After 321 days at sea, the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier (CVN-72) returned to San Diego, with its island superstructure showing rows of silhouettes of ships, drones, and other targets reportedly destroyed during Operation Epic Fury.

The USS Lincoln arrived at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego on October 8, concluding a long deployment that included extended operations in the Middle East.

Before the USS Abraham Lincoln arrived in San Diego, the US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth presented the carrier crew with the Presidential Unit Citation, the military’s highest unit-level award for valor.

Calling the mission “historic,” Hegseth noted that the carrier conducted “3,693 combat flights, sinking 64 Iranian warships, launching 450 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, and shooting down 77 one-way aerial attack drones.”

Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao lauded the carrier crew in a post on X, saying, “Congratulations to @CNV_72 and all of CSG-3 on this well-earned Presidential Unit Citation for their extreme heroism over the last 10 months in defense of our homeland.”

The citation says the defense included 40 days in combat and an “ironclad maritime blockade against Iran in support of Operation Epic Fury.”

During Hegseth’s recent visit to the carrier before it arrived home, he said, “I’m the only thing standing between you and home,” and that his intention was, “Once they pull up to the dock, we’re getting out of the way.”

The Pentagon released an image of Pete Hegseth standing on the deck of the carrier and examining the superstructure, which was stenciled with a list of targets the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group (CSG) destroyed during a 321-day deployment.

Subsequently, Hegseth published another image showing the full extent of the markings, with “Operation Epic Fury” written above rows of ship and drone silhouettes (seen below).

The carrier’s arrival with these markings aligns with the US Navy’s long-standing practice of recording unit or group combat results after major operations.

Observers counted approximately 174 markings on the island superstructure. These traditional victory symbols are attributed to Carrier Strike Group 3’s collective actions, including carrier air-wing sorties, destroyer operations, Tomahawk launches, and air-defense engagements.

What Targets Did The Lincoln CSG Neutralize?

The visible markings include silhouettes representing 23 anti-ship missiles, 34 surface ships, 122 unmanned aerial vehicles, 10 submarines, and what appears to be a large bomb marked “1403.”

The aircraft carrier features 34 kill marks of surface ships neutralized in the sixth month of the conflict in the region. Although official information is scarce, these targets could include warships, corvettes, and even unmanned surface vessels used by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) publicly confirmed the destruction of several ships. Some high-profile targets include the Shahid Bagheri carrier, the IRIS Makran forward base ship, the Jamaran-class corvettes, and all four Shahid Soleimani-class catamaran missile corvettes.

Calculating Iran’s Losses in Op. Epic Fury as CRS Nearly Doubles the U.S. Aircraft Count From 42 to 81

The US Navy also neutralized multiple Bayandor-class corvettes and other frigates, several fast-attack craft and missile boats, at least 16 mine-laying vessels, and multiple auxiliaries and support vessels.

It is hard to say which of these vessels the Lincoln carrier group neutralized, but reports say the group operated in the Arabian Sea and, at times, closer to the Gulf of Oman during the early phase of Operation Epic Fury.

The group could have struck these targets with Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from escort Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, such as the USS Spruance, USS Michael Murphy, and USS Frank E. Petersen, or with F-35C Lightning IIs and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets from the carrier’s air wing.

The aircraft carrier features about 100+ triangular silhouettes that resemble the Shahed-136 one-way attack drones that were extensively deployed by the IRGC in its strikes on US military assets. However, they could also potentially reference other similar kamikaze drones, given Tehran’s massive inventory of these low-cost assets.

The escort ships—the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers doubling as critical air-defense assets alongside the aircraft carrier-could have downed these drones. These state-of-the-art warships are equipped with the Aegis Combat System to detect, track, and engage drones at medium to long range with Standard Missiles such as the SM-2 or SM-6, and the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). 

The carrier itself has self-defense systems such as the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM) and the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS). Furthermore, F-35s and Super Hornets operating from the carrier may have shot down some of these incoming drones.

Notably, the island carries 23 missile silhouettes. Hegseth credited the strike group with destroying 21 anti-ship cruise missiles. The citation does not say whether those were stopped by escort ships, by F-35s and Super Hornets, or by the carrier’s own Rolling Airframe Missiles and Phalanx guns.

USS Abraham Lincoln also prominently features 10 submarines, which is unsurprising given that US CENTCOM focused on decimating Iran’s Russian-built Kilo-class and other submarines during the conflict.

