Hermeus is developing an expendable ramjet-powered aircraft, Ramjet-X, which will be air-launched from its reusable, F-16-sized Quarterhorse high-speed drone. The result aims to create a two-vehicle architecture intended to make high-speed flight testing less dependent on expensive, single-use test platforms. That would give Hermeus and potential customers a way to conduct repeated high-Mach flight tests without expending a large booster on every mission.

America didn’t lose ground in high-speed flight because of a lack of ideas. We slowed down because flight tests became too expensive, too rare, and too cautious.

Meet Ramjet-X. Air-launched from the Quarterhorse program, it’s a low-cost, repeatable test vehicle built to fly and… pic.twitter.com/rMed6NhcvD

— Zach Shore (@Zsshore) September 9, 2026

The company unveiled the concept today. Hermeus says the Ramjet-X will be carried beneath Quarterhorse and released at a speed of around Mach 3, at which its ramjet can begin operating. The smaller vehicle will then accelerate, climbing to around 100,000 feet, and a speed in the region of Mach 4. Quarterhorse will then return to base and be available for another mission.

Imagery released by Hermeus shows a Quarterhorse carrying a Ramjet-X mounted on a pylon under each wing, indicating that two different high-speed tests can be carried out in a single sortie. Intriguingly, the Quarterhorse is shown with no fewer than six underwing hardpoints in all, suggesting that other kinds of external payloads are envisaged.

Hermeus has not released detailed performance specifications for Ramjet-X, including its range, payload capacity, or the critical expected cost per flight. We have reached out to the company for more information.

Images released by the company show a relatively compact, missile-like vehicle with delta wings incorporating prominent dihedral. There are no horizontal tail surfaces, but a conventional vertical fin is complemented by a ventral fin. Axios reports that Ramjet-X is approximately 22 feet long and 7 feet wide.

In terms of appearance, and also thanks to its ramjet propulsion system, the vehicle is outwardly very reminiscent of the Lockheed’s D-21 Tagboard supersonic spy drone. However, at more than 40 feet long and with a wingspan of 20 feet, the D-21 was significantly bigger. Overall, the entire concept recalls the Cold War-era D-21 and its M-21 mothership, on a smaller scale.

The basic concept aims to address a longstanding problem with ramjet flight testing. Unlike a conventional jet engine, a ramjet cannot provide useful thrust from a standstill. The vehicle therefore has to be accelerated to a sufficiently high speed before the ramjet can take over.

That acceleration can traditionally require another propulsion system, including an expendable rocket booster. Hermeus is proposing to substitute a reusable aircraft for that initial boost. It is unclear if the Ramjet-X vehicles are similarly recoverable, but we have asked Hermeus for more details here, too.

As it stands, flight-test programs of this kind are often constrained not only by the cost and availability of test infrastructure, but also by the limited availability of suitable airspace and range access. A reusable carrier aircraft could help address both challenges, allowing multiple Ramjet-X vehicles to be deployed from airports near a designated test range as required and launched only once the vehicle is within the approved test area. That flexibility could reduce the need for a new large booster for every experiment while also making it easier to conduct tests, including at shorter notice, within increasingly constrained airspace.

Hermeus says Ramjet-X is being designed not just for its own development work but as a potential test platform for outside customers. The company is calling the concept “Flight Test as a Service,” with customers able to fly payloads including sensors, communications equipment, computing and autonomy systems, materials, and propulsion hardware.

The program reflects a broader push toward increasing the availability of commercial high-speed flight testing that has attracted U.S. government interest.

Hermeus was also selected by the Defense Innovation Unit for work under its Hypersonic and High-Cadence Airborne Testing, or HyCAT, effort. That program is intended to use commercial flight-test capabilities to expand the government’s access to relevant high-speed environments.

The company is also pursuing its own increasingly ambitious Quarterhorse aircraft. Its Quarterhorse Mk 2.1 completed an uncrewed supersonic flight earlier this year, reaching Mach 1.21 on its third test flight. The company’s roadmap calls for subsequent Quarterhorse variants to progressively increase speed and address the thermal and propulsion challenges associated with high-Mach flight.

Supersonic. Mach 1.21.

Quarterhorse Mk 2.1 is now the world’s first privately developed, unmanned supersonic jet and the fastest unmanned aircraft flying today.

This flight makes Hermeus the fastest company in aviation history to go from founding to supersonic flight – exactly… pic.twitter.com/wjoIcdiEOj

— Hermeus (@hermeuscorp) May 26, 2026

The imagery released for Ramjet-X shows a different Quarterhorse configuration than the 2.1 version, including beefed-up landing gear with twin nosewheels. The requirement for release of the Ramjet-X at Mach 3 suggests that its launch platform will be the Quarterhorse Mk 2.3, which will be the first to reach this kind of speed. This summer, Hermeus confirmed that its second supersonic aircraft, the Quarterhorse Mk 2.2, and the Mach 3-capable Mk 2.3 aircraft were under construction.

For its future Quarterhorse Mk 3, Hermeus has been developing Chimera, a turbine-based combined-cycle propulsion system. This is intended to transition from turbine operation to ramjet operation as speed increases.

Ramjet-X effectively separates part of that problem into another aircraft and the system could also be useful for experiments that do not require an entire hypersonic aircraft.

For example, an organization developing a high-temperature material might need to know how it behaves in an actual high-speed flight environment, rather than only in a ground test. The same could apply to weapons, sensors, communications systems, guidance hardware, onboard computers, or other components intended for high-speed vehicles.

So far, however, it’s not clear what kind of flight profiles Ramjet-X will provide. Hermeus has mentioned a cruise phase lasting “tens of minutes.”

But a short-duration dash through a high-Mach regime is not equivalent to sustained flight at those speeds. The duration available to an experiment, thermal loads, acceleration, vibration, available electrical power, telemetry, maneuverability, and payload mass will all determine what can actually be tested.

The company says it is already testing the Ramjet-X propulsion system at its High Enthalpy Air-Breathing Test facility in Jacksonville, Florida. High-temperature structures are also under development at its El Segundo, California, headquarters. Integrated vehicle testing is currently planned for 2027.

The HEAT facility itself is part of Hermeus’ effort to establish high-speed propulsion test infrastructure. The company says the facility is being developed to eventually provide continuous high-Mach airflow for more flight-like ground testing.

Ramjet-X has yet to fly, but if it performs as intended, it could help lower one of the major barriers to obtaining real-world flight data at high Mach numbers. At the same time, the company is entering a market that is attracting growing interest from other aerospace firms, which are also expanding their high-speed flight-test capabilities, especially to capitalize on the broader hypersonics boom, including Stratolaunch.

There is fairly clear potential weaponization of this concept, for strike and surveillance missions, as well, although there has been no indication of that being in the works at this time.

The planned 2027 integrated testing should provide the first meaningful indication of whether the concept can progress to become a practical high-speed test capability.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Hermeus Unveils Air-Launched Ramjet Test Vehicle for High-Speed Experiments appeared first on TWