero fasteners. Consequently, the manufacturing time was cut from six weeks to a matter of hours.

Although distinguished by its hybrid-electric propulsion system, the MV250 enters an increasingly crowded market for VTOL-capable cargo drones.

Established helicopter manufacturers also have a stake here, with conversions of existing crewed rotorcraft.

These include the MQ-72C Lakota Connector, which is stated to carry a maximum payload of around 4,000 pounds, including slung loads, and the Airbus U145, adapted from the H145 light helicopter, with a payload of up to 2,600 pounds. You can read more about the MQ-72C in our previous coverage of that aircraft, here and here.

At the smaller end of the scale is the R66 Turbinetruck, based on the proven Robinson R66 airframe, which can carry a load of 1,300 pounds internally, or external loads supported via a cargo hook. The Turbinetruck uses the same MATRIX autonomy system as used in the MV250 and others. In a similar category to the Turbinetruck is the Uncrewed 505, a development of the Bell 505. Both those aircraft are set to be tested by the U.S. Marine Corps as that service seeks to field platforms that can rapidly resupply Marines in contested environments.

Based on published figures, the MV250 would seem to fall between the Lakota Connector and the U145 at one end of the scale, and the Turbinetruck and Uncrewed 505 at the other.

As for the Marines, they have been very much at the forefront of exploring the potential of uncrewed rotary-wing aircraft for use in future fleets of autonomous cargo drones. The Marine Corps considers uncrewed aerial and seagoing logistics “connectors” to be critical enablers of future expeditionary and distributed operations, particularly in a potential high-end conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific.

The U.S. Army is also looking at similar concepts, albeit currently at the larger end of the scale. Work includes optionally crewed and uncrewed versions of the H-60 Black Hawk series. The U-Hawk demonstrator, a fully uncrewed version of the Black Hawk helicopter, is intended to carry cargo and deliver launched effects and features clamshell doors in the nose. At the heavier end of the scale, Boeing has said its future plans for the H-47 Chinook include creating a path toward an uncrewed version of the aircraft.

However, these capabilities are also attracting growing interest from military services around the world.

Based on a commercial design, the MV250 — or a version of it — also has significant potential in the civilian space. Missions here could include disaster response and firefighting, but it would be equally well suited to cargo transport, particularly for remote resupply operations and logistics support to offshore platforms and isolated inland locations.

Overall, this is another example of emerging eVTOL capabilities bleeding into traditional rotary-wing defense segments, and we are likely to see much more of it in the future.

While the MV250 remains in the prototype stage, it reflects a broader shift in military aviation toward autonomous logistics platforms derived from commercial technology. As armed forces seek faster, more flexible ways to sustain distributed operations, aircraft like the MV250 could help redefine how cargo, supplies, and even combat capabilities are delivered on future battlefields, but it will also be entering an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post MV250 Hybrid-Electric VTOL Combat Cargo Drone Unveiled appeared first on TWZ.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced the end of a weekend wave of air strikes yesterday, the ninth consecutive night of precision strikes “further degrading Iranian military capabilities,” and the beginning of a new, tenth round today. As the blockade approaches the one-week mark, CENTCOM forces have redirected seven commercial vessels and disabled one kinetically, firing AGM-114 Hellfire missiles into the smokestack of an unladen oil tanker heading toward Kharg Island, since reinstating the blockade on July 14.

Over 20 U.S. Navy warships are operating in the Arabian Sea and broader Indian Ocean, which we covered extensively last week, and naval force posture has not changed since. Two CSGs, led by USS Abraham Lincoln and USS George H.W. Bush, plus an ARG, centered on USS Boxer, are the primary naval assets supporting Blockade 2.0 and the renewed strike campaign, alongside some 14 guided-missile destroyers and a mix of other surface ships. The video below released by CENTCOM shows F/A-18 Super Hornets armed with AIM-9X, GBU-31, and GBU-54 launching during the campaign.

Moving east, USS George Washington is operating in the Western Pacific. The flattop was spotted conducting a fueling-at-sea with USNS Earl Warren and a replenishment-at-sea with USNS Charles Drew last week in the Philippine Sea. 1st Lt. Arren Halfacre, serving aboard Washington, said the complex operation with Warren, which involved three fuel lines simultaneously, was a “rarely done evolution” that included roughly 150 Sailors and Merchant Mariners.

Also in the Pacific, USS Theodore Roosevelt is well into the sea phase of exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2026 and underway in the Hawaiian Islands Operating Area. RIMPAC 2026 is the world’s largest international maritime exercise and the 30th iteration in a series that started in the early 1970s. Participating units have been operating over the past week south of Oahu, to the west of the Big Island, with AIS transponders broadcasting publicly. Roosevelt welcomed the acting Secretary of the Navy, Hung Cao, who observed flight operations, met with senior brass, and took photos with the crew on July 18.

Back in the continental United States, USS Nimitz is at Naval Station Norfolk, her final homeport before a deactivation that was delayed until next year, moored at Pier 14N. A couple of piers down, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is berthed at Pier 11S. And, further south along the Elizabeth River, USS Gerald R. Ford moved to Pier 5N at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in advance of her first Planned Incremental Availability. On the west coast, USS Carl Vinson, the only carrier currently in San Diego, moored at Kilo Pier on July 17 after a weeklong underway completing flight deck certifications and carrier qualifications with Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 2.

Overall, three U.S. carriers are deployed, three are training or in port in various states of readiness, four are in maintenance, and one is being used primarily for training. Two amphibious ready groups are deployed, four are training or in port, and three are in maintenance.

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: July 20, 2026 appeared first on TWZ.

The Buckler — named after a small shield of the Medieval and Renaissance eras — is designed to defeat Group 3 drones. As we have explained before, under the U.S. military categorization system, Group 3 is a very broad middle tier of drones that covers designs that weigh anywhere from 56 to 1,320 pounds and can fly at up to 18,000 feet, at speeds of 250 knots or less.

Iran’s now-infamous Shahed-136 long-range one-way attack drone, variants and derivatives of which are now in service in Russia and with several Iranian-backed proxies, falls into the Group 3 category.

While optimized for bringing down drones, the Buckler can also engage other aerial threats, including subsonic cruise missiles, under certain conditions. This is especially relevant as newer Shahed-derived designs, and many other long-range one-way attack munitions, increasingly blur the line between drones and low-end cruise missiles through the adoption of jet propulsion and higher-altitude flight profiles. Then there is the emerging group of low-cost cruise missiles being adopted in the United States and potential adversaries, as well as existing, more advanced types. Low-flying aircraft and helicopters would also likely be on the menu for this missile, even as a secondary capability.

The high speed of the missile also means that a single Buckler battery can engage targets more rapidly and respond faster over a given range. It also makes it possible for follow-up shots to be taken if an effector misses within a given timeframe.

The Buckler is one of the growing number of responses to the increasing threat of drone-and-missile barrages, which are exposing the limits of legacy air defense models. In conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, most notably, costly surface-to-air missile effectors are routinely expended, in significant quantities, against far cheaper incoming threats.

For years now, TWZ has been calling attention to the U.S. military’s concerning short-range air defense (SHORAD) gap, especially as drone threats have continued to expand and evolve.

“This is our answer to the call from the U.S. and its allies: affordable capability at scale,” X-Bow Systems’ CEO Jason Hundley told Axios.

“You can’t win a war of attrition trading million-dollar interceptors against thousand-dollar threats,” Hundley added.

The company is relying upon its own solid-rocket motor and propellant, allied with an airframe that’s also made in-house, which it says will bring down costs.

X-Bow Systems recently notched a successful flight test for the Buckler, the company says, demonstrating its propulsion system and flight characteristics after completing motor static-fire and igniter testing.

According to Axios, the Pentagon has also requested a briefing on the interceptor.

X-Bow is entering one of the fastest-growing segments of the defense industry. The company is already well established as a producer of solid rocket motors and, last year, secured a $105 million investment from Lockheed Martin to expand production and provide propulsion systems and related services.

The startup will now be hoping that the Buckler’s eye-catching price point of less than $100,000 per copy will set it apart among drone interceptors.

By way of comparison, the combat-proven Raytheon Coyote, in its Block 2 configuration, also primarily intended for the counter-drone mission, has a unit price of around $100,000, based on past reports. AeroVironment’s Freedom Eagle-1 (FE-1), which the U.S. Army picked last year to provide an additional layer of defense against longer-range one-way attack drones and other similarly sized uncrewed aerial systems (UAS), has a target unit cost of between $150,000 and $200,000. These are also notably slower and less responsive systems than the Buckler.

Toward the higher end of the scale, the cost of a Stinger short-range surface-to-air missile has historically been put at between $100,000 and $120,000, but reports in recent years have said that current-generation versions, including ones optimized for use against drones, can run up to $400,000.

In terms of more exquisite SHORAD solutions, the U.S. Army’s Enduring Shield is presently configured to fire AIM-9X Sidewinders, each of which has a price tag around $500,000. 

As for the kinds of threats that these effectors are intended to destroy, Shahed-type drones are typically understood to have a unit cost range measured in tens of thousands of dollars.

The Buckler is also intended to bring benefits in terms of speed and scalability of production. This should ensure that production facilities are able to ramp up quickly and, in response to demand, be able to increase the output accordingly. Applying the vertical integration approach, the company says it can address the “industrial-base bottleneck defense leaders cite as the top constraint on scaling interceptors.”

Whether Buckler can deliver on its promised combination of performance, affordability, and production scale remains to be seen. But with militaries around the world urgently seeking cheaper ways to counter drones and cruise missiles that are appearing in greater numbers, X-Bow is entering the market at a particularly opportune moment.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post X-Bow Unveils Sub-$100K Buckler Supersonic Drone Interceptor appeared first on TWZ.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump renewed threats against Iran over the recent deaths of U.S. troops while reports have emerged that he is considering widening the conflict. However, the massive expenditure of air defense munitions that has already taken place is a major consideration. In addition, there are growing concerns about the extent of the damage to U.S. bases in the region and the uptick in casualties.

On Monday, Kuwait said it came under Iranian fire again.

“Kuwaiti air defenses are currently engaging hostile missile and drone attacks following the heinous Iranian aggression,” the Kuwaiti Defense Ministry stated on X. “The General Staff of the Army notes that any sounds of explosions heard are a result of air defense systems intercepting hostile attacks. Everyone is urged to adhere to the security and safety instructions issued by the relevant authorities.”

Hours earlier, Bahrain said it too had come under a new wave of Iranian attacks.

“The General Command of the Bahrain Defense Force (BDF) announces that Iran is continuing its systematic hostility approach through its sinister attacks targeting civilians in the Kingdom of Bahrain,” BDF posted on X. “The General Command clarifies that, with strong will and high combat readiness, the air defense systems attacked, intercepted and destroyed a number of treacherous Iranian air strikes today, Monday, July 20, 2026.”

The extent of the damage in either Kuwait or Bahrain is unclear at the moment. These most recent attacks came after U.S. Central Command on Sunday night said it wrapped up a ninth straight day of strikes on Iranian assets, targeting “military command centers, air defense and coastal surveillance sites, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites, and communications networks to further diminish Iran’s ability to attack commercial vessels and civilian mariners transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” the command stated on X.

Amid this kinetic activity, as we noted earlier in this story, the Iranian-backed Houthis say they will no longer permit Saudi Arabian ships passage through from the Red Sea into the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

“The Yemeni Armed Forces declare a maritime embargo against the criminal Saudi enemy, based on the equation of an ‘eye for an eye,’ effective immediately upon the issuance of this statement,” the Houthis stated on Monday, according to the official Houthi SABA media outlet. The move follows increased tensions between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia as well as a request by Iran “to stand ready to close the Red Sea oil route if the United States strikes Iranian power infrastructure,” Reuters reported last week. “The idea has been discussed within the Islamic Republic’s leadership, and the message has been conveyed to Iran’s Houthi allies.”

Houthi forces on Monday reportedly began issuing warnings on open maritime frequencies near Yemen that the BAM is closed to Saudi shipping and its vessels are subject to attack.

A Houthi shut down of the Bab el-Mandeb (BAM) Strait, a narrow stretch of water between Yemen and Djibouti, would choke off the flow of oil exports from Saudi Arabia, exacerbating the above-mentioned impingement on the flow of oil from the closed Strait of Hormuz. 

Having both straits closed at once is something of a ‘sum of all fears’ scenario for the global energy marketplace.

“The full closure of the BAM would cut global oil supply by 7% as it would leave most Saudi oil exports unable to leave the region,” Reuters noted on Monday. “The disruption would ​add to the massive cut to global oil flows from the war in the Gulf, which has already reduced shipments by 10% of global supply.”

You can read more about the effects of both straits being closed at once in our story about that here.

Beyond affecting the flow of oil, a Houthi blockade on the BAM threatens to open a new front in this conflict.

The Houthis carried out a campaign against shipping in November 2023 in solidarity with Palestinians over the latest war between Israel and Gaza. However, while it was ostensibly aimed at only Israeli connected ships, numerous commercial vessels with no clear Israeli ties were attacked as were several U.S. and allied warships. The campaign stretched into the summer of 2025, forcing some vessels to avoid the Suez Canal for a far longer route around Africa, boosting shipping costs by nearly $200 billion at the time.

The Houthi attacks also forced the U.S. and allies to deploy many warships, including the Eisenhower and Truman Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) to both defend against Houthi attacks and strike targets in Yemen. These operations resulted in a large expenditure of air defense and strike munitions.

You can see video of some of those encounters below.

The possibility exists that a new wave of Houthi attacks — especially if non-Saudi ships are targeted — could drag in U.S. forces already in heavy use in the Persian Gulf region battling the Iranians. This sets up a major showdown as Saudi oil is a lifeline to Asian supplies hobbled by conflict in the Persian Gulf. We reached out to CENTCOM for comment and will update this story with any pertinent details shared.

Earlier on Monday, the head of the European-led task force providing maritime security in the Red Sea region told us the Houthis remain a threat to navigation despite not having attacked any merchant vessels since September 2025.

“The security situation in the Bab el-Mandeb remains fragile and is highly sensitive to regional escalation,” Rear Admiral Vasileios Gryparis, Commander of EUNAVFOR ASPIDES, told TWZ. “On the rhetorical level, the Houthis’ leadership reiterated several times their alignment with the broader Axis of Resistance.”

Gryparis’s comments, in response to a query from last week about Iran’s outreach to the Houthis, came before the Yemeni group’s embargo declaration. 

“From an operational standpoint, we assess that the Houthis pose a threat and are capable of rapidly escalating,” the ASPIDES commander told us. “We maintain a frequent presence at sea, monitor the situation, and adjust our actions when needed. In the event of a resumption of Houthi attacks on merchant vessels, which remains a possibility, we are present and ready to implement our mandate, within our means and capabilities. ASPIDES remains ready, within its defensive mandate, to adapt to evolving operational requirements.”

Being drawn into defending against a new Houthi campaign on shipping in the Red Sea region would exacerbate the strain on U.S. forces already under tremendous pressure from Iran. In addition to defending against ongoing barrages, the U.S. has committed about 20 U.S. warships, along with hundreds of aircraft dispersed across various bases, vessels, and forward arming and refueling points in the Middle East, to maintaining the newly reimposed blockade on Iranian ports. Moving these assets to another prologned shooting match in the Red Sea would degrade those capabilities and the ability to support a war effort should it fully erupt. It’s a capacity issue.

Expanding the fight against Iran is already in discussion by the Trump administration.

“The U.S. is planning for a wider war,” a U.S. official familiar with internal administration discussions told The Washington Post.

But the official cautioned that “the expansion of U.S. operations will be limited by dwindling stockpiles of air defense and long-range munitions and constraints on the ability to surge more troops and aircraft into the area because of battle damage,” the newspaper continued.

“We do not have enough to safely sustain operations, and I don’t think the White House is aware of that,” the Post said the official added.

While we cannot independently confirm this latest Post report about internal administration debates, we have frequently highlighted concerns over U.S. stocks of these munitions and the difficulty in replacing them.

All this comes as there are increasing signs of damage at U.S. facilities in the Middle East from Iranian barrages. Though largely spared in the initial phases of Epic Fury due to robust air defenses, the airfield at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan has taken the brunt of recent attacks, while several other installations have been hit as well.

Muwaffaq Salti, as we have frequently reported, has come under attack numerous times. In March, CNN obtained imagery from Planet Labs showing an AN/TPY-2 radar damaged, or even possibly destroyed, following an Iranian attack there.

The air base has long been a major regional hub for U.S. operations, and is being very actively utilized in the current conflict. It hosts the greatest concentration of U.S. tactical aircraft in the region, and thus is an extremely important target, where, as we pointed out, even one ballistic missile landing on an apron could destroy multiple prized aircraft and take the lives of U.S. service members or cause injuries.

Satellite imagery has emerged on social media purporting to show the extent of the damage at MSAB. The following shows what is claimed to be before and after views of strikes on aircraft hangars and containerized housing units. The imagery is provided by Iran and, because U.S. satellite firms do not collect over American facilities, we cannot independently confirm what is being depicted.

Beyond damage, the number of troops killed and injured in Iranian attacks is rising. On Monday, the Pentagon identified two soldiers killed in action.

“1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, was killed in action on July 18, 2026, and Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas, was killed in action on July 17, 2026, during an enemy attack on July 17, 2026, at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, Jordan,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “The incident is under investigation.”

Both soldiers worked for air defense units. Feehan was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 55th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 32nd Army Air Missile Defense Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Gonzales was assigned to 1st Battalion, 57th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 52nd Air Defense Artillery Brigade, 10th Army Air Missile Defense Command, Ansbach, Germany.

Today’s identifications came after CENTCOM on Saturday reported that two U.S. service members in Jordan were killed in action on July 17. Additionally, the command said one service member was currently missing, but later said unidentified remains were found. 

CENTCOM also reported on Sunday that “a U.S. service member in northern Iraq was killed in action July 18 during a controlled detonation of unexploded ordnance from a downed Iranian one-way attack drone. A second service member was wounded and continues to receive medical treatment for a minor injury.”

We have asked CENTCOM and the Army to confirm that Feehan was the soldier killed in Iraq during the controlled detonation or if he was killed in another incident.

It should be noted that in announcing the identities of Feehan and Gonzales, the Pentagon said they died in support of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), which is the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. We asked the Pentagon for clarity and they deferred us to CENTCOM, which has yet to respond.

Meanwhile, The New York Times accused the Pentagon of hiding the number of injured troops.

“In the week leading up to the Iranian attack on Friday that killed two U.S. soldiers and left one service member missing in Jordan, Iran carried out three other strikes against U.S. forces in the country,” the paper explained. “Those attacks injured dozens of U.S. service members and damaged several helicopters, according to several U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters. But the Pentagon did not disclose the earlier strikes, nor the casualties and damage they inflicted.”

The episode “is the latest example during the Iran conflict of the tension between what the Pentagon says is the need for operational security and the government’s obligation to inform the public about the conduct of the war,” the Times proffered.

The Pentagon pushed back on that claim, rejecting it as “baseless and malicious.”

Still, despite the increasing violence, both the U.S. and Iran have suggested that further diplomacy to end the fighting is possible. This is even as both sides declared the ceasefire over and Iranians last week said they would no longer negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding on a possible peace deal.

“You can’t have an MOU that’s alive if they’re violating the terms,” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters. “The U.S. always remains open to a diplomatic solution. We’ve tried multiple times with Iran and we’ll continue to try… but their behavior is what we’re responding to — and their behavior is they’re launching missiles and drones against ships.”

“Proposals were put forward by the mediators, we were informed of them, and we received them,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said during a press conference. “However, let me not go into details right now. The gist of the matter is that the diplomatic mission has been actively working these days, and some ideas from a number of mediators have reached us—yes, this is confirmed.”

Still, Trump threatened to continue striking Iran should more U.S. forces be killed.

“Every time Iran kills an American Soldier they will pay for that killing many times over!” the president proclaimed on Truth Social. “This directive has been passed on to Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Daniel Caine, and every Leader in the Military.”

There are no new peace talks scheduled and it remains unclear if they will be. Meanwhile, the new Houthi blockade could deeply complicate an already highly-precarious situation in the Middle East.

UPDATE: 4:50 PM EDT –

CENTCOM announced the start of the 10th consecutive day of strikes on Iranian targets.

“Today at 4 p.m. ET, U.S. forces began a new round of strikes against Iran at the Commander in Chief’s direction,” the command stated on X. “The strikes are designed to further degrade Iranian military capabilities used to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

UPDATE: 9:59 PM EDT-

CENTCOM said it concluded the strikes at 9 PM ET.

“U.S. forces struck Iranian military command centers, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites, and air defense systems to degrade Iran’s ability to continue attacking commercial vessels flowing through the Strait of Hormuz,” the command stated on X. “Commercial vessel transits through the vital international maritime corridor continue. Since early May, CENTCOM forces have helped facilitate the transit of approximately 900 commercial vessels and 450 million barrels of crude oil.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Houthi Blockade On Saudi Red Sea Oil Transits Threatens To Widen War, Strangle Energy Supply (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

New questions were raised about the Bridge aircraft’s self-protection suite, in particular, after Trump took it to the NATO summit in Turkey earlier this month, but then left unexpectedly on an older VC-25A. Subsequent reports said that the Secret Service had urged the President to make the swap as a security precaution amid escalating fighting with Iran.

“Mr. President, this plane does not have anti-missile defense systems on it. Why are you flying it?” S.V. Date, White House correspondent for HuffPost, asked Trump at a press gaggle at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, D.C., yesterday. The President had just returned from a trip to attend the FIFA World Cup final in New Jersey.

“Well, it has – it has a lot, and, you know, it has a lot of capability,” Trump said in response. “But as I understand it, in about a month or so, they’re going to send it to have it be maxed out. So they’re going to be sending it, and they’ll have it be maxed out. It’ll take about a month.”

Trump did not elaborate on what “maxed out” might mean for the Bridge aircraft.

“The new Air Force One is perfectly safe for the President’s travels, but will receive additional upgrades and enhancements in the fall which will take approximately one month to complete,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to TWZ. “During that time, the President will fly on the old Air Force One.”

We have also reached out to the U.S. Air Force and L3Harris for more information. L3Harris is the defense contractor that served as the lead integrator for the modifications to the former Qatari 747. You can read more about what is known about the conversion process, which took approximately 10 months, here.

“We knew there were some issues around security with the plane. We’ve known that from the very beginning,” Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, said separately at a roundtable at the Farnborough International Airshow in the United Kingdom today, according to Breaking Defense. “Obviously, there was an effort to address that.”

“If there … was an examination and a problem apparently was determined to exist, the good news is that it’s apparently going to be addressed,” Senator Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, also said, per Breaking Defense. “And I think it’s important for all of us to determine what that problem is and to be supportive of corrective measures.”

Shaheen and Moran both serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Defense. Shaheen is also a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

As noted, there has been significant new scrutiny of the Bridge aircraft’s defensive and other capabilities since Trump’s trip to Turkey and the swap with the VC-25A on the way back. On July 9, The New York Times reported that the ex-Qatari jet “lacks the same defensive countermeasures that were security features of the old model, including its advanced antimissile capabilities,” citing unnamed officials.

The Times‘ story included a statement from White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, saying that “the new Air Force One is a state-of-the-art aircraft that has been fitted with high-level security protocols that ensure the safety of the president and his staff.”

Other outlets published similar stories about Air Force One’s capabilities, also citing anonymous sources. In a highly unusual development, the FBI subsequently subpoenaed four journalists at the Times as part of a leak investigation, which now appears to go beyond the more recent reporting on the Bridge aircraft.

The current array of defensive features found on the VC-25B Bridge aircraft is unknown. Details about the self-protection capabilities of the existing VC-25As — arguably the most well defended aircraft on the planet — are not usually openly discussed, but at least some of the countermeasures systems on those aircraft are plainly visible to the general public. This includes a version of the AN/AAQ-24 directional infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) system, also called Nemesis or the Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system. There is the AN/ALQ-204 Matador infrared countermeasures (IRCM) system, as well. The AAQ-24 uses lasers to blind and confuse the seekers on infrared-homing missiles. These laser turrets are mounted all over the bottom of the aircraft. The older ALQ-204 system has a similar function, but sends out large fixed pulses of infrared energy rather than a steerable laser beam. The VC-25As also have visible missile launch warning sensors at various points around the aircraft to cue these and other defensive capabilities, and to just provide general alerts to incoming threats. There are certainly other capabilities that are not so plainly visible, as well. The planes are hardened against electromagnetic pulses (EMP), as well.

To date, there have been no visible signs of any of these obvious defensive features found on the VC-25As being present on the VC-25B Bridge aircraft. This is something we have noted since the official rollout of the new aircraft in June. The Air Force and L3Harris have previously pushed back on any operational security concerns surrounding the jet gifted by Qatar.

There are additional questions now about what modifications could reasonably be made to the Bridge aircraft during another month-long upgrade period. As we previously wrote after Trump’s swap back to the VC-25A on the way back from Turkey:

“Defensive countermeasures, in particular, take time and careful work to integrate onto any airframe, let alone a newer type for which there might not be pre-existing procedures. Rigorous testing has to be done after integration to ensure those systems work as intended and do not conflict with other features, physically or in the radiofrequency spectrum.”

That being said, there are countermeasures systems that have already been qualified on at least some 747 variants, such as the aforementioned capabilities known to be found on the VC-25As today. There are other self-protection options available on the open market today for 747s and other similarly large aircraft, such as the C-MUSIC DIRCM system from Elbit in Israel. Northrop Grumman also offers a podded DIRCM system called Guardian that utilizes some of the same components as NEMESIS/LAIRCM. Both of these examples are not for high-volume threats, though.

Any move to upgrade the Bridge aircraft’s defensive capabilities now can only prompt the question as to why this was not done already. This is a matter of ensuring the safety of the President of the United States, whoever that might be, and underpinning the credibility of America’s nuclear deterrent whenever they are onboard.

There was certainly a push to have the Bridge aircraft in service, at least to some degree, by July 4th. The plane was a centerpiece of flyovers above the nation’s capital to mark this year’s Independence Day. Trump had flown on the jet for the first time just before, on a trip to North Dakota to attend the opening of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library and other celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of the United States.

If the Bridge aircraft was rushed into service without certain defensive systems installed to be available for July 4th and other 250th anniversary celebrations, it could still have been sent back for additional upgrades afterward. However, there appears to have been no plans to get the Bridge aircraft any additional defensive or other capabilities before it was put into full service. This was proven when Trump and many other passengers headed overseas to Turkey aboard the new jet. Before the plane was delivered, TWZ had questioned whether the jet would ever fly abroad in the Air Force One role, and not be reserved for lower-risk domestic travel, due to these exact kind of security concerns.

There is an additional operational security layer to the equation here given that any aircraft serving in the Air Force One role inherently slots into America’s nuclear deterrent posture. Beyond their array of self-protection features, the VC-25As, in particular, have an extensive secure communications suite designed to ensure the President remains in contact with the National Command Authority at all times. The National Command Authority is the mechanism through which the President would order a nuclear strike, as you can read about in more detail here.

A report from CBS News earlier this month implied that the new Bridge aircraft lacks the same communications capabilities, as well as defensive features, found on the VC-25As. That story suggested both aspects here pushed the Secret Service to recommend Trump use the older aircraft on the return trip from Turkey, which came amid the start of the new campaign against Iran. The President had also just directed a new round of strikes on Iranian targets from the sidelines of the NATO summit. TWZ highlighted all of this at the time as potential contributing factors in the swap between Air Force One jets.

All of this raises further questions about what risks may have been accepted in allowing Trump to use the Bridge aircraft to travel to Turkey in the first place. There’s an additional question here of what would have happened had circumstances not prompted Trump to swap Air Force Ones, and had The New York Times and others not reported on the reasons behind that decision. Would it have ever gotten these extra defenses if those things didn’t happen?

The Bridge aircraft has been the subject of criticism and controversy from the start. The circumstances under which the Qatari government gifted the plane to the United States in the first place were highly irregular.

The justification for needing the Bridge Air Force One at all remains a subject of debate, now fueled further by the clear continued relevance of the VC-25As. The Air Force’s efforts to acquire two fully equipped VC-25B Air Force One jets from Boeing have been repeatedly delayed, and the costs of that effort continue to rise. The first of those jets is now expected to be delivered in 2028, which is actually a slight improvement in the timeline. What will happen to the Bridge aircraft afterward is unclear.

The Air Force has separately acquired another 747-8i from German flag carrier Lufthansa, which is now being used as a trainer for aircrew and ground personnel. An additional ex-Lufthansa 747 will be cannibalized for spare parts, as well, in support of the burgeoning Air Force One fleet.

It is worth noting here that the VC-25As are also based on older 747-200 models, a type that has all but disappeared from service globally, even with commercial airlines. Those jets are becoming more complicated and costly to operate and maintain just as a result of diminishing supply chains.

With Trump’s comments yesterday, the VC-25B Bridge aircraft is now slated to get the defenses it should have had originally, or at least more than it has now, but the path to getting there is bizarre and raises real concerns, to say the least.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post New VC-25B Air Force One Will Be Pulled From Service To Be “Maxed Out” With Upgrades appeared first on TWZ.

“American and allied warfighters need a solution that is battle-tested and budget-smart, and PAC-3 ACE delivers exactly that by building on the unrivaled performance of the PAC-3 MSE,” said Tim Cahill, president, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “As we look to partner with our allies, we can further enhance resiliency and ensure our forces can swiftly counter emerging threats today and tomorrow.”

Lockheed Martin said the PAC-3 ACE is designed to provide allied forces with a “rapidly fielded complement to existing Patriot interceptors.” The company plans to work with U.S. and European industrial partners on development and production, with the goal of expanding manufacturing capacity and strengthening the resilience of the transatlantic defense industrial base. The idea of the new missile as a complementary effector is especially noteworthy, indicating that the PAC-3 MSE would be reserved for the most challenging or high-risk threats, while the PAC-3 ACE can be used for everything else.

Other than the price point, it’s unclear to what degree the PAC-3 ACE missile differs from the PAC-3 MSE. A rendering released by Lockheed Martin — seen at the top of this story — appears to show a shorter, more compact interceptor. Coupled with the substantially lower cost, the new missile will offer a more degraded capability set than the MSE. This could include shorter range, lower ceiling, and a reduced ability to engage the most advanced threats Patriot batteries face. Notably missing in the rendering is the PAC-3 MSE Attitude Control Section — the ring of tiny rocket motors that wraps around its forward section — that gives it enhanced agility. Sacrificing exactly this kind of feature could lower costs in exchange for capability. In addition, the new missile may not feature the PAC-3 MSE’s “Lethality Enhancer” warhead, for instance, and could just provide a strictly hit-to-kill capability or some other warhead solution to save on cost. Using a less advanced seeker is also highly probable. We have reached out to the company for additional details.

It is notable, however, that the ability to engage short-range ballistic missiles, at least to a degree, is inherited from the PAC-3 MSE.

Patriot’s ability to engage short-range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase has never been more important, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict with Iran, the war in Ukraine, and the continuing spread of those weapons worldwide. A lower-cost interceptor that can perform that mission for at least some threat profiles would help make missile defense more sustainable in future conflicts.

Overall, the concept behind the PAC-3 ACE suggests that Lockheed Martin is looking to offer a missile that’s closer to the PAC-3 Cost Reduction Initiative (CRI), which is no longer in production.

We do know that the PAC-3 ACE will leverage existing Patriot weapon system hardware, including the PAC-3 fire-control system and the IBCS. These measures should ensure that the process of developing, testing, and deploying the new missile can be accelerated considerably. Essentially, PAC-3 ACE will provide existing PAC-3 operators with a new common interceptor that can slot straight into the air defense system.

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

Having access to a significantly cheaper alternative to the PAC-3 MSE effector, while maintaining many of its capabilities in terms of the kinds of threats it can target, is a big deal.

A cheaper effector means the cost-per-kill against man target types can be significantly lower. It also helps increase magazine depth, with operators able to buy larger stocks of missiles, addressing a problem that has been encountered in war zones, in particular Ukraine, where Patriot effectors have been expended at such a rate that the supplies have gotten close to being totally exhausted. Recent operations have reinforced the importance of maintaining sufficient inventories of interceptors and other high-demand munitions to meet both operational and strategic requirements — for example, a future high-intensity conflict against China. Under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is already committed to boosting annual production of the PAC-3 MSE to 2,000, an increase from roughly 600.

When it comes to the cost of the PAC-3 MSE, each interceptor comes with a price tag of approximately $5.3 million, according to the Army’s latest proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. In the past, a single missile cost around $4 million.

Just as critical as cost is speed and scalability of production. PAC-3 ACE has been adapted with this in mind, and drawing upon production facilities outside the United States will also help. Having plentiful supplies of Patriot missiles will only become more critical once they are introduced by the U.S. Navy as well as the Army. The Navy is now working to integrate PAC-3 MSE into the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS), adding a valuable new anti-air interceptor to its sea-based arsenal, but also further increasing demand that the PAC-3 ACE could help meet.

Back in May, TWZ reported on how the U.S. Army’s Low Cost Interceptor (LCI) initiative was looking for proposals for a new effector for the Patriot with a unit cost under $1 million. This amounts to about a fifth of the price of a single PAC-3 MSE missile.

As we described at the time:

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

Like the PAC-3 ACE, the U.S. Army said it was looking for a missile that can be integrated into existing M903 trailer-based launchers and leverage the service’s IBCS network. The M903 is already capable of accommodating newer PAC-3 series interceptors, including the MSE variant, as well as older PAC-2 types that remain in use.

As we noted at the time, the goal of acquiring an anti-air interceptor capable of engaging everything from lower-tier air-breathing threats to SRBMs, at no more than $1 million per missile, is ambitious.

The LCI initiative is also consistent with broader Pentagon efforts to expand access to lower-cost munitions through open-architecture designs and by leveraging new, non-traditional industry partners. LCI calls for Army ownership of the intellectual property, reducing vendor lock-in and enabling future competitions for complete rounds and key subcomponents.

The Army has already stated that the LCI missile and missile subsystem competition is intended to result in multiple awards that can lead to multiple different yet affordable missile interceptor solutions. PAC-3 ACE could be part of that equation for the U.S. Army if the higher price point is deemed acceptable, but clearly the concept will have considerable value for any of the more than a dozen Patriot operators, especially those facing the reality of limited magazine depth in conflict situations. Having a lower-cost effector available could also open the PAC-3 up to additional markets, too.

Even if PAC-3 ACE falls short of the Army’s ambitious sub-$1 million interceptor target, it underscores a reality that has become impossible to ignore. The era of relying exclusively on premium, very high-cost interceptors is giving way to a more layered approach, where lower-cost missiles can absorb a significant share of engagements against cruise missiles, drones, and other less demanding targets. If Lockheed Martin can deliver on its roughly half-price Patriot missile offering while still providing highly relevant capabilities, PAC-3 ACE could become an important addition to the growing effort to make high-end air defense more sustainable in prolonged conflicts.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector Is Lockheed’s New Low-Cost Patriot Interceptor appeared first on TWZ.

Anduril and Archer rolled out Thunder today, around the biennial Farnborough International Airshow in the United Kingdom. A mockup, which Anduril says reflects a “mature” outer mold-line of the design, will be on display at the show.

“Thunder is very much an attack aircraft, so it is designed for very high performance, [and] low-level [flight],” Shane Arnott, Senior Vice President of Maneuver Dominance at Anduril, told TWZ and other outlets during a press call ahead of today’s announcement. “Very much in that Apache space, say, versus a high-flying surveillance aircraft.”

At the time of writing, Anduril has only released relatively broad details about the expected performance and other specifications of the drone, which has been under development for around three years now. A first flight is currently targeted for some time next year, and full-scale production could be underway by the end of the decade, depending on demand. The company has also already been working on Thunder together with “government customers,” but has explicitly declined to name any of them.

It’s also worth noting that a version of Thunder configured for commercial applications is also in the works, with Archer Aviation set to release more details on that later this week.

What we know about the Thunder design

Thunder is a clean-sheet design with a relatively traditional tiltrotor layout featuring a high-mounted, straight main wing on top of the fuselage. The wing has a single tilting rotor pod at each tip. It also has a V-tail.

In terms of overall size and performance, Anduril describes Thunder as a Group 5 design. The U.S. government breaks uncrewed aerial systems into five categories. Group 5 is the highest tier, covering anything with a maximum takeoff weight of 1,320 pounds or more, and that can fly at altitudes of 18,000 feet or higher. 

“It will have the ability to work at that at [18,000 feet], but the intent is for it to be nap-of-the-earth for most of its life,” Anduril’s Arnott noted. “That’s where it’ll be spending its time. Think about the Apache kind of profile. So you’ll hit certain altitudes to get your ferry ranges, etc. But when you’re in the AO [area of operations] and in combat, you’re as close to the dirt as you can get.”

Arnott also described Thunder as having the same general top speed and range as the MV-75 Cheyenne II, which is now under development for the U.S. Army. The Army is reportedly expecting the MV-75 to boast a top speed of 320 miles per hour and have an unrefueled range of 920 miles. This is far above the range and speed offered by any current Army helicopter. Beyond teaming with Apaches and similar attack helicopters, being able to keep pace with the Cheyenne II could be an especially important feature for the Thunder, as we will touch on again later.

Anduril has also described Thunder as being smaller than the Apache and able to be broken down for transport inside a standard 40-foot shipping container. As an aside, it is unclear exactly how much time is necessary to get the tiltrotor drone out of a container and flying again. Getting it loaded in the first place does require separating the wing structure from the fuselage, at least in the design’s current form, according to the company. The drone will also have the speed and range necessary for self-deployment.

When it comes to propulsion, “a series hybrid-electric powertrain enables Thunder to achieve significant range and endurance, while still maintaining the necessary precision to closely optimize power through the full range of flight conditions,” according to a press release from Anduril. “Meanwhile, Optimum-Speed Tiltrotors (OSTR) vary rotor RPM [rotations per minute] to maintain efficiency across flight regimes, reducing power demand and fuel burn in cruise and minimizing acoustic signature to enhance survivability during low-altitude ingress.”

“From a survivability standpoint, one of the big tells for helicopters today, is just they’re very noisy, and the threat can hear when they’re coming,” Anduril’s Arnott also added when speaking to TWZ and other outlets. “We’re at orders of magnitude below the sound level with this particular system than the current systems that are out there today.”

The partnership with Archer Aviation, a company whose public profile is focused on crewed fully electric-powered vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, has been key here. Anduril also cited Archer’s motor technology as being a key feature of the hybrid-electric Omen tail-sitting vertical takeoff and landing drone, which was unveiled last year.

During the press call ahead of today’s unveiling, Chris Brose, Anduril’s President and Chief Strategy Officer, said that he felt that leveraging the immense investment by companies like Archer in the electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) development space had “made Thunder possible in a way today that it just wouldn’t have been possible five, 10, certainly 15 years ago.”

“So this is not electric, this is a hybrid-electric system,” Anduril’s Arnott also stressed. “But in doing so, it actually reduces the complexity of the drive trains, etc.”

Rotor technology for another firm, Karem, has also been leveraged in the development of Thunder. Karem has a long history in the tiltrotor design space, including work done for the U.S. Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

“Karem’s military-grade rotor systems are among the most advanced Army-validated technologies in the world,” Adam Goldstein, Archer Founder and CEO, said in a press release about a new collaboration between the two companies in December 2025. “Integrating them into our next-gen hybrid VTOL [vertical takeoff and landing] platform positions Archer to move faster and deliver capabilities that legacy systems simply can’t match.”

The unnamed “next-gen hybrid VTOL platform” at the center of Archer’s December announcement has now been confirmed to be Thunder.

Modular capabilities and advanced autonomy

Capability-wise, Thunder is a highly modular design with reconfigurable payload bays in the nose and the center of the fuselage.

The drone can carry up to 10 air-to-ground missiles, 16 ‘launched effects,’ four 19-shot pods holding a total of 76 70mm laser-guided Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rockets, or a mix thereof, on launchers that extend to either side from the main bay, according to Anduril. Air-to-ground missiles here could include AGM-114 Hellfires, AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missiles (JAGM), or Anduril’s Barracuda-100M.

The term launched effects is used today to collectively refer to drones configured to perform a variety of missions, including serving as loitering munitions, which can be fired from air, ground, and/or maritime platforms. Anduril specifically mentioned its ALTIUS-600 design as one potential option for Thunder. ALTIUS-600 can be set up to perform surveillance and reconnaissance and electronic warfare tasks, act as a decoy, and launch kinetic attacks.

The company has also specifically highlighted the ability of the bay in the nose to hold launchers for kinetic interceptors to take down incoming drones, something we will come back to later on. It is worth noting that APKWS II is already a combat-proven, lower-cost counter-drone weapon, including in the air-to-air mode. However, it is employed in more traditional counter-air applications, like intercepting one-way attack munitions and cruise missiles, not for defending the shooting platform itself against incoming high-speed anti-aircraft drones.

Both the nose and main payload bays could accommodate other systems, such as electronic warfare suites, additional sensors, and/or communications packages. Each Thunder will also have its own built-in sensor suite to support surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as target acquisition tasks.

In addition, Thunder will have passive sensing capabilities to support general operation and navigation. This will be especially important for enabling high-speed nap-of-the-earth flight profiles. It will also be essential for providing situational awareness and flight safety margins while operating in relatively close proximity to crewed teammates, as well as other drones.

“We’ve spent the last couple of years working with technologies that are coming out of the self-driving car industry, plus some of that are coming out of the Anduril sensor/imaging kind of groups, in order for us to detect a terrain, [and] do that in a passive sense, so we’re not giving away our position,” according to Anduril’s Arnott. The sensors will also “be able to detect weapons coming at us, power lines, that type of thing, and have it such that you can have three to six of these things flying with a two-ship [group] of Apache, for instance, to provide that loyal wingman nature.”

“Thunder’s multi-modal machine perception stack and sensor suite combines passive and selective active sensors with onboard computer vision, map data, and edge compute, enabling Thunder to continuously detect, classify, and track terrain, obstacles, and threats,” Anduril has also explained in a blog post accompanying today’s announcement. “That sensor data provides the inputs necessary to facilitate the visual navigation, inertial positioning, and terrain feature mapping that enable Thunder to remain on course when GPS, visibility, and communications are degraded or denied.”

“With sophisticated onboard machine perception, vehicle autonomy, and flight-proven collaborative mission autonomy software, Thunder can maneuver with the formation, share data in real time, coordinate effects, and act on pilot intent, delivering a trusted autonomous wingman that can keep up with, defend, and empower the pilots flying the most congested airspace on the battlefield,” the blog post adds.

Anduril’s Lattice proprietary artificial intelligence-enabled software package will underpin Thunder’s overall autonomous capabilities. The company says other autonomous software could also be integrated to meet particular customer demands. Anduril has already conducted testing of some components of Thunder’s autonomy and sensing systems using unspecified surrogate aircraft.

Just one part of a full concept of operations

What has been shared so far about Thunder’s capabilities brings us to the larger concept of operations Anduril envisions for the drone. The company says the war in Ukraine has had an especially heavy influence on its thinking around the design. This is very interesting, as this particular conflict has prompted serious questions about the future relevance of traditional helicopters on modern battlefields where the threat ecosystem continues to grow in scale and scope.

Anduril acknowledges the breadth of dangers that helicopters and tiltrotors already face. This is perhaps best evidenced by the touting of Thunder’s ability to defend against air-to-air drone attacks, something the ongoing fighting in Ukraine has shown to be a real threat, as seen in the video below. Anduril’s Arnott also explicitly mentioned the threat posed by shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, also known as man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), while speaking to TWZ and other outlets.

At the same time, Anduril argues that there are critical missions rotorcraft perform today that cannot be fully transposed onto other kinds of platforms, and that drone wingmen like Thunder will therefore be an essential addition to the equation. The company has not yet shared a projected unit cost for the drone, but has also stressed that it fits in with a broader understanding of a need for platforms that are lower cost and more readily producible to create sufficient operational capacity, or ‘mass,’ for forces to succeed in future conflicts. Anduril’s Brose said that Thunder will be a “fraction” of the cost of something like an Apache or an MV-75, and operators will be able to “afford to lose it if you have to.”

“Many of the things that we’ve designed and engineered into Thunder are really based on the lessons that the United States and our European allies are learning in Ukraine, and this whole question of how do you bring mass to the battlefield in a tactical environment where you have to be able to engage in the deep fight,” Brose explained in more detail about Anduril’s overall thinking around Thunder. “We’re looking at the proliferation of robotic systems, and drones, and sensors, and that’s all very good and very important. But you also raise the question of, well, how are you going to get that stuff farther downrange into the environments where you need it to be able to conduct those more sophisticated and more challenging missions, again on behalf of U.S. and NATO militaries?”

To meet those operational needs, “you have to have the ability to launch and recover combat power without runways. You have to be able to do this in expeditionary environments,” he continued, underscoring the value of a VTOL platform. “When your runways get cratered, you have to have the ability to conduct the mission.”

Runway independence, or at least reducing dependence on traditional runways, has become an increasing mantra across the U.S. military, in particular, in recent years, as TWZ regularly highlights. The U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Air Force, as well as the special operations community, have put particular emphasis on this in new and still evolving concepts of operations in recent years.

So, “in terms of how you then get a greater quantity of sensors and weapons into the fight to support those manned systems, to support the ground force to be able to conduct those long-range missions from a maneuver warfare standpoint, and really make maneuver central to warfare again, we really see this system in Thunder being absolutely central to that,” Brose added.

Brose specifically took aim at the idea that lower-cost, long-range one-way attack drones could fill the same kinds of mission requirements. The U.S. military just recently began fielding this capability in the form of the Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) drone, which made its official combat debut in Operation Epic Fury against Iran.

“A lot of those longer-range one-way attack missions, they’re going after fixed targets,” he said. “They’re slower flights out. It’s [the total duration of the strike mission] going to play out over a longer period of time. They’re hitting critical infrastructure, military installations, production capacity, et cetera. Basically, GPS points that aren’t moving.”

“What this is focused on is the ability to transit through the operational environment,” he continued. “To survive and then to persist once you get there, so that you can provide effects to attack aviation elements in the air that are conducting missions or ground forces that are conducting missions on the land. That immediately gets into a time-sensitive, dynamic targeting kind of mission space that a system like this has to be able to survive and persist and operate effectively in.”

It is important to note here that new targeting capabilities have already been emerging in the realm of longer-range one-way attack drones. LUCAS and many Ukrainian designs now have satellite communications-enabled man-in-the-loop functionality, allowing them to hit dynamic/moving targets. Driven by advances in artificial intelligence-driven technologies, drones are set to steadily gain greater ability to find and choose targets autonomously, something TWZ has previously explored in detail. This being said, they are still single-use weapons that offer very different capabilities from what Anduril is aiming for with Thunder.

Anduril’s Arnott also questioned the relevance of existing higher-flying armed drones to meet these kinds of operational needs. The MQ-9 Reaper has been very much in public consciousness recently due to its heavy use in the conflict with Iran, but also substantial combat losses. The U.S. Air Force has described the MQ-9 as a star player in operations against Iran, despite having lost dozens of them.

“As we got further and further up and higher and higher, [we] got comfortable because we own the air, but things have changed,” Arnott said. “We’re seeing that in [Operation] Epic Fury, the Iranians, etc. have got systems that are just knocking that type of CONOP off its feet, and it’s just not relevant anymore. So that’s why we’ve gone back to the surface. That’s where the survivability is for these types of systems, to fly low and fast.”

“Right now, we don’t see another solve [sic; solution] for that, and this is probably the ugliest of all the warfighting domains, where you still need a human … to do the sorting of the targets on friend and foe, etc,” he added. “The only way you can do that is to have a quarterback, say, with an Apache, and then these loyal wingmen, if you will, to enable their survivability, but also to project a lot more mass in the deep [fight].”

Despite all the talk of lessons learned from contemporary conflicts, Anduril has made clear that its view of future ‘deep fights’ goes well beyond Europe and the Middle East. He said that Thunder’s speed and range, and the basic choice of a tiltrotor conflict, were also intended to make it very relevant for a conflict in the broad expanses of the Pacific. The U.S. Army’s decision to acquire the MV-75 was notably driven by the same general factors.

“This is a gap. There is actually no way when you fast forward into full theater conflicts in the Pacific, even the Taiwanese, if you play through the war games and things get entrenched, there isn’t a way in other than these types of techniques,” Arnott told TWZ directly in a separate interview about Thunder ahead of today’s announcement. “If Russia does start their activity into the High North [in and around the Arctic region,] as well as China, you get to the same situations. You can’t do all your warfare from 30 or 15,000 feet. It just does not work, apart from the fixed targets.”

A more detailed notional Thunder vignette

Anduril’s Arnott also described more detailed notional operational scenarios involving Thunder to us during that interview:

“The concepts to date have been primarily driven around that you’ve got a two-ship [of] Apache, very traditional formation. You would then, depending on the mission, whether it’s a protective mission for the two ship, whether it’s a deep strike mission, or an ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] type mission, you’d have between three and six thunders for every two ship ARH [armed reconnaissance helicopter], and the intent there being that that’s a lot of metal in the air and a lot of things to manage.”

“So very much for it to be the command as opposed to control, where in effect, the way that the team presents to the Apache cockpit, whoever’s kind of got the leash, is it looks like another Apache. So it basically comes across [on] very similar data links to what the aircraft has. We call this concept ‘polite participant.’ So we don’t force any new software onto the host aircraft, or the mothership, or the quarterback, I should say. And in doing so, those teammates or wingmen are smart enough to be able to navigate and aviate in such a way that you don’t get in the way to be able to give them the similar level of command that you would to a wingman, wing person, if you will, and that they’re able to array themselves.”

“And whether it’s a chevron formation in front, whether it’s some sort of formation around the outside at cardinal points around the aircraft for a protective – a force protection mission, where you’re utilizing the counter-UAS systems that are on thunder and also electronic protection. But basically, you would put them into postures, and you command these postures that reflect themselves in formation, and then activation of various payloads that they have on board, and that may change also through the mission.”

“So you may have a setup where you’ve got the Apaches at the FOB [forward operating base]. You’ll have either at the FOB or somewhere nearby the Thunders. These guys come together and they form up. They move out. Initially, you’re just in [a] train, so you’re tracking into the AO [area of operations]. You come into … the forward line of troops. You then may move into a configuration where you’re at the cardinal points around the outside of the Apache, because part of the problem with the land domain is that the threats can come at any angle to you, and [you] have activated the counter-UAS systems and the electronic protect systems, for instance. So the Thunders would be either radiating or waiting for irradiation [sic] from an electronic attack standpoint, based on certain signals, or having their doors open as it relates to the counter-UAS, the kinetic kill payloads, that are on there, as you then transit through certain areas.”

“That may then change, where the counter-UAS payloads are in the nose, for instance, they would close, and then you go into the direct attack, which would be the main payload bay that you’ve seen the doors that are coming out. They may be fitted with direct attack weapons like Hydras [70mm unguided rockets], APKWS, or Hellfires, for instance, and then be in fire support to the Apaches in a similar way that the Apaches work together to – one set of aircrew can designate and shoot off the other[‘s targeting data]. For instance, it’s a very similar workflow, so it’s not a new workflow for direct attack.”

“Or it could be, ‘hey, I need to go and find something out there.’ So today, they’ll use the M-TADS [Modernized Target Acquisition and Designation Sight] for the video. They’ll use the fire control radar to scan an area. It’s a similar kind of workflow where they’re like, “Hey, I need to find out about something out there. The Thunders could release launched effects, for instance, like the ALTIUS product that we have, but it could be [an AeroVironment] Switchblade, it could be something else, and they would then talk back to the Thunders. So we’d have that concept of tiering out in front. The ALTIUS are then out there, and they’re finding targets autonomously with their computer vision. They’re then providing back a track picture, so icons, if you will, that come back to the Thunder. The Thunder then talks back to the Apache via the Apache data link, and the symbols appear on their map display or their FCR [fire control radar], just like they would if they were self-identified or coming from one of their formation, as well.”

“So the intent is these workflows are exactly the same. How it presents to the warfighter is the same. It’s just more. You can see further. You can shoot more. But the workflow, in effect, is effectively the same. So that is the whole concept of this polite participant construct that we have.”

Arnott stressed that his use of Apache here was as a generic example and that this overall concept could work with other helicopters serving in the quarterback role. Anduril also envisions command and control of the Thunders being executed by helicopter crews through existing cockpit displays rather than a tertiary device, such as a tablet. There has been much debate over the years about the physical user interface that is most suitable for use on crewed aircraft of any kind to direct uncrewed teammates.

Competition in a growing market space

Anduril is certainly not alone in seeing a market space emerging for this kind of teaming with existing and future crewed helicopters and tiltrotors, at least in broad strokes. Boeing and Sikorsky (a subsidiary now of Lockheed Martin) both unveiled vertical takeoff and landing capable loyal wingman-type drone designs around the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual conference last year. Boeing’s Collaborative Transformational Rotorcraft (CxR) is also a tiltrotor.

In addition, almost a decade ago now, Bell announced it was working on a Group 5 tiltrotor drone called the V-247 Vigilant. The V-247 was originally developed in response to a U.S. Marine Corps requirement, but Bell has since shown renderings depicting it operating together with versions of its crewed V-280 Valor tiltrotor design, on which the MV-75 was based.

“So, last fall, we actually asked industry what they can provide for a Group 4 VTOL/STOL [vertical takeoff and landing/short takeoff and landing] perspective,” Brig. Gen. David Phillips, head of the Army’s Program Executive Office for Aviation (PEO-Aviation), said at a roundtable at AUSA. “So we use that as a great set of information on what the state of the art of technology is from a range, speed, payload, and really effects perspective. What can we bring to bear, given modern technology versus some of our older UAS [uncrewed aerial systems].”

The only difference between the Group 4 and Group 5 drone categories is operating altitude, with the designs in the former tier not being able to fly above 18,000 feet.

“When you look at a CCA role for – really linked to rotary wing, that is a different dynamic than you have at 20-to-30,000 feet,” Brig. Gen. Phillips added at that time. “So it’s a whole set of different behaviors, a whole set of different capability you need to marry that up with an aircraft that’s flying at 100 feet, at 150-plus knots, at night. So that is what we’re really looking at, is what is the state of technology right now to develop a requirement that we can deliver.”

In the context of the U.S. Army, specifically, the concepts of operations Anduril has outlined for Thunder have also prompted comparisons to the previous pairing of Apaches with crewed OH-58D Kiowa Warrior armed scout helicopters. The Army retired the very last of its OH-58Ds in 2017 without a direct replacement. Several unsuccessful attempts were made before and after the Kiowa’s retirement to find a direct successor, the most recent of which was the Future Attack Recon Aircraft (FARA) program. The Army cancelled FARA in 2024 as part of a larger shakeup of aviation programs that put renewed emphasis on new uncrewed capabilities.

“We’re looking to recreate similar concepts to be able to enable deep strike missions, all the things that Apache was originally designed for with the Kiowa,” Anduril’s Arnott said.

Thunder, like the other designs emerging in space now, could also be of interest to the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. special operations forces, which are facing the same kinds of operational realities. The Army’s elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment is already in line to acquire a version of the MV-75, which could also benefit very much from a drone wingman able to keep pace in terms of range and speed. The 160th has already been working to expand crewed-uncrewed teaming concepts using its existing helicopters and the MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone.

This all goes beyond the U.S. military, too. Last year, the U.K. Ministry of Defense also picked Anduril and three other companies to develop drone demonstrators that could be paired with British Army Apaches. Anduril’s press release at the time mentioned a partnership on that effort, which is called Project NYX, with Archer Aviation and several other firms. Anduril has explicitly declined to confirm or deny whether Thunder is its offering for that program.

The Apache, in particular, has a substantial and still growing global operator base, opening the door to other potential customers for drones like Thunder. As already noted, uncrewed wingmen could be valuable for extending the operating reach and reducing the vulnerability of other helicopter types, too.

Anduril is clearly putting a major foot forward in this space with Thunder, and the detailed concepts of operations it already has in mind to go with it. At the same time, the company has never built a tiltrotor, let alone a full-size helicopter, at least that we know of, unlike some of the other companies already in this space. Pairing with Archer and Karem on this project does offer major benefits. Archer has yet to bring an aircraft to production, as well.

Still, these same issues were often highlighted when Anduril joined the competition for the extremely high-profile and critical first phase, or Increment 1, of the U.S. Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program. Anduril had submitted a design called Fury, which TWZ previously explored the full history of in an extensively detailed feature you can find here. Widely considered an underdog in the competition, Anduril was subsequently chosen as one of two firms in the final Increment 1 down-select, with the other being General Atomics. The Air Force has now decided to order production examples of both Increment 1 designs.

Now we’ll have to see if a similar story repeats itself for Thunder, as competition in the market space for drone wingmen for crewed helicopters and tiltrotors continues heating up.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Anduril Brings The Thunder With Autonomous Tiltrotor Attack Drone Concept appeared first on TWZ.

“Out of respect for the families, CENTCOM is withholding additional information, including the identities of the fallen warriors, until 24 hours after the next of kin have been notified,” the command added.

CENTCOM did not say where in Jordan, however, yesterday, CBS News reported that “Iran attacked at least two Jordanian bases this week, resulting in several American service members being injured in the attack after their facility was struck.”

We noted yesterday that data from NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS) at 10:59 PM EDT indicated a fire adjacent to the runway near an area where aircraft are parked at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. However, TWZ cannot independently verify what happened at the base and if any equipment was destroyed or damaged and how personnel there were affected. We’ve reached out to CENTCOM for answers.

Video emerged on social media purporting to show attacks on the base.

Muwaffaq Salti, as we have frequently reported, has come under attack numerous times. In March, CNN obtained imagery from Planet Labs showing an AN/TPY-2 radar damaged, or even possibly destroyed, following an Iranian attack there.

The air base has long been a major regional hub for U.S. operations, and is being very actively utilized in the current conflict. It hosts the greatest concentration of U.S. tactical aircraft in the region, and thus is an extremely important target, where, as we pointed out last night, even one ballistic missile landing on an apron could destroy multiple prized aircraft and take the lives of U.S. service members or cause injuries.

Iran also hit Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia yesterday, Axios reporter Barak Ravid stated on X.

In addition, officials in Kuwait yesterday said one of the country’s power and water desalination plants “was attacked as a result of the Iranian aggression…leading to a fire and damage to the plant’s facilities and several electricity generating units.”

“The fire is now under control and repairs are ongoing,” the Kuwait government added.

The two deaths and the injuries came as the conflict between the U.S. and Iran is escalating rapidly, with each side now attacking critical infrastructure and Iran intensifying strikes on U.S. bases across the region.

Amid the fighting, “Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Kazem Qaribabadi stated that Tehran has suspended its commitments under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with Washington as United States attacks continue,” the official Fars News Agency reported.

This is a developing story.

UPDATE: 6:31 PM EDT-

CENTCOM announced a new wave of attacks on Iranian targets.

“Today at 6 p.m. ET, U.S. forces began launching new airstrikes against Iran at the Commander in Chief’s direction,” the command stated on X. “The strikes are designed to further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and swiftly punish Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces who launched attacks against American service members in Jordan last night.”

President Donald Trump called the deaths of two U.S. service members in Jordan, “a very sad thing,” in a brief phone call with NewsNation, the outlet stated.

Trump told the outlet that the troops died “in service of our country” and reiterated that the war’s central objective is “never allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Asked about Iran’s announcement that it was no longer abiding by a U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, Trump replied: “I couldn’t care less.”

UPDATE: 9:10 PM EDT-

U.S. officials offered The New York Times a recounting of the last five days of Iran’s attacks on Jordan, which the Pentagon has not yet discussed in detail publicly.

“The first attack to hit U.S. forces in Jordan struck a residential facility at King Faisal Air Base, wounding as many as five U.S. service members, they said,” the publication reported. “The second hit a base in eastern Jordan where U.S. Blackhawk helicopters were operating from, damaging a significant number of them.”

“Then, 48 hours ago, Iranian missiles hit Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Azraq, which is the same base where the troops were killed on Friday,” the newspaper added, citing officials. “The earlier strike wounded about 20 U.S. troops rushing to take cover in bunkers. No one was killed in that barrage. But on Friday, when the Iranians struck the base again, two U.S. troops were killed and four other service members were injured, according to U.S. officials. Other personnel were evaluated for minor injuries and returned to duty.”

UPDATE: 11:53 PM EDT –

CENTCOM said it wrapped up the eighth consecutive night of strikes ordered by Trump at 11:30 PM ET.

The command said in a post on X that its forces “successfully hit Iranian military coastal surveillance and air defense facilities, maritime capabilities, and missile and drone storage sites to continue degrading Iranian military capabilities.”

“American military assets also targeted Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces that launched attacks against U.S. service members in Jordan on July 17,” CENTCOM added.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Two U.S. Troops Killed In Iranian Barrage On Base In Jordan (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

This week’s caption reads:

Members of the Moroccan Groupement des Forces Spéciale clear tunnels used by opposition forces during a Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) at Tifnit Training Base, Morocco, May 13, 2026. JCETs bolster regional security and improve threat response by building shared readiness and fostering collaborative relationships. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Enrique Barcelo)

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.

“The Trump administration notified Israel it is sending dozens more refueling planes to the country ahead of a potential expansion of military operations against Iran,” Axios reported, citing three U.S. and Israeli officials.

“Israeli officials say the U.S. wants to send several dozen more refueling planes in the coming days, bringing the number of planes to the same level it had at the beginning of the war,” Axios added. “Israeli officials say the U.S. military prefers operating the refueling planes from Ben Gurion Airport, because other air bases in the region are more exposed to Iranian attacks and less safe for U.S. planes. At the moment, the Iranians are still deterred from launching attacks on Israel, because it will likely trigger a massive retaliation.”

This move comes after Israel placed a limit of 20 on the number of tankers at Ben Gurion Airport due to the impact all those jets were having on passenger air service operations. There are currently about 30 KC-46 Pegasus and KC-135 Stratotanker aerial refueling jets at the airport. There had been about 75 refuelers and cargo planes there during the height of Operation Epic Fury.

It remains unclear how that issue will be resolved, however, boosting the number of tankers in Israel will certainly give the U.S. greater flexibility in being able to refuel aircraft attacking and surveilling Iran. As we noted yesterday, there was a concern that moving aircraft around to other bases farther away could cause sortie rates and durations for receiver aircraft missions to suffer in a sudden crisis.

In addition, more combat jets appear to be headed back to the Middle East. According to online open-source flight trackers, at least 12 F-16 Fighting Falcons are heading to Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan from Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany. Whether this is a plus-up or a routine rotation is unclear, but either way it shows that the U.S. is continuing to add assets to the region.

Meanwhile, as we have noted in earlier reporting, the U.S. has already returned F-22 Raptors that were flying out of Ovda Air Base in Israel back to the United States. Other aircraft, such as A-10s and F-15Es, have also returned home from or have been replaced in the CENTCOM region. So clearly there is a lot of shifting of aviation assets taking place even amid current operations.

Friday afternoon, CENTCOM announced a new wave of strikes on Iran.

“CENTCOM launched a round of strikes against Iran at 3 p.m. ET today for the seventh consecutive night,” the command stated on X. “The strikes are designed to continue degrading Iranian military capabilities at the Commander in Chief’s direction.”

Last night, American forces struck several bridges and energy plants in the southern part of the country, according to Iranian media. In retaliation, Iran hit several targets across the region, including what Kuwait says is a desalination plant, another step up the escalation ladder. In this arid part of the world, countries rely heavily on desalination plants to provide potable water.

Officials in Hormozgan province, where Bandar Abbas is the capital, say six bridges were hit in the latest attacks, along key transport routes linking the city with surrounding towns, Al Jazeera reported. Bandar Abbas, which has a key naval base on the Strait of Hormuz and is frequently targeted, was also reportedly struck again.

The attacks appear to be isolating Bandar Abbas and other parts of the south along the Strait, which has been a key flash-point. Iran claims control of the strategic chokepoint while the U.S. says it remains under international auspices.

Former CENTCOM commander Joseph Votel told us that while it “may be possible” that the U.S. is preparing for a ground invasion of southern Iran, “I don’t really think that is what this is about. I think our kinetic targeting is principally focused on elimination of IRGC capacity to influence the Strait of Hormuz or attack our partners in the region.”

Friday morning, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) declined to comment on the claims that it struck bridges, referring us to its X post from the previous night.

“U.S. forces, including fighter jets, aerial drones, and warships, launched precision munitions that hit dozens of Iranian military targets such as coastal surveillance and air defense sites, military logistics infrastructure, and maritime capabilities,” the command wrote. “This was the sixth consecutive night of U.S. strikes against Iran. At the Commander in Chief’s direction, CENTCOM is further degrading Iranian military capabilities and holding Iran accountable for recent attacks on commercial shipping.”

Several videos emerged on social media showing the destroyed and damaged bridges.

CENTCOM on Friday did acknowledge destroying the Chah Bahar Shahid Kalantari Port surveillance tower.

It was “part of a maritime surveillance network along Iran’s Gulf of Oman coastline used for decades by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to track and target commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” the command stated on X. “The destruction of the tower directly degrades IRGC’s ability to coordinate attacks on innocent civilian crew members. Furthermore, the strike protects freedom of navigation in regional waters for all vessels, except for ships attempting to violate the ongoing U.S. naval blockade against Iran.”

Meanwhile, as we noted earlier in this story, officials in Kuwait said one of the country’s power and water desalination plants “was attacked as a result of the Iranian aggression…leading to a fire and damage to the plant’s facilities and several electricity generating units.”

“The fire is now under control and repairs are ongoing,” the Kuwait government added.

Officials in Bahrain said its air defenses intercepted and destroyed several Iranian aerial attacks on Friday.

“The General Command of the Bahrain Defense Force announces that Iran is continuing its systematic, hostile approach through its attacks,” the Bahrain Defense Force stated on Instagram. “The General Command clarifies that, with strong will and high combat readiness, the air defense systems with Bahrain’s defense force, intercepted and destroyed a number of treacherous Iranian air strikes today, Friday, July 17, 2026. The General Command assures that all its weapons and units are at the highest readiness and on defensive readiness to protect the kingdom.”

There were also claims from Iran that it again struck Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. installation in the region. The IRGC Aerospace Force claimed it destroyed several aerial refueling jets as well as radars, however, it provided no visual evidence. When we asked about the claim, CENTCOM declined comment.

Satellite imagery emerged on social media purporting to show the destruction of two hardened storage facilities and a warehouse at the Zayed Military City in Abu Dhabi. The scale of the damage appears to show what could be the results of an Iranian missile or drone strike.

UAE authorities, however, chalked it up to a mishap.

On Monday, UAE authorities claimed “firefighting teams of the UAE armed forces dealt with a fire which broke out in one of the warehouses of the Zayed Military City,” according to Khaleej Times. “The fire was caused by the burning of some wood and old ammunition, the country’s Ministry of Defense reported.”

Iran struck eastern Syria on Friday, Iranian state media ​and a Syrian military source said, Reuters reported. It was the first ‌known attack by Tehran on Syrian territory since a regional war erupted earlier this year.

The IRGC said it attacked a U.S. special operations ​command center at al-Tanf in Syria in retaliation for the ​killing of Iranian soldiers in Iranshahr, state media reported.

However, in February, CENTCOM said it had withdrawn from the facility at the border of Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

CENTCOM declined to comment when we asked about it, but minutes later posted a denial on X of any American casualties.

“CLAIM: Iranian forces claim they attacked al-Tanf Garrison in Syria and captured or killed American troops in the process. FALSE,” the command stated. “FACTS: No U.S. troops in the region have recently been killed or captured.”

CENTCOM declined to say if any U.S. troops had been killed or injured in any overnight attacks. According to the Pentagon’s casualty website, there have been 14 troops killed and 427 wounded since the launch of Epic Fury Feb. 28, but no recent deaths.

Six troops were killed in a drone strike on a base in Kuwait in March and six aircrew were killed when their KC-135 aerial refueling tanker reportedly collided with another over Iraq about 10 days later.

The latest round of strikes came after President Donald Trump promised to strike infrastructure and the Iranians promised to retaliate.

“We’re going to hit them very hard tomorrow night,” Trump proclaimed in an interview with Fox News on July 15. “We’re going to hit them very hard the night after, and then next week it gets really bad for them, because next week comes the power plants. Next week comes the bridges. We’re going to knock out all their power plants. We’re going to knock out all their bridges unless they get to the table and negotiate.”

Last night, Trump claimed “…we are winning big in Iran and you will see the fruits of that labor very, very shortly.”

Amid the renewed fighting, the number of transits in the Strait of Hormuz reached a three-week low, according to a MarineTraffic.com post on X, falling to eight yesterday, down from 15 the day before.

Meanwhile, the per barrel price of Brent crude hit a new high for the past 30 days on Friday, reaching almost $87.

Meanwhile, a new threat to oil exports from the region is looming. Iran has asked the Houthi rebels of Yemen, one of its main proxies, “to stand ready to close the Red Sea oil route if the United States strikes Iranian power infrastructure,” Reuters reported, citing three sources. “The idea has been discussed within the Islamic Republic’s leadership, and the message has been conveyed to Iran’s Houthi allies.”

As we have previously explained, a Houthi shut down of the Bab el-Mandeb (BAM) strait, a narrow stretch of water between Yemen and Djibouti, would choke off a flow of oil exports from Saudi Arabia, especially to the east, and from southern Gulf states west, exacerbating the above-mentioned spike in oil prices. Having both straits closed at once is something of a ‘sum of all fears’ scenario for the global energy marketplace.

It is unknown whether the U.S. and Iran will return to the bargaining table as both nations careen to a resumption of all-out war. We will continue to monitor this situation and provide updates when warranted.

UPDATE: 10:16 PM EDT –

CENTCOM says it wrapped up its seventh consecutive night of strikes on Iran at 9:30 PM EDT.

“U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) hit surveillance sites, military logistics infrastructure, underground weapons storage, and maritime capabilities,” the command stated on X. “U.S. forces employed fighter aircraft, aerial drones, and warships in addition to other assets.”

The end of the strikes came hours after Iran hit Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, Axios reporter Barak Ravid noted on X. Saudia Arabia had long been considered off the table by Iran and this marked first time that country has been attacked in nearly four months.

“Iran attacked at least two Jordanian bases this week, resulting in several American service members being injured in the attack after their facility was struck,” CBS News reported, citing “multiple U.S. officials.”

Data from NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS) at 10:59 PM EDT indicated a fire adjacent to the runway in an area where aircraft are parked at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. However, TWZ cannot independently verify what happened or whether anyone was killed or injured or if any aircraft or other equipment was destroyed or damaged. We’ve reached out to CENTCOM for answers.

Muwaffaq Salti, as we have previously reported, has come under attack numerous times. The air base has long been a major regional hub for U.S. operations, and is being very actively utilized in the current conflict. It hosts the greatest concentration of U.S. tactical aircraft in the region, and thus is an extremely important target, where even one ballistic missile landing on an apron could destroy multiple prized fighter aircraft and take the lives of U.S. service members or cause injuries.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post U.S.-Iran Fight Heats Up With Mutual Strikes On Infrastructure Targets appeared first on TWZ.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog, provided new details on the hypersonic missile upgrades for USS Zumwalt, also known by its hull number DDG-1000, in a report released today. The four new launch tubes, each of which will be able to hold three IRCPS missiles, notably take the place of the destroyer’s original pair of 155mm Advanced Gun Systems (AGS).

Zumwalt has also been receiving other improvements, including expanded fuel capacity allowing for increased range and endurance, as well as undergoing routine maintenance, in parallel to the IRCPS integration. The Navy refers to all of this work, collectively, as the Build Yard Modernization Period (BYMP).

The Navy’s other two Zumwalt class destroyers – the USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) and the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) – are set to receive the same complete slate of modifications. Work on the Lyndon B. Johnson is already underway as part of the larger process of delivering that ship, which is now scheduled for April 2027. The service also eventually plans to integrate IRCPS onto Block V Virginia class submarines.

The Navy’s IRCPS program is also being run in close cooperation with the U.S. Army. The missile at the core of IRCPS is the same one the Army is working to field in ground-based configuration, which it calls Dark Eagle.

The weapon itself consists of a multi-stage ballistic missile-like rocket booster with an unpowered hypersonic boost-glide vehicle on top. The booster gets the vehicle to an optimal speed and altitude, after which it is released. After separating from the booster, the vehicle glides along a relatively shallow flight path within the Earth’s atmosphere to its target, maneuvering along the way, sometimes erratically. In general, hypersonic boost-glide vehicles offer a combination of speed, flight trajectory, and maneuverability that creates distinct challenges for enemy forces. The vehicles are difficult to spot and track, let alone intercept. Their speed limits the time an opponent has to react in other ways. The ability to pierce enemy air defenses and rapidly strike very high-value targets, even ones that may be fleeting, is what makes hypersonic weapons of this type attractive.

“Over the past year, the cost and schedule performance on the first ship to undergo this [IRCPS and other upgrade] work, the DDG 1000, has degraded,” according to GAO’s report. “Program officials reported that the primary cause of recent delays is unplanned work.”

As already noted, one “source of unplanned work and delays per program officials is that this is the first time that the Navy has shut down and restarted key DDG 1000 class ship systems,” per GAO. “For example, equipment failures in the ship’s complex electrical system, which is akin to a small power plant, contributed to delays.”

Zumwalt‘s IPS is a hybrid-electric system that combines gas turbines and electric generators. Hybrid propulsion is not unique, broadly speaking, to this class of ships, but the DDG-1000 design takes it to a completely different level. IPS can generate up to “approximately 78 megawatts of power, nearly what a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier generates,” according to the Navy. It is also said to be able to pump out 58 megawatts of reserve power even while cruising at 20 knots. This level of power generation is essential to support the ship’s array of advanced capabilities, but it also comes with complexities that have proven troublesome over the years.

In addition, “the unplanned work addresses the need for more cabling than was anticipated in the initial project design, as the contractor cut and removed more cabling than planned from the forward part of the ship for CPS missile launch tube installation,” the report adds. “The additional cabling was needed to match changes to the ship configuration since new construction cables were installed as part of the BYMP.”

Overall, “program officials noted that the Navy modified the BYMP contract with Huntington Ingalls in August 2025 to add 230,000 hours – at a cost of $20 million – for unplanned work,” according to GAO. “The program reported increasing its estimate to upgrade all three ships from $1.8 billion to at least $2 billion.”

GAO says the Navy also stressed that this is the first time it has ever integrated a hypersonic weapon onto one of its warships, and that it has been a learning experience. The service says it is working to ensure that useful lessons are being woven into ongoing work on Lyndon B. Johnson, as well as USS Michael Monsoor‘s future BYMP availability, which is slated to begin before the end of the year.

The timeline for delivery of the Lyndon B. Johnson and the upgrade schedule for Michael Monsoor are already delayed, as can be seen in the GAO graphic below. Delays have also pushed back the target date for a first live-fire at-sea IRCPS launch, a milestone now set to come next year.

The Navy and the Army have conducted several land-based launches as part of a test plan that has suffered its own setbacks in the past.

The Zumwalt class, as a whole, has suffered various trials and tribulations over the years due to a variety of factors. This includes persistent technical difficulties with various systems, especially the main AN/SPY-3 radar. There have been signs for years now that the Navy could replace the AN/SPY-3 with a version of the newer AN/SPY-6. A growing number of other Navy ships are already sailing with or are set to receive AN/SPY-6 variants. The ships have also seen other cutting-edge capabilities watered down.

Challenges facing the Zumwalt class destroyers have been compounded by the prior decision to slash planned orders for these ships from 32 to just three. This has also made the ships extremely expensive to acquire, operate, and sustain. In a separate annual assessment of major U.S. military programs released earlier this month, GAO reported that the unit cost of each of the destroyers had risen to just over $10.6 billion (inclusive of research and development costs). The total acquisition cost of the DDG-1000 program is now nearly $32 billion. For comparison, the price tag on a new Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyer is around $2.5 billion, according to data released last year by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Broader questions have been raised about the roles and missions that the trio of Zumwalt class ships can be reasonably expected to perform. IRCPS will give the members of the Zumwalt class a new, very-long-range, high-value strategic strike role. The Navy sees this as a key capability for future high-end fights, such as one against China in the Pacific.

At the same time, GAO’s report today also highlights the small number of missiles the Navy and the Army are in the process of acquiring now for IRCPS and Dark Eagle. Prime contractor Lockheed Martin still has limited capacity to produce them, too.

“Navy data indicate that the contractor facility operations are not currently able to meet demand, making it difficult for Lockheed Martin to keep production commitments,” according to GAO. “Specifically, the facility is currently capable of producing a maximum of six to seven rounds a year out of the 12 rounds per year necessary to stabilize production.”

“Over the past 5 years, CPS costs estimates have fluctuated, driven by factors such as the Navy’s removal or addition of host platforms, revisions to total quantities, planned periodic capability insertions, and production time frames to date, among others,” per GAO’s report. “In fiscal year 2020, early in the MTA [middle tier acquisition] rapid prototyping phase, the Navy estimated it would cost about $31 billion in total lifecycle costs for a program that would deliver 262 missiles. In 2024, the Navy increased its estimate of the total cost to acquire CPS by about 30 percent while reducing the number of missiles to be procured – now $41 billion in total lifecycle costs for 224 missiles.”

“These missile quantities do not reflect a specific program requirement, according to CPS program officials, but rather modeling based on various inputs, including budget documents, analyses of industrial base capacity, and direct, ongoing collaboration with the U.S. Strategic Command and the requirements sponsor – OPNAV N97 [the Undersea Warfare Division within the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations],” the report also notes. “Additionally, the Army is planning to spend more than $10 billion to procure 48 missiles and associated ground support equipment.”

As of April 2026, the average estimated unit cost for each missile was pegged at approximately $67 million. GAO points out that “the exact unit cost will depend on the contractor’s efficiency in production, which is, in part, dependent on stable annual procurement funding for the missile.”

USS Zumwalt‘s formal return to the fleet as the Navy’s first vessel equipped to fire hypersonic missiles will be an important milestone. However, signs still very much point to IRCPS being a relatively limited and costly capability, likely to be held in reserve for very high-priority targets, at least in the near term.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post USS Zumwalt Set To Return To Fleet After Long Anticipated Hypersonic Missile Upgrade appeared first on TWZ.

The photos were published on the Facebook account of the Australian Army’s School of Armor. Located at the Puckapunyal Military Area in Victoria, southeastern Australia, this serves as the army’s center of excellence for mounted combat and armored fighting vehicle training.

According to the school, this specific tank was prepared by soldiers from B Squadron, 3rd/4th Cavalry Regiment, as part of the OPFOR element for the Royal Australian Armored Corps Officer Basic Course (ROBC), which includes field training assessments. The latest ROBC will culminate in Exercise Tungsten Forge/Gauntlet Strike, a combined-arms tactical training exercise, and a capstone event for junior officers learning mechanized warfare and tank command. “Good luck to the junior officers as they attempt to outmaneuver a seasoned enemy commander,” the School of Armor declared in the caption accompanying the photos.

The most obvious aspect of the M1A2 Abrams’ transformation is its People’s Liberation Army-style ‘digital’ camouflage scheme, with prominent blocks in four colors — including bright green — over the standard three-tone camouflage. The tank is also fitted with dummy external fuel tanks on the rear of the turret. These are a common feature of Russian and Chinese tank designs, albeit fitted on the rear of the hull, something that’s not possible on the Abrams due to the exhaust outlet.

The end result is an Abrams that’s visually similar to a Type 99, China’s first mass-produced third-generation main battle tank, and the most important in the People’s Liberation Army inventory.

It’s noteworthy, too, that the Abrams’ turret side appears to have the slogan ‘Bing Chilling’ applied. This should be a reference to a video-based meme in which wrestler and actor John Cena is shown saying ‘ice cream’ in Mandarin — words that can be phonetically written as ‘Bing Chilling.’

Overall, the primary objective of surrogate platforms like these is to replicate the visual appearance of potential adversary vehicles, not their exact capabilities or configurations. These surrogate platforms are designed as stand-ins rather than one-for-one copies of foreign equipment. Fielding visually representative vehicles during OPFOR exercises adds an extra layer of realism to training, helping troops practice target recognition, vehicle identification, and other battlefield observation skills under more authentic conditions.

It is possible that the Abrams will additionally be fitted with training devices designed to simulate the firing capabilities and vulnerability of specific adversary vehicles. This can be done using tools like the Instrumentable-Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (I-MILES), a laser-based training aid.

Under a roughly $2.5-billion deal, Australia is getting 75 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tanks, together with armored support vehicles. The Abrams are being procured under the Main Battle Tank Upgrade, formally known as LAND 907 Phase 2, and the U.S. government approved the sale of these new vehicles to Australia via Foreign Military Sales channels in 2021. Meanwhile, Canberra agreed to provide Ukraine with 49 of its older M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks.

The M1A2 SEPv3 — or System Enhancement Program version 3 — was developed by the U.S. Army to address lessons learned during fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and represents a major advance over the Australian Army’s previous M1A1 (AIM) variants, 59 of which were acquired second-hand from the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. The first of the new tanks were delivered to Australia in 2024.

The fact that the Australian Abrams is very much a frontline vehicle, available in limited numbers, explains the cosmetic nature of the OPFOR version. After the exercise is completed, it can be rapidly returned to its normal configuration.

This separates it from more bespoke surrogate enemy platforms, like those used by the U.S. Army’s National Training Center, for example, which relies on visually modified (VISMOD) M113 and Humvee-type vehicles to field surrogate Russian-made T-72s and BTR-90s, among others.

It is not clear whether the Australian Army’s School of Armor has prepared additional Abrams as surrogates, but it does describe “in-service armored fighting vehicles” (plural) as having been adapted. Depending on the scale of the exercise, other candidates might include Chinese infantry fighting vehicles or self-propelled artillery.

At the same time, the People’s Liberation Army is also preparing for a potential conflict by training with surrogate platforms that represent a Western enemy. This is part of a much wider Chinese military investment in replicas and advanced training centers.

Last year, TWZ reported on China’s use of trucks designed to mimic the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), soon after the first examples of the U.S.-made system were delivered to Taiwan. The surrogate vehicles were painted in Republic of Taiwan Army-style camouflage. HIMARS is also used by the Australian Army.

Wherever they are being used, surrogate vehicles give training centers a cost-effective way to replicate foreign military equipment without acquiring and maintaining actual allied or adversary vehicles. Whether elaborate or more rudimentary, VISMODs provide a greater degree of visual realism, while their performance and other capabilities can increasingly be simulated digitally during exercises.

At the same time, platforms chosen as surrogates also offer a snapshot of the strategic priorities and perceived threats of the era.

In this case, the ‘Chinese-look’ Abrams reflects how Australia’s defense posture has shifted significantly in recent years toward preparing for the prospect of high-end conflict in the Indo-Pacific, with China’s expanding military capabilities serving as the principal driver.

In its 2023 Defense Strategic Review and subsequent National Defense Strategy, the Australian government placed greater emphasis on deterrence by denial, long-range strike, and the ability to operate alongside the United States and regional partners.

While Canberra tends to avoid explicitly identifying Beijing as an adversary, Australia’s force modernization — including the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS, long-range and hypersonic missiles, enhanced northern basing — is clearly oriented toward countering the challenges posed by the People’s Liberation Army in a potential Indo-Pacific contingency. Increasingly realistic exercises centered on peer threats, such as Chinese tanks, provide further evidence of this.

Contact the author: thomas@thedrive.com

The post Australian Army Unveils Abrams Disguised As Chinese Tank appeared first on TWZ.

The move comes as the U.S. is struggling to come anywhere near keeping pace with China in the number of ships it can build and amid delays and cost overruns of projects underway. Boosting America’s capacity to turn out new ships and keep existing ones sailing has been a focus of the Trump administration.

The Austin, Texas-headquartered Saronic said it plans to invest more than $3 billion of its own money to build the facility, which it is calling Port Alpha. The location was chosen after a year-long search.

“Brownsville was selected after a rigorous review of workforce availability, infrastructure readiness, land scale, logistics, and expansion potential,” the company said in a release. “Initially situated on 835 acres at the Port of Brownsville, with the opportunity to expand to nearly 4,400 acres, Port Alpha will encompass a shipyard and manufacturing facility capable of producing vessels up to 850 feet. Future site expansion could support the production of vessels over 1,200 ft. The site provides hundreds of acres of waterfront access, deepwater channel connectivity, multimodal logistics infrastructure, and room for long-term expansion—everything required to anchor a next-generation shipbuilding hub.”

In an interview with TWZ earlier this month, company co-founder and CCO Rob Lehman laid out his vision for the new facility.

“Port Alpha is planned to be the largest shipyard in the Western Hemisphere,” Lehman told us. “We are seeing the need for more shipbuilding capacity, and we are answering the call with a greenfield new yard that will provide the Navy, Coast Guard — all of our sea services — the capacity that they’ve been asking for, and they desperately need.”

“We are here to help address the gaps that we are facing and do it at a speed and scale that hasn’t been seen before,” he added.

Asked about what kinds of ships the yard will build, Lehman said Port Alpha “will be capable of producing everything up to Panamax-sized cargo containers, roll on/roll offs, we are open to a variety of different ship classes, both commercial and military.”

Panamax ships — so named because they are the biggest vessels that can fit through the Panama Canal — have a maximum length of 294 meters and a maximum width of 32 meters, according to SeaRates.com. 

Lehman said Saronic is focusing on “how do we create a shipyard of the future that is able to support multiple types of vessels and move at a pace and a level of agility that aligns with how technology is advancing. So commercial ships, military ships, modules, everything under the sun.”

“We are keenly focused and ruthlessly focused, frankly, on what does the customer set need, what are they unable to acquire or sustain within the timelines that they require, and how can we address that? So, as long as we know what’s needed, we can put our private capital to work and not force the government to pay never-ending research and development costs.”

At the time of the interview, Lehman declined to provide any further details about the plans or the exact location. However, he did compare it to an existing shipyard the company purchased last year.

“When we acquired the former Gulf Craft yard last April, [compared] to what it looks like now, we’re investing $300 million into that yard already to expand capacity,” he noted. “We’re bringing hundreds and thousands of jobs to the Gulf Coast, and we look to take that same model and just on steroids at Port Alpha. So, unlike Gulf Craft, it’ll be a greenfield yard, so we have all of the flexibility to design the shipyard of the future without the constraints of an existing physical plant.”

In the media release issued today, Saronic claimed that “the project is expected to generate more than $160 billion in regional economic impact for Cameron County and $264.5 billion for the State of Texas, while creating up to 10,000 direct jobs. This makes Port Alpha one of the largest economic development projects in modern Texas history.”

Construction is anticipated to begin in 2026, with Port Alpha expected to open for operations in 2028, the release continued. Company officials did not specify exactly what ships will be built at Port Alpha. Currently, Saronic makes three uncrewed surface vessels (USV).

Corsair, the aforementioned USV used as a kamikaze weapon, is a 24-foot vessel capable of carrying up to 1,000 lbs over 1,000 NM.

Mirage is a 52-foot USV with a range of 2,500 NM of range and 3,500 lbs of payload capacity.

Marauder is a 180-foot USV with a range of 5,200 NM and is capable of carrying up to 150 metric tons in four 40-foot containers, eight 20-foot containers, or other modular payload configurations.

The Navy is set to evaluate Marauder, as well as designs from six other companies, as part of the first round of prototyping under its latest Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV) effort. This is part of a larger strategy the service rolled out in March to try to field more USVs and do so faster, as you can read more about here 

Saronic is on a roll of late. As we noted earlier in this story, three of its Corsair sea drones were used earlier this week to attack “a submarine and ship maintenance facility in Iran,” U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced. It marked the first time that the U.S. used sea drones as kamikaze attack weapons.

Last month, a Saronic Corsair USV rescued the crew of a U.S. Army AH-64 Apache that crashed in the Gulf of Oman after it was downed by Iran. That was the first known instance of a drone boat being used to recover personnel as part of a search and rescue mission, and has major implications for these operations going forward.

In December 2025, the company was awarded a $392 million contract from the Navy. The production contract was for the construction of USVs like the Corsair. 

If Port Alpha lives up to the hype, it would be a boon to the Navy and an American shipbuilding industry that struggles to get new vessels out on time and on budget, while supporting those that are already in the water. 

As we noted in previous coverage of U.S. shipbuilding woes, keeping existing vessels afloat “has been a massive challenge as the Navy’s fleet ages while demands for more hulls increase. Crumbling shipyards around the U.S.and a limited number of them that can support mainline military vessels is a huge problem that has led to major delays in maintenance, greatly harming available end strength. It is also of major concern if ships were to get damaged in battle during a conflict and need to be regenerated quickly. While some improvements and investments have been made in upgrading shipyards, it is still a glaring and highly concerning issue.”

The situation is so dire that “the U.S. Navy has officially issued two Requests for Information (RFIs) to major South Korean shipbuilders to assess their capacity to build American destroyers and fleet tankers,” according to Naval News. Such a move “could end an 80-year ban on foreign warship construction,” the outlet added.

Given the state of U.S. shipbuilding, a lot is riding on Port Alpha and the future of this plan is definitely worth keeping an eye on.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Drone Ship Maker Saronic Announces New $3B Shipyard In Texas Capable of Building 850-Foot Vessels appeared first on TWZ.

The ship is being built at a yard on Longxue Island, which is situated just southeast of the city of Guangzhou. A review of satellite imagery from Planet Labs indicates that it has been under construction since at least February. A subsidiary of the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) operates this facility. That firm is currently known as the CSSC Offshore and Marine Engineering Company (COMEC). It was previously called Guangzhou Shipyard International (GSI).

COMEC/GSI’s public portfolio is focused on large commercial vessels, including oil and liquid natural gas (LNG) tankers and cargo ships. It also builds specialized civilian designs, such as semi-submersible heavy lift ships and platforms designed to support offshore wind turbine construction.

In recent years, the yard has become well known for the construction of unique and unusual vessels with clear military or at least dual-purpose applications. This includes what may be a one-of-a-kind ostensibly civilian ‘research carrier,’ jack-up barges designed to connect together to support amphibious operations, and a stealthy trimaran drone ship. Soviet-designed Zubr class heavy hovercraft, which China has built examples of domestically under license, are also regularly seen there.

The ship being built on Longxue Island that is now drawing attention is approximately 885 feet (270 meters) long and is 121 feet (37 meters) across at its widest (also known as the beam), based on available satellite imagery. There is a superstructure at the bow end with clear wings for a large bridge and a mast on top. There is also a separate superstructure at the stern end with exhaust stacks situated in front of it.

In May, CSSC also released a picture of the COMEC/GSI yard showing the ship from the stern as viewed from near ground level. The image, which was reportedly included in a social media post marking the change in solar terms in the traditional Chinese calendar, shows a large hangar with two openings at the rear of the stern superstructure. A large flight deck and hangar are also taking shape at the stern.

A Planet Labs satellite image taken on July 2, seen at the top of this story and in parts throughout, also shows two large openings on the right side of the superstructure at the stern. These might be for launching and/or recovering small boats, including lifeboats. These could also just be apertures for crew walkways or other workspaces.

However, it is what is seen in between the two superstructures that may be the most notable aspect of the ship. There are several pillar-like vertical structures positioned relatively close to both sides of the hull. This is in line with what is typically seen on naval vessels configured to conduct at-sea refueling and replenishment of other stores. The flight deck and hangar at the stern would also allow for vertical replenishment via helicopters.

“The hull form is broad and slab-sided, with a full midsection optimised for volume rather than speed alone. This is a characteristic associated with large fleet auxiliaries designed to carry fuel, dry stores, and ammunition for carrier strike groups,” according to a report on this ship from Jane’s back in April.

The ship’s design language also follows modern PLAN standards. Its layout, in broad strokes, is very similar to that of the Type 901 replenishment ship in PLAN service now. The PLAN also operates smaller Type 903 replenishment ships that have a roughly similar configuration, as well.

Overall, the new ship under construction at the COMEC/GSI yard looks very much like a Type 901, but substantially scaled up. The Type 901 is quite large already, with a length of around 787 feet (240 meters) and a beam measuring just under 102 feet (31 meters). It is also said to displace some 45,000 tons with a full load. As another point of comparison, the U.S. Navy’s newest John Lewis class replenishment oilers are just under 746 feet (227.3 meters) long and have roughly a 105-foot (32.2-meter) wide beam, according to the official fact sheet.

What other, more specific features and capabilities the new ship might have remains to be seen. What kind of armament it might have, even just for localized self-defense, is unknown. The Type 901 has four 30mm H/PJ-13 Gatling-type guns in turrets to provide close-in defense.

At-sea replenishment, in general, is a critical capability for any major navy that desires to conduct sustained blue water operations without having to rely on friendly ports. Even during peacetime in the broad expanses of the Pacific, port facilities of any kind, let alone ones capable of supporting large warships, can be few and far between and under direct threat.

For the PLAN, there is the added demand for at-sea replenishment support that comes from operating a growing fleet of so-far conventionally-powered aircraft carriers. Those carriers require steady streams of gas for their air wings on top of the fuel and other support needed to keep them sailing at all.

The PLAN is also conducting more regular operations involving full carrier strike groups with conventionally-powered escorts that also need refueling and other support to keep up. During combat operations, replenishment ships also bring vital additional supplies of munitions to forward-deployed vessels.

It really cannot be overstressed how important at-sea replenishment is to modern blue water naval operations. This was underscored just earlier this year by challenges the U.S. Navy faced in keeping its conventionally-powered warships in the Middle East fueled amid Iranian attacks on friendly ports.

“So traditionally, for 25 years, we’ve been at war in the Middle East and that war was effectively fought in the parking lot of a giant gas station,” Robert Hein, Director of Maritime Operations for the U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Command (MSC), said during the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space exposition in April. “Iran has effectively shut down that gas station. So we’ve had to come up with really creative ways of, ‘how do we replenish the fleet?’”

You can read more about the “tanker treadmills” the Navy instituted in response, as well as other steps the service is taking now to bolster its at-sea replenishment capabilities and capacity, here.

It is worth noting here that America’s aircraft carriers are now all nuclear-powered, which eliminates their need to be refueled at sea. However, they still need gas for their air wings and other support to conduct sustained forward operations. Their escorts are all conventionally-powered, as well. As an aside, China may now be in the process of building its first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

Other fighting in the Middle East in recent years has also rammed home the vital importance of at-sea rearming capabilities for the U.S. Navy, especially methods for reloading vertical launch system cells on warships that it currently does not possess. Last year, in the midst of operations against Yemen’s Houthis, the service acknowledged that its warships were having to leave their stations in and around the Red Sea for weeks at a time to rearm in ports.

There may be a possibility that the ship under construction at the COMEC/GSI yard could be something other than a huge new at-sea replenishment ship, but this seems extremely unlikely. As noted, the ship has an array of distinct features that are exactly what one would expect to see on a replenishment vessel, and an overall configuration in line with that of the Type 901.

The new ship’s large size, both in terms of length and width, will offer far more internal volume for fuel, munitions, spare parts, food, and everything else needed to keep a carrier strike group operating far out to sea. China has a growing number of other ships that will require blue water support, too. This includes its massive Type 076 amphibious assault ship, which is expected to carry a substantial air wing, as well as a growing number of smaller Type 075 types.

The appearance of this ship at the COMEC/GSI also comes as the PLAN continues to modernize and expand its fleets across the board, in scale and scope, with a clear eye toward more regular and sustained blue water operations. China has been investing heavily in establishing a network of naval port facilities around the Pacific and elsewhere globally to help support these activities, as well. As noted, having to rely on friendly ports is not always desirable or even possible, especially during a conflict when the countries in question may be neutral parties.

The steady flow of warships and other naval vessels, many of them very large, from shipyards across China underscores the PLAN’s broader ambitions. As TWZ regularly points out, this has created an increasingly worrisome disparity between Chinese and U.S. naval shipbuilding capacity, or lack thereof in the latter case. The U.S. government has been trying to reverse this trend, including by leveraging foreign shipbuilders, but significant challenges remain.

Satellite imagery shows significant progress on the new ship of interest at the COMEC/GSI yard since the start of this year. More insights into the design and capabilities of what is likely to be the world’s largest dedicated naval replenishment vessel should emerge as that work wraps up.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post China Is Building A Monster Supply Ship For Its Carrier Groups appeared first on TWZ.

After a recent logistics training exercise in South Korea, photographs were posted on the Pentagon’s image distribution site showing what appears to be anti-drone netting on a ship-to-shore floating platform used for moving cargo and troops. While it’s possible that it could be for some other purpose, the netting appears to be in line with other examples of drone defensive measures seen in Ukraine and many other places, including recent usage by Dutch forces.

The idea behind the netting, as we have reported in the past, is that drones will get caught up in the nylon or mesh metal nets and become disabled, or the nets will help keep the drones far enough from personnel before exploding to keep them from being killed. How protective the netting set up by the South Koreans would be against highly maneuverable first-person view (FPV) drones is questionable, given how open it is on both ends, though it could provide some protection from lighter munitions dropped by so-called bomber drones. Beyond that, the netting only covers one section of the floating platform, presumably where the cargo or a vehicle will go, leaving the rest of it, as well as the ship and its wheelhouse, fully exposed.

The images were taken during Combined Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore 26 (CJLOTS 26) at Dogu Beach, Pohang, South Korea on July 9. The goal of CJLOTS 26 was to allow the Marines and partners from the Republic of Korea’s military to deliver supplies from a vessel stationed offshore without requiring existing infrastructure like a pier.

“The offload was a Maritime Prepositioning Force exercise where 3rd Marine Logistics Group (MLG) distributes equipment from a created port of entry and provides support to III Marine Expeditionary Force units training throughout South Korea, testing and validating 3rd MLG’s ability to conduct integrated logistics operations in complex environments,” the Marines noted. “CJLOTS 26 is a combined exercise designed to integrate U.S. and Republic of Korea lighterage and ship-to-shore connector capabilities, improve combined readiness, strengthen the Republic of Korea-U.S. alliance, and expand combined maritime sustainment capacity during logistics operations.”

The images show Republic of Korea service members aboard an Improved Navy Lighterage System (INLS), “a sea state three (SS3) capable causeway system that resembles a floating pier comprised of interchangeable modules and is used to transfer cargo from Military Sealift Command (MSC) ships to shore areas where conventional port facilities are unavailable or inadequate,” according to the Navy.

The troops were conducting what is called a “beach stabbing,” where the module is attached to the beach so that vehicles and troops can come ashore.

You can see another example of the INLS system in the following photograph taken in 2022.

While the drone defense wasn’t specifically mentioned in the photos, U.S. Forces Korea/Combined Forces Command did explain CJLOTS 26 was part of a large-scale training exercise designed with the drone threat in mind.

“To enhance full-domain operational sustainment capabilities, the exercise integrated five types of ground, maritime and air sustainment assets,” according to U.S. Forces Korea/Combined Forces Command. “Reflecting evolving battlefield conditions, the training also strengthened protection measures for sustainment nodes against threats such as hostile drone attacks.”

There’s good reason for counter-drone efforts to be baked into logistics operations. The war in Ukraine has shown that drone attacks have made resupplying front line troops such a deadly endeavor that there is an increasing use of ground robots to carry out these missions.

Any fight against China or North Korea would almost assuredly see large numbers of drones descending on South Korean and allied forces. Both countries have developed large arsenals of these weapons and the technology to use them at scale. North Korea, as we have reported in the past, has gotten assistance from Russia on drone technology as well as direct experience fighting Ukraine. The regime has invested significant resources into evolving its drone capabilities across all tiers.

Amphibious operations are especially vulnerable to short-range drone attacks. Approaching over the horizon in open water to a controlled beach means commanders can assume their assets will be attacked by FPV and other short-range drone types, and likely at scale.

The extent and effectiveness of netting that would be deployed as a passive defensive measure in future battles is an open question as is their use by American forces. However, U.S. military doctrine is starting to acknowledge the need. Newly released guidance from the Pentagon suggests using such systems as part of a layered defense against small drones.

“Two proven ways to disrupt drones are shaping their physical environment and interfering with their signals,” according to a new handbook published by the Pentagon’s Joint Interagency Task Force 401. “Obstacles such as fencing, netting, or over-head structures can alter flight paths, block common avenues of approach, and push drones into visible or unfavorable routes while also degrading control links, GPS (Global Positioning Systems), or navigation timing.”

The Pentagon established JIATF 401 last August to coordinate counter-drone efforts across the department and help accelerate the fielding of new capabilities. The guidance in the handbook follows a call in February by the task force for the increased use of netting, cables, and other kinds of passive physical defenses to protect critical infrastructure. It is part of an evolving trend by the U.S. toward acceptance of these measures, something we discussed in great detail here. 

In addition, as we reported two years ago, U.S. Air Force officials at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia were looking at installing anti-drone nets to help protect F-22 Raptor stealth fighters on the flightline. That came nearly a year after the base was subjected to waves of still-mysterious drone incursions, which The War Zone was first to report. 

Still, despite JIATF 401’s suggestions about netting and the Air Force’s interest in installing it to protect prized aircraft, there is scant evidence of widespread use by the U.S. military, leaving it lagging as these measures proliferate around the globe.

As we noted earlier in this piece, TWZ has showcased examples of netting use beyond Ukraine. The most recent instances emerged in Lebanon, where Israeli troops began using netting to protect against increasing attacks from Hezbollah FPV drones. The netting was erected after Israeli military leaders were heavily criticized for not doing enough to protect their troops from drone attacks. In fact, some Israeli troops were so desperate to get netting they reached out to fisherman.

The following video shows one example of Israel’s use of anti-drone netting.

Elsewhere, we reported that Taiwan is using anti-drone netting to protect its air defense systems. There are also reports published in the Netherlands that Dutch troops trained using anti-drone “net tunnels” – similar to those used by Russia and Ukraine – during an exercise in Germany last month called “Fighter Lion.”

Whether the netting seen in the logistics training exercise in South Korea represents a trend, or a one-off experiment, is currently unknown. However, one thing is clear. Netting, while certainly no panacea, is increasingly viewed as a critical countermeasure for militaries across the globe.

Author’s note: This story and headline have been edited post-publication. After publication, III MEF responded to our initial query made before the story was written and explained that the platform is owned by South Korea and that, while not sure this is anti-drone netting, the Marines would not likely use such a bright color for such a device.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post South Korea Used Anti-Drone Netting During Recent Logistics Exercise appeared first on TWZ.

Storm Fighter forms part of a much broader U.K. push to introduce uncrewed and autonomous systems across the armed forces under a defense modernization effort backed by around $6.6 billion over the next four years. You can read more about this Defense Investment Plan (DIP) here.

Speaking at the Air & Space Power Association Global Air and Space Chiefs’ Conference in London today, Luke Pollard, the U.K. minister for defense readiness and industry, said that Storm Fighter will be funded using the $406 million investment in CCAs included in the DIP published earlier this month.

“We are maximizing our air power in the eye of the storm of future combat, that will be swarming with drones, sixth-generation fighter jets and ever evolving EW [electronic warfare] capabilities,” Pollard said, adding, “I am delighted to reveal that our new autonomous CCA program will be named Storm Fighter […] to deliver guardian angel and attack dog drones to fly into combat with the Typhoon, F-35, and Tempest. Storm Fighter will make the RAF Europe’s first sixth-generation air force.”

The Storm Fighter nomenclature is in line with a set of ‘Storm’ programs in the air warfare domain. Previous ones include Storm Shroud, which will provide the Royal Air Force with a new uncrewed electronic warfare drone, that will enter service this year. Meanwhile, the Royal Air Force today also announced a new EW drone, named Storm Chrome, as well as Storm Fire, a 1,000-mile-range one-way attack drone.

As an example of the experimental programs that could feed into Storm Fighter, Pollard highlighted Project Vanquish, which is intended to demonstrate a fixed-wing, short takeoff and landing autonomous collaborative platform (ACP) from a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier before the end of 2027. The ACP terminology has been used in the United Kingdom in the past and is broadly equivalent to CCA.

The Royal Navy has explored various drone options for its carriers in the past. It has tested the General Atomics Mojave short takeoff and landing (STOL) drone from HMS Prince of Wales class, as well as catapult-launching smaller, jet-powered drones.

Pollard referencing the Royal Navy Vanquish ACP program is noteworthy and reflects the struggles that the Royal Air Force has faced in getting similar efforts off the ground.

The Royal Air Force had been working on the Project Mosquito as part of the broader Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) initiative. Project Mosquito called for a prototype “uncrewed fighter aircraft” flying by 2023, and in 2021 a contract for the aircraft was awarded to Spirit AeroSystems. Mosquito was canceled in 2022 for reasons that are not entirely clear, although it may well have become clear that the ambition couldn’t be realized with the relatively tiny budget, just $41 million across three years.

Speaking at the Global Air and Space Chiefs’ Conference, a Royal Air Force official stressed that Storm Fighter should result in a vehicle “that is good enough, that is cheap enough, that can be produced fast enough, and we need enough of them.” The official added: “If you’re building something that takes 70 percent of the build time of an F-35 and costs three-quarters of it, then rip up your CCA program and start again.”

Clearly, however, the Royal Air Force still needs a loyal wingman-type platform. This is the same ambition outlined by the U.K. Ministry of Defense in the past, when it described drones that would “fly at high speed alongside fighter jets” and would carry “missiles, surveillance and electronic warfare technology.”

When Project Mosquito was still active, the U.K. Ministry of Defense also stressed that its future loyal wingman would be expected to target and shoot down enemy aircraft and “survive against surface-to-air missiles.”

While Pollard’s words today were ambiguous, his reference to providing “guardian angel and attack dog drones” suggests that both aerial combat and strike missions could be covered. On the other hand, this might also describe both offensive and defensive counter-air missions.

It’s notable, too, that the new CCA should fly into combat with the F-35, Tempest, and Typhoon. The last of these is currently planned to be withdrawn from service by 2040, so the drone would have to be in operational use ahead of the arrival of the sixth-generation Tempest.

As to who might build the Storm Fighter, Janes reports that “several contractors have already indicated their interest, most prominently BAE Systems and Boeing,” although a formal set of requirements is yet to be published.

In the case of Boeing, the company’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat has already attracted some official interest in the United Kingdom. In 2023, Rear Adm. James Parkin, Director Develop for the Royal Navy, gave a presentation that included a slide with a Boeing rendering showing a variant or derivative of the MQ-28 with a visible tailhook landing on a Queen Elizabeth class carrier.

TWZ has also made the case for the Australia-United Kingdom-United States defense cooperation agreement, or AUKUS, to be extended to cover the MQ-28 and other uncrewed technologies.

Meanwhile, BAE Systems is also involved in the MQ-28 program, providing the autonomous Vehicle Management System (VMS) and elements of the Ground Control Station (GCS) that monitor and control the drone. The company has also presented a rendering of a notional stealthy CCA, as seen at the top of this story. This has some features reminiscent of renderings of the Tempest crewed combat jet, including large-area trapezoidal wings and cropped outward-canted tailfins. The drone has a wedge-shaped nose intake, partially shrouded by a prominent ‘lip.’

In its work on CCAs, BAE Systems is also working in collaboration with Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works division, which is also heavily involved in this field. This includes a higher-end stealthy CCA-type drone named Vectis. The uncrewed aircraft is designed to be highly adaptable to an operator’s requirements, which would appear to place it particularly well for the U.K. Storm Fighter initiative, especially if paired with BAE Systems.

When it comes to stealthy drones, BAE Systems’ experience dates back far longer, including a proof-of-concept UCAV testbed called Taranis.

Apart from the two contractors mentioned, the Royal Air Force CCA effort is likely to attract attention from others, too.

General Atomics has pitched to the United Kingdom a carrier-capable member of its Gambit drone family, which is based around a common modular core ‘chassis’ concept, and which could fit into a future air wing aboard the Queen Elizabeth class. The company already provides the Royal Air Force with Protector drones.

Other U.S. pitches could come from Northrop Grumman or Kratos, while there is also a growing pool of potential European players.

For now, Storm Fighter remains little more than a name attached to an emerging requirement, with no design, contractor, or acquisition timeline yet formalized — as far as we know. Even so, today’s announcement signals that the Royal Air Force is once again serious about fielding a loyal wingman capability after the demise of Project Mosquito. This comes as other European nations are already firming up their CCA requirements and setting in-service goals, while more major players are now deeply involved in proving out operational concepts.

With autonomous aircraft now central to the broader U.K. defense strategy and the Tempest program steadily advancing, the pressure will be on to turn Storm Fighter into an operational capability.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post UK Unveils Storm Fighter Loyal Wingman Program appeared first on TWZ.

The range target was included in a very broad request for information (RFI) contracting notice regarding a future Air Wing of the Future (AWOTF) “family of systems,” which Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) put out this week. NAVAIR is looking for prospective drone designs that could perform any combination of eight distinct missions. These are surface warfare; strike warfare; anti-submarine warfare; air warfare; electronic warfare; intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting (ISR&T); mobility; and logistics. A breakdown of how these missions are defined, in general terms, in the RFI is provided below.

It should be noted here that the Navy says the family of AWOTF platforms already includes the MQ-25A Stingray tanker drone, which will have a secondary surveillance and reconnaissance role, as well as future Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA). The Navy is still very early on in the process of defining what it wants its CCA drones to be able to do, even just initially. As TWZ has noted in the past, the MQ-25’s core design and baseline performance, specifically its extreme endurance and low-signature design, also leave open the possibility that it could be adapted to strike, advanced ISR, and other missions in the future.

“For missions involving attacking the enemy, the system must be capable of delivering effects a minimum of 1,000 NM [nautical miles; approximately 1,151 miles statute miles or 1,900 kilometers] from the CVN without refueling,” the RFI NAVAIR issued yesterday says.

The drones must be “fully compatible with both Nimitz class and Ford class CVN launch and recovery systems,” per the RFI. “The system must demonstrate increased combat effectiveness over current 4th generation platforms at a given spot factor.”

Spot factor here is the amount of physical space the platform occupies, which is a very important consideration for carrier-based aircraft, where room on the flight deck and below is at a premium. Though the focus is on prospective carrier-based designs, the RFI also highlights the Navy’s interest in vertical takeoff and landing capable drones that could operate from destroyers or other vessels. This is something the service has openly discussed in the past and that we will come back to later on.

The Navy also wants any potential designs to be “capable of integration into existing U.S. Navy Unmanned Carrier Aviation (UCA) control systems.” Furthermore, the service is asking prospective vendors to explain how their concepts “address flight autonomy (e.g., carrier pattern, taxiing) and mission autonomy (e.g., dynamic tasking / retasking, threat evasion, automated aerial refueling) maturity,” and whether “their solution is single-role, multi-role, or a modular/variant-based approach.”

The video below from Collins Aerospace offers a notional look at what crewed-uncrewed teaming involving carrier and land-based CCA-type drones might look like in the future.

The range requirement is particularly interesting. As adversary anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) bubbles continue to expand in scale and scope, carriers and their air wings will be pushed further and further away from target areas. Having aircraft, crewed and uncrewed, that can cover those extended distances will be vital. Having CCA-type drones, in particular, with ranges similar to or greater than that of the crewed fighters they are expected to be paired with, is also key to enabling that particular concept of operations.

Not necessarily needing tanker support to complete those missions will also be a boon. Aerial refueling capacity is always in high demand during sustained conflicts, as underscored by the recent fighting with Iran, and that need will be further magnified in a future high-end fight against a near-peer opponent like China. Those same tankers would, by extension, also be top targets for enemy forces.

The new uncrewed carrier-based aircraft RFI from NAVAIR outlines exactly this reality:

“Aligned with the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), the 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS) issued by the Department of War, and the Chief of Naval Operations’ (CNO) Fighting Instructions, the Navy is seeking capability improvements to expedite transition from a 4th-generation-centric Carrier Air Wing (CVW) to a 5th/6th-generation manned-unmanned AWoTF. This transition supports the Golden Fleet initiative and the Navy Warfighting Concept, which is a proactive approach leveraging global maritime maneuver to gain sea control, impose sea denial, and project power independently. Unmanned systems are critical to increasing Carrier Strike Group (CSG) strike capacity, extending CVW operational reach, and introducing advanced methods for executing Naval Aviation missions in a Highly Contested Environment (HCE). The objective is to evaluate the feasibility of fielding platforms with extended range and payload capacity, while minimizing deck footprint and integrating with established CVN infrastructure.”

Currently, the tactical core of the Navy’s carrier air wings remains the fourth-generation F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter, along with its EA-18G Growler electronic warfare cousin. Fifth-generation F-35C Joint Strike Fighters are starting to be increasingly in the rotation. The service is also still planning to acquire a new sixth-generation combat jet, currently referred to as F/A-XX, and is hoping to settle on a design in the coming months.

A 1,000 nautical mile range target is in line, at least in broad strokes, with what the Navy is looking for in terms of combat radius for F/A-XX. The service has said in the past that the sixth-generation jets will offer a 25 percent increase in range over the existing tactical combat jets. This would be roughly 837.5 nautical miles (just over 1,551 kilometers) based on the stated combat radius of the F-35C (670 nautical miles, or close to 1,241 kilometers). The F-35C has the longest reach, with a relevant payload, of any tactical jet in the Navy’s current inventory. The service has also previously expressed interest in finding new ways to extend the unrefueled range of its F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs.

In addition, the U.S. Air Force has previously said the combat radius of its new sixth-generation F-47 fighter and its initial fleet of CCA drones will be “1,000+” and “700+” nautical miles, respectively. As TWZ has noted in the past, the estimated combat radii of both the F-47 and F/A-XX are significant, but also notably not as drastic an increase as many had been expecting or may think is necessary given the aforementioned evolution of the threat ecosystem.

As an aside, it is interesting to remember that the Navy’s abortive Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program had been aiming for a platform with a combat radius of up to 2,000 nautical miles when operating in the strike role. There was also a requirement to be able to fly surveillance and reconnaissance orbits in areas 1,200 nautical miles from the deck of a carrier. UCLASS payload requirements fluctuated, but a pair of X-47B stealthy demonstrator drones tested during the program were designed to carry two 2,000-pound-class munitions internally.

UCLASS showed much promise, and the X-47Bs achieved many firsts for carrier-based drones. Despite this, UCLASS was transformed into the radically different Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System (CBARS) program in the mid-2010s, which then led to the MQ-25. This was a shift that seemed abrupt to many and was done for reasons that are still not entirely clear, as TWZ has previously explored in detail in a seminal feature readers can find here.

As mentioned, the Navy is still refining the requirements for its planned carrier-based CCA drones. Anduril, Boeing, General Atomics, and Northrop Grumman are all on contract now to develop conceptual designs. So far, what we have seen are designs intended to operate from carriers in a broadly traditional manner using existing catapults and/or arresting gear. General Atomics has publicly put forward a carrier-based member of its highly modular Gambit family of drones, which are based around the common chassis concept that you can read more about here. Boeing has also previously shown a rendering of a carrier-based version of its MQ-28 Ghost Bat, a drone developed by the company’s Australian subsidiary. The Navy has also expressed specific interest in Ghost Bat.

It is also worth pointing out that the NAVAIR RFI uses the term “combat radius” but also frames the requirement around “delivering effects” out to the desired range without the need for refueling. This might leave the door open to concepts that use stand-off munitions and/or other capabilities to extend the functional reach of the drone, even if its actual combat radius is under 1,000 nautical miles.

As mentioned earlier, the RFI also discusses VTOL drone operations for vessels other than carriers. Concepts of operations that involve launches from carriers (or other ships) and recovery at tertiary points at sea (or on land) could also have impacts on the range equation. Depending on their design and performance, drones could be launched from forward locations and then recovered aboard carriers further to the rear, too.

Shield AI has notably talked about exactly this kind of flexibility as being a key benefit of its still-in-development X-BAT stealthy jet-powered combat drone. X-BAT is designed to take off and land vertically using nothing more than a trailer-based launch and recovery system. Shield AI is aiming for a maximum range of 2,000 nautical miles for the drone, which you can learn about in far more detail here.

The Navy, in cooperation with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), has explored other relevant ship-based uncrewed VTOL concepts in the past, as well.

There are also drone designs that can be launched and/or recovered in very different ways. The U.S. Marine Corps’ first CCA-type drone will be a version of the Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie that can operate from traditional runways, as well as make rocket-assisted takeoffs using static launchers. Earlier Valkyrie variants can also be launched using the latter method, and are recovered via parachute. The new MQ-58s for the Marines will still need to touch down on a runway at the end of a sortie, but this mix of capabilities still offers significant additional operational flexibility.

Beyond exploring specific design concepts and capability mixes, NAVAIR’s RFI makes clear that the Navy is very much still refining its overall vision for what the uncrewed complement of future carrier air wings will look like. Senior service officials have said in the past that the goal is for the total makeup of carrier air wings to eventually be 60 percent or more uncrewed.

At the same time, the Navy has acknowledged that it has been moving more slowly than the Air Force and Marines with its plans to develop and field a carrier-based CCA fleet. The NAVAIR RFI also points to efforts now to expand that work, but it remains unclear when operational CCAs, or any other future uncrewed members of the AWOTF, will appear on the decks of U.S. carriers. The Navy has consistently said that it is focused first on fielding the much-delayed MQ-25, which will then help serve as a ‘pathfinder’ for other drones. The service is now targeting next year to finally reach initial operational capability with the Stingray, something that was originally scheduled to happen in 2024.

What we do know now is that the Navy also sees a combat radius of at least 1,000 nautical miles as a key threshold requirement for uncrewed tactical elements of its future carrier air wings.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Navy Wants 1,000 Mile Combat Radius For Carrier Based Tactical Drone Fleets appeared first on TWZ.