For example, a Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet that flew from the USS Abraham Lincoln on combat missions in the Iran war was spotted with submarine kill markings earlier. Jeff Rojas photographed the aircraft, which belongs to VFA-41, a Navy fighter squadron known as the “Black Aces,” on October 1.

Fort Hood Live Execution: How Nidal Hasan’s Livestreamed Firing Squad Could Strengthen UCMJ’s Authority

How the aircraft destroyed an Iranian submarine is unclear, but Rojas said, “I assume that it was dry-docked and they dropped a laser-guided bomb.” 

The US missiles damaged many Iranian submarines, including some produced indigenously, that were docked in ports during early bombardment, but neither the Navy nor CENTCOM has publicly claimed that Navy fighter jets were involved.c

Instead, the US military earlier said it used air-launched AGM-114 Hellfire laser-guided missiles, probably fired from MQ-9 Reaper drones, and ground-launched Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missiles against submarines in particular.

However, the CSG may have taken out at least some of these submarine targets with Tomahawk missiles.

Most details, including specific individual ship sinkings by Lincoln CSG platforms or the exact methods used, rely on official claims and open-source analysis rather than independent battle-damage assessments available in the public domain.

Interestingly, the number of targets the War Secretary cited in his address differs significantly from the number of kill markings visible on the flattop. Neither the United States Navy nor the Department of War (DoW) has clarified why the flattop bears only 34 surface ship kill marks, even though Hegseth counted 64 in his address, or why the carrier lists 106 drones while Hegseth’s estimate was far more conservative at just 77.

Although these markings are often symbolic or selective rather than a strict, audited one-to-one accounting of every engagement, a reason for the discrepancy is awaited.

A Mission Marred With Chaos

The carrier’s prolonged deployment garnered national attention after Stars and Stripes, the news outlet affiliated with the US Armed Forces, reported on deteriorating conditions aboard the carrier, a major mental health crisis, and worsening living conditions in August 2026.

“Interviews with active-duty sailors and family members, along with dozens of public social media comments and posts by crew members, describe sailors struggling with exhaustion and declining morale, including reports of suicidal thoughts and at least one instance where a crew member was prevented from jumping overboard,” the report underlined.

Why Yemen Could be a Graveyard for Turkish & Even Mecca Pact Soldiers: History Has The Answers: OPED

After this explosive disclosure caused a stir and exposed the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao, and CENTCOM leadership dismissed much of the coverage as misrepresented or dishonest, while acknowledging challenges of extended deployments. Nonetheless, the report and the public reaction paved the way for the carrier’s return and a stopover in Thailand last month, giving the crew much-needed respite

The Secretary of War also pushed back against the allegations of the Navy being stretched thin and a crisis about the carrier, including reports of eight sailors who attempted suicide. “Lincoln into some sort of a symbol, a symbol of dysfunction or a symbol of low morale or a symbol of a failed mission,” Hegseth said, adding, “what makes the US military and the US. Navy and all these sailors different is that you adapt and that you’re resilient and you overcome — you finish the mission nonetheless.”

That said, aircraft carriers have been instrumental in the Iran War, which has dragged on for months despite periods of lull and negotiations. Two carriers—the USS George Washington and USS George H.W. Bush—are currently deployed in the theatre, with a third, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, expected to arrive later this month amid a spike in tensions.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

 

 

The post 10 Submarines, 34 Ships, 100+ Drones: USS Abraham Lincoln Returns With 174 Kill Marks. Navy Yet To Explain appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

France and Germany have rejected reports that their Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) project has collapsed, asserting their joint program to develop a next-generation battle tank remains on track.

On Thursday, France’s armed forces chief Fabien Mandon told parliament that Germany had decided to leave the battle tank program.

On Friday, French Defense Minister Catherine Vautrin said the MGCS project was still on course, speaking during German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s visit to the country.

“We would like to tell you, together with my colleague Minister Boris Pistorius, that MGCS remains a current and active project,” Vautrin said alongside the German defense minister in Le Haillan outside the southwestern French city of Bordeaux.

Pistorius said that he “fully” agreed.

“The MGCS project is not finished. It has not been abandoned. Nobody has stopped it. On the contrary, it is a flagship project of Franco-German cooperation.”

On Thursday, Mandon told French lawmakers the two armies had spent several years “to define what a future battle tank should be”. “The outcome is not good,” Mandon told lawmakers.

“We had hoped to build a future tank in cooperation with the Germans, but unfortunately we have to acknowledge that the Germans have decided to leave the project.”

Later on Thursday, he issued a statement softening his remarks, saying: “Although delayed, the program is continuing and remains highly relevant.”

Main Ground Combat System (MGCS)

Launched jointly by France and Germany in 2017, the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) aims to develop a next-generation battle tank to replace France’s Leclerc and Germany’s Leopard 2 tanks.

It is a “system of systems” project that includes a main battle tank and a network of other combat systems, such as artificial intelligence (AI) for decision-making, advanced sensors, robotics, and onboard unmanned aerial vehicles.

Earlier this June, Rheinmetall’s CEO warned that France may pull out of the MGCS project. “There is always a risk, but nothing has been decided yet,” Armin Papperger told Welt am Sonntag, adding that Paris is planning to drastically cut funding for the project.

A German government spokesperson later questioned the MGCS project, saying it was doubtful a joint tank would be built and that the project would likely focus on “platform-independent” technologies.

Meanwhile, Jean-Paul Alary, CEO of KNDS, the Franco-German company developing the tank, had said at the Eurosatory show in France that, although he could not comment on the MGCS’s current state because it is a political matter, it would be “very bad news” for Europe if the project failed.

The MGCS has remained embroiled in crises and beset by delays, much like the now-abandoned FCAS. Disagreements over the tank’s design, technology, and industrial responsibilities have plagued the MGCS for years.

In short, Berlin wants a stronger, better-armed tank for a potential battle with Russia, while Paris prefers a lighter tank for worldwide deployment. Political and budgetary tensions also persist over which country’s industry should lead.

The project was initially intended to be led by the Franco-German joint venture KNDS, comprising Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and France’s Nexter. However, Germany allegedly leveraged its considerable political support to push for Rheinmetall’s involvement. Tensions have since grown between the KNDS and Rheinmetall over leadership of program “pillars,” production shares, and contracts.

From a French perspective, Rheinmetall’s involvement has altered the project’s delicate power dynamics, creating discontent and increasing frustration.

Moreover, the project has reportedly been starved of funding. As Rheinmetall CEO Papperger recently noted, the shareholding companies have received only €25 million ($29 million) since the project’s inception.

Meanwhile, France has grown uneasy with Germany’s increasing assertiveness and its emergence as Europe’s preeminent economic and, increasingly, military player, as veteran journalist Prakash Nanda of EurAsian Times noted.

“They are constantly fighting against the mismatched temperaments of their leaders, their orthogonal domestic politics, and the irreconcilably diverging strategic cultures at the heart of their deep states,” Carnegie Europe’s Strategic Europe wrote in a blog last month.

A core divergence lies in strategic outlook: France consistently advocates for greater European strategic autonomy, while Germany remains more committed to robust transatlantic ties with the United States. Meanwhile, economic and trade policies add another layer of friction, with the two powers often diverging on EU-level decisions regarding fiscal rules, industrial strategy, and market access.

France and Germany have struggled to rein in their powerful defense companies, leaving three major European projects — the Eurodrone, the FCAS fighter program, and the MGCS tank program — in serious difficulty. The FCAS has already collapsed, while the other two now risk failure.

• Contact the author (s) at editor (at) eurasiantimes.com
• With AFP Inputs
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post France & Germany Say MGCS Tank Project is Not Dead—Hours After Their Top General Said Berlin Had Left appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

A newly updated Congressional Research Service (CRS) report counts 81 US military aircraft as lost or damaged in the ongoing conflict with Iran. EurAsian Times analyzes the losses Tehran sustained during the ongoing conflict. 

The latest figure is nearly double the 42 aircraft the Congressional Research Service tallied in a May 2026 report, as the EurAsian Times reported at the time.

The jump from 42 to 81 most likely reflects updated reporting and newly available public information.

In addition to the Congress research figures, two other reports published by the Congressional Budget Office and the Pentagon’s inspector general had earlier provided deep insights into the war. The latest CRS report reportedly cited that data.

“As of August 1, 2026, the armed conflict with Iran has cost DoD approximately $38 billion. That amount reflects the costs of replacing expended munitions and equipment lost in battle, increased flying hours, other operations, and increased fuel costs,” the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated in the report last month.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s IG report estimated the US campaign cost $33.4 billion between February 28 and June 30, with at least $22.3 billion spent on munitions alone.

Citing information published by the CBO, the latest CRS states that the overall cost of the lost aircraft is between $1.9 billion and $3.3 billion, depending on the Pentagon’s replacement costs. However, CNN News was informed by some unidentified sources that the cost of the war is much higher–at least $45 billion–excluding damage to US infrastructure and bases spread across the Gulf, repeatedly struck by Iranian forces.

The revised losses in the Congress report include manned aircraft, helicopters, and drones, though it clarifies that the total is not a count of destroyed aircraft, adding that some damaged aircraft may have returned to active service after repairs.

It lists 12 F-15E jets as destroyed/damaged, up from four F-15E Strike Eagle Fighter jets listed in the May 2026 report. The US lost three F-15E fighters in a friendly-fire incident related to the Kuwait Air Force aircraft, whereas the fourth was downed by Iran using shoulder-mounted air defense systems, as previously noted by the EurAsian Times. 

Both CBO and IG reports also earlier listed just four F-15E losses. Therefore, the eight F-15Es mentioned in the new report are likely the jets that were damaged in an Iranian strike on the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan in September 2026. Citing an unidentified US official, Reuters earlier reported that Iran had struck an A-10 Warthog, leaving it with a missing wing, while eight F-15s sustained light damage and were returned to service.

The latest list also includes the F-35A, the US Air Force’s most prized and expensive stealth fighter. The CBO report had earlier noted that replacing/repairing the aircraft would cost $120 million, without saying whether it would be written off or repaired.

Although some OSINT observers at the time believed this acknowledged the F-35 loss, others warned that the CBO was only recording the repair cost while leaving room for a potential replacement.

Furthermore, the latest list also reiterates the loss of the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), which was struck and damaged while on the ground at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, during an Iranian missile and drone attack.

However, instead of merely reporting the loss, it expressed concern about losing this highly specialized aircraft and the far-reaching effects it could have on the USAF.

“Congress may assess whether losses in certain high-demand platforms that are aging and limited in number, such as the E-3 Sentry, create capability gaps or increase risk in other theaters,” it stated.

Notably, the US Air Force has only 16 of these critical AWACS remaining in its inventory, and losing each could disproportionately affect American combat posture in the Western Pacific, where the threat of war with China is never off the table.

Another newly listed loss on the updated CRS is the US Navy’s MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter, which did not appear in the May 2026 list. On July 1, an MH-60S Sea Hawk from a George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier made an emergency landing in the Arabian Sea, although the Navy ruled out hostile action at the time.

Most of the rise since May is attributed to drones. The report now counts 45 MQ-9 Reapers lost, up from 24 in its May report. This is also a considerable increase from the 30 Reaper losses cited in the IG report. Furthermore, a US Army AH-64 Apache that was shot down over the Strait of Hormuz in June 2026 has also found its name on the list. 

Notably, the newly published report raises several issues for Congress to address, including whether the Pentagon provides enough detail about the losses for lawmakers to assess the consequences and potential solutions.

CRS notes that the Department of Defense’s reporting on the losses has been limited or vague, especially since even the September 2026 Lead Inspector General report relied in part on earlier CRS open-source tallies rather than providing a fully independent, comprehensive public accounting.

What Did Iran Lose In The War?

Iranian authorities have offered only limited, selective figures on their own military and civilian casualties and have not published a comprehensive accounting of equipment destroyed during Operation Epic Fury launched by the US in coordination with Israel.

Iran has nothing equivalent to the CRS list. Open-source counts already disagree: one tracker puts Iranian aircraft losses above 90 airframes, mostly transports and tankers, while a narrower documented list counts 43.

Open-source trackers have recorded dozens of Iranian aircraft—combat jets, transports, tankers, trainers, and helicopters—destroyed primarily on the ground at air bases early in the campaign, although a few were downed in air.

In the initial days of the war, two Iranian fighters, a Northrop F-5 and a F-4 Phantom II, were destroyed in an Israeli strike at Tabriz Shahid Madani International Airport. Around the same time, the US destroyed two Iranian Sukhoi Su-22 aircraft at Shiraz Shahid Dastgheib Airport, along with two Lockheed C-130 Hercules and an Il-76 transport aircraft.

CENTCOM released footage of the two Su-22s. Satellite imagery was later cited for the two C-130s and the Il-76 at the same airfield. Further Phantom losses have been reported at the 3rd Tactical Air Base in Hamadan, but not documented to the same standard.

A Qatari Air Force Boeing F-15QA shot down two Iranian low-flying Sukhoi Su-24 tactical bombers on March 2, 2026, after they failed to react to radio warnings.

In the second week of March 2026, Israel said it had destroyed multiple IRIAF F-14 Tomcats in a massive air strike on Isfahan Airport, and 16 aircraft used by the IRGC Quds Force at Mehrabad International Airport were also struck. At the time, experts posited that these strikes may have wiped out the entire Tomcat fleet, particularly since some of these jets had already been destroyed in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in June 2025.

Historian Tom Cooper estimated that only about 10 Tomcats were flyable when the war began, compared with roughly 35 still listed on paper.

Satellite imagery confirmed at least two, and probably three, destroyed at Isfahan; some higher counts include airframes later described as wooden decoys. Iranian state media released footage on June 10 of an F-14 returning from a mission, so the “fleet finished” claim did not hold.

At Mehrabad, imagery after the Israeli strikes showed damage to at least 17 aircraft, including a Boeing 747 and a Harbin Y-12. Separate open-source lists also record Boeing 707 and 747 tankers destroyed at airfields between March and April.

An Israeli Air Force F-35I “Adir” stealth fighter jet shot down an Iranian YAK-130 aircraft over Tehran on March 4, as the EurAsian Times reported. On March 10, videos documenting the demolition of a Lockheed C-130 Hercules, a Lockheed P-3 Orion, and an Il-76 at Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani Airport in Kerman, Iran, were released by CENTCOM.

Later that month, reports also surfaced of Iranian J-7 fighter jets and Bell 214 helicopters. In addition to these, several Iranian drones–deployed on a large scale–were shot down by US forces, although these were mainly one-way attack platforms.

Those drone losses are the hardest to count. Many were expendable one-way airframes, and neither side has published a reconciled total. Iran also claimed shootdowns of Israeli drones, including Heron and Hermes airframes, in early March; those claims are likewise unreconciled.

Iran has not released an official inventory of destroyed ships, but the sinking of IRIS Dena in the Indian Ocean became one of the starkest and most unforgettable symbols of the US war against Iran, especially since it was the first such sinking since World War Two.

Dena was a Moudge-class frigate, sunk on March 4 about 19 nautical miles off Galle, Sri Lanka, while returning from India’s International Fleet Review. The US said the Los Angeles-class submarine USS Charlotte fired two Mark 48 torpedoes and one hit. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed a US submarine carried out the strike.

Sri Lanka recovered 32 survivors; Iran later put the dead at 104. Some reports said the ship carried no operational armament because of the exercise, and that its Bell 212 was not aboard.

The accurate historical marker is narrower than “first sinking since World War Two”: first ship sunk by a US submarine since 1945, and first submarine sinking in combat since ARA General Belgrano in 1982. India and Sri Lanka both joined the search.

Furthermore, the US forces destroyed 17 Iranian warships, including a submarine, in the early days of the conflict, as the EurAsian Times reported at the time. These numbers likely climbed in the weeks leading up to the April 7 ceasefire and may have risen further after hostilities broke out in July 2026.

In fact, The Aviationist recently published photos of an F-35C that returned from the theatre bearing markings of three submarines, a surface combatant, a Shahed-type drone, an artillery piece, and several ground-based launchers.

Those markings record claimed engagements. They are not a confirmed naval order of battle.

Over the months, US forces have repeatedly endorsed destroying or damaging Iranian Navy and coastal targets, with Donald Trump alleging that the whole force had been wiped out.

Open-source reporting has suggested that a large portion of Iranian air defenses that are part of a meticulously built layered network, including the S-300, Bavar-373, Khorad-15, to name a few, were also destroyed in US and Israeli strikes. Additionally, both the US and Israel claimed to have destroyed several ballistic missile launchers in the initial days.

Israel said one early wave put more than 25 fighters against over 35 missile storage and launch sites around Tabriz and Kermanshah. Without a pre-war inventory or a public battle-damage assessment, none of these claims can be turned into a share of the force destroyed. Mobile launchers are the largest gap: a struck site is not proof the missile was in it.

That said, these figures are not fully confirmed, as Tehran has not officially published its losses.

Nonetheless, despite suffering major losses throughout the war, Iran has survived, dealing a blow to joint US-Israeli aspirations of completely destroying its ballistic missile or even the Nuclear program.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post Calculating Iran’s Losses in Op. Epic Fury as CRS Nearly Doubles the U.S. Aircraft Count From 42 to 81 appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

After EurAsian Times reported on a potential clash brewing between the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon, Portugal has said it is seriously considering F-35 stealth jets to replace its aging F-16 Fighting Falcons. 

Portugal has not officially launched a formal tender to replace its 28 upgraded F-16M fighter jets, but competition between European and US firms appears to be heating up.

“The Portuguese state will always decide in ‌accordance ⁠with the national interest. There is one point that is also clear: we are seriously considering the F-35 proposal, just as ​we are ​considering ⁠others,” Rangel told a news conference after the meeting.

Meanwhile, speaking in Lisbon, the Portuguese capital, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US would make Portugal a “very competitive” offer to replace its F-16 fleet.

Earlier, as EurAsian Times reported, Portugal was reviewing its plans to acquire F-35 jets and eyeing European alternatives.

In a March 2025 interview, Portuguese Defense Minister Nuno Melo rejected the prospect of acquiring the American fifth-generation aircraft, citing Washington’s unpredictability.

“We cannot ignore the geopolitical environment in our choices. The recent position of the United States, in the context of NATO … must make us think about the best options, because the predictability of our allies is a greater asset to take into account,” Melo had stated.

Many European nations are concerned that an ‘unpredictable’ Washington could pause delivery of critical parts or software for the F-35s.

The Portuguese idea of sidelining the stealth US jets may have come after German defense experts said the US could use a “kill switch” on the F-35 to impose its political objectives.

Portugal, like others, believes any F-35 fleet would quickly become ineffective without access to US-controlled maintenance, logistics, and computer networks. Thus, the US would indirectly control F-35 operations for almost any country.

Echoing these concerns, the Portuguese Minister said, “The world has changed … and this ally of ours … could bring limitations to use, maintenance, components, and everything that has to do with ensuring that aircraft will be operational and used in all types of scenarios.”

The Portuguese Air Force first expressed interest in the F-35 in 2023, when Joe Biden was president. At the time, General João Guilherme Rosado Cartaxo Alves, the FAP’s Chief of Staff, stated that the F-35A is the best option to replace the aging F-16 AM/BM jets.

In April 2024, Portuguese Air Force Chief of Staff General João Cartaxo Alves said the service was in a “transition” phase toward the stealth fighter. The Chief also said the program would cost an estimated 5.5 billion euros and take around 20 years to implement—a statement that made it seem like a purchase was imminent.

The Portuguese Ministry of Defense later backtracked and said, “This is a vision for the future, so currently, there is no process for purchasing aircraft to replace the F-16.

Since then, the aircraft has awaited a formal announcement, especially since leadership earlier confirmed that the current F-16 AM/BM fleet would continue to operate until 2030.

However, European policy has shifted dramatically since Donald Trump assumed office in January 2025. While dismissing the idea of acquiring an F-35, the Portuguese Defense Minister also hinted that his country was looking towards Europe.

Without giving specific details, he said, “There are several options that must be considered, particularly in the context of European production.”

Portugal has not opened a formal tender to replace its F-16s. Four aircraft are in contention: Lockheed Martin’s F-35, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault’s Rafale and Saab’s Gripen E.

Lockheed Martin, Airbus and Saab have each signed cooperation agreements with AED Cluster Portugal, the national aerospace and defense industry association.

Saab’s memorandum, covering the Gripen E, was signed in December 2025. The company has also pitched local work through Embraer-controlled OGMA, citing the production model used for Brazil’s Gripen program.

On September 23, 2026, Dassault Aviation said it had signed a memorandum with the cluster on behalf of Rafale partners Thales and Safran. The agreement aims to explore cooperation with Portuguese industry as Lisbon weighs renewing its F-16 fleet.

“Dassault Aviation, representing its RAFALE partners, Thales and Safran, signed with AED Cluster Portugal, Portugal’s association for the aeronautics, space and defense industries, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to explore potential areas of cooperation between RAFALE partners and the Portuguese industrial sector, in the context of the Portuguese Air Force’s F-16 fleet renewal,” it said in a statement.

Airbus said on September 24 that it intends to submit an unsolicited Eurofighter proposal in late October or early November. The offer will include public and private financing “to alleviate the payment plan,” along with military cooperation and industrial work, Eurofighter campaign manager Ivan Gonzalez Exposito told reporters.

Defense Minister Nuno Melo has said the jets will have to be replaced in the near future. Any choice remains subject to a technical evaluation and to the industrial return for Portugal.

After initial apprehensions with the F-35, the biggest question is: will Portugal opt for ‘superior’ F-35 stealth jets or European 4.5-gen alternatives, Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen-E?

• Mail us at editor (at) eurasiantimes.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post Portugal Puts F-35s Back on the Table Despite “Kill Switch” Fear. Eurofighter, Rafale & Gripen-E Jets Also in Fray appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

The best victory is “winning without shedding a drop of blood” is an ancient Chinese proverb attributed to Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art of War,’ written nearly 2,500 years ago.

In 2026, that old strategy has a new rendering: ‘Learning without Bleeding.’

China is treating the Russia-Ukraine War as a “living textbook” for adapting the war-fighting strategy of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), learning drone warfare, and systematically converting battlefield lessons into PLA training, procurement, and force design without having to fight itself.

According to a recent paper by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), China is running the most systematic effort of any outside power to convert lessons from the war in Ukraine into military advantage, absorbing the errors of both sides.

“Chinese analysts are explicit about the value of Russia’s war against Ukraine” and are adopting the war’s lessons into policy debates, weapons procurement, and military doctrine at a breakneck pace.

Analysts in Beijing are describing 2024 as “year one of world drone war,” when the two sides fielded enough drones to show the contours of the new mechanized battlefield.

For the study, the authors reviewed more than 90 Chinese-language sources published over more than four years, from July 2022 to August 2026.

These Chinese-language sources include PLA outlets, defense journals, university research papers, peer-reviewed journals, and research institutions linked to defense industries.

The authors of these Chinese papers include participants in the military learning system. They include researchers at PLA universities and academies, engineers at defense industrial design institutes, civilian academics working alongside numbered military units, and military acquisition organizations that turn battlefield lessons into requirements and procurement.

The study highlights how China is adopting lessons from the war in Ukraine at a breakneck pace.

It finds that “Chinese analysts pick up new battlefield techniques within an average of four months, but turning them into hardware, training, and force structure takes a year or more.”

Essentially, within four months of a new weapon system or war-fighting doctrine/strategy being introduced on the battlefield in Ukraine, Chinese analysts take note and start discussing it in their research papers.

However, filtering these lessons into Chinese military structure, procurement, and industrial production takes nearly a year.

For instance, Sea drones appeared in the war in Ukraine by September 2022, and by November, Chinese analysts were discussing these new weapon systems in their research papers.

Similarly, Fiber-Optic Drones first appeared on the battlefield in Ukraine in March 2024, and Chinese research papers began discussing them that same month. By March 2025, PLA units were already training with Fiber-Optic Drones.

Interceptor drones appeared in the war in Ukraine in February 2024; Chinese analysts noted them by July 2025, and PLA units began training on such interceptor drones by October 2026.

These instances show how quickly Chinese analysts note new weapons systems in the war in Ukraine, followed by PLA units adopting them within a year.

China’s lessons learned fall into two broad areas: offensive capabilities and defensive capabilities.

China copies offensive techniques from Russia, whose army resembles the PLA’s and whose fixes have been tested in combat.

China derives defensive requirements from Ukraine’s attacks and builds them into hardware. Beijing believes that if China goes to war with any Western power, it will face attacks similar to those Russia faced.

However, both offensive and defensive lessons are primarily derived from drone warfare.

Meanwhile, industrial lessons flow into a manufacturing base that already leads the world.

Offensive Learnings in Drone Warfare From the Russian Army

Among offensive techniques, Beijing’s most important lesson is economic.

In March 2025, the PLA Daily treated the claim as settled fact: a single reconnaissance-strike drone costs less than 1 percent of a modern fighter while achieving more than 90 percent of its battlefield coverage.

According to the study, while these figures are rough, the Central Military Commission’s newspaper takes them at face value.

Chinese analysts noted that in 2014, both Ukraine and Russia purchased and used more than a million drones. The Chinese Naval Academy estimated that this amounted to an average of two drones hovering over each soldier deployed on the front line.

The second lesson from drone warfare that China internalized is speed.

According to the National Defense University’s Joint Operations College, Russian forces can strike a detected target within three to five minutes—compared to hours in earlier wars

Researchers at a PLA unit attribute this to Russia’s reconnaissance-strike complex, in which a low-cost reconnaissance drone pushed deep into the enemy rear serves as the observer and guides another drone’s strike, with Orlan-10s cueing Kub and Lancet loitering munitions.

The copying target is not any single platform but rather the connection between them: drones wired directly into artillery and command networks.

For China, the drone warfare’s third critical lesson is overcommunication and connectivity.

Chinese analysts treat electronic warfare as the deciding factor in the drone war, recording heavy losses on both sides to jamming and countermeasures.

They have also noted with interest Russia’s fiber-optic first-person-view (FPV) drone steered through a thin cable, which is immune to jamming.

The PLA Daily flagged the shift in May 2024, weeks after the fiber-optic drone’s operational debut, and by April 2025, state media were weighing its trade-offs in detail. In the same month, China Central Television (CCTV) showed a People’s Armed Police unit in Yunnan training with FPV drones and researching fiber-optic models.

Defensive Learnings in Drone Warfare From the Ukrainian Army

While China has tried to internalize Russia’s offensive drone warfare techniques, Beijing has paid even more attention to some of the drone warfare techniques adopted by Ukraine.

Beijing believes that in the event of a military conflict with the West, it could face similar attacks as Russia faces from Ukraine in the ongoing war.

Chinese analysts were especially alarmed by two attacks from Ukraine: first, the use of sea drones for attacking Russian ships, warships, harbors, and bridges.

In the journal of the state shipbuilder’s underwater-warfare institute, a team from the Naval University of Engineering tallied repeated Ukrainian strikes on Russian ships, ports, and the Kerch Bridge and found more than 10 large naval vessels damaged.

They concluded that a systematized sea-drone offensive could be met effectively only with counter–sea–drone equipment that also fights as a system.

Another researcher proposed countering suicide boats with interceptor swarms, in skirmishes devoid of humans entirely.

Another Ukrainian attack that caught China’s attention and alarmed it was Operation Spider’s Web.

On June 1, 2025, Ukraine attacked Russia’s strategic bombers, deep inside its territory, by using FPV drones launched from within Russia.

Chinese Foreign Ministry’s magazine estimated Russian losses at 11 strategic bombers and identified the raid’s novelty in being launched from inside Russia, at close range.

The PLA’s training system answered within four and a half months.

In an October 2025 exercise, a brigade defended against a drone attack team of more than 20 operators, using detection gear that locates drones by their radio emissions and matches them against a catalog of more than 800 commercial models, paving a path for Chinese response to a Spider’s Web–style drone infiltration.

Chinese analysts also concluded that a successful drone interception strategy must account for the economics of interception.

According to a Global Times analysis of Ukraine’s interceptor drones, “the cost of procuring one man-portable air-defense missile buys several hundred air-defense FPV drones.”

Therefore, Chinese analysts concluded that the best weapon against a drone is another drone.

China also concluded that if it is attacked, it will be attacked by drones en masse, and therefore it must defend itself against thousands of drones.

In this respect, China has also noted Russia’s defense strategy.

 A 2026 review from a Chinese state aerospace design institute recorded that Russia “has built in combat a counter-drone equipment system of electronic jamming first, firepower interception as the backstop, and self-defense interception as the supplement.”

Beijing also noted that Russia was forced to pull its strategic bombers back about 6,000 kilometers to the Chukotka Peninsula and deploy retractable protective nets.

The study noted how quickly these studies are being adopted into hardware.

At the Zhuhai air show in November 2024, the counter-drone systems of the state electronics, ordnance, and aerospace groups dominated Chinese coverage, led by CETC’s Tianqiong, NORINCO’s Hurricane 3000 microwave weapon, and CASIC’s LW-60 laser.

The September 2025 military parade put counter-drone missile-gun systems, high-energy lasers, and high-power microwave weapons on state display.

In late July 2026, CCTV aired footage of an army drone crew putting a missile into a fast boat maneuvering at sea, and in August the army flew armed KVD002 drones against sea drone targets in exercises.

China has also learned that in a war of attrition, production wins.

For Chinese analysts, a drone war is won by the side that can build more, and no country builds more drones than China. So here, China only needs to build on its advantages.

China also recognizes Starlink’s importance in the Ukraine War and has concluded that low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite constellations will play a decisive role in any future war. China is therefore working to build its own LEO satellite constellations.

The CSIS study concludes that China is learning from and implementing lessons from the Ukraine War faster than any other country.

As Russia and Ukraine fight a ‘war of attrition,’ China could be the biggest winner.

• Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern  History from the University of Sheffield, UK. 
• He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com

The post China Logs Ukraine’s Newest Drone Tactics in Months, Fields Hardware Within a Year — “Learning Without Bleeding” appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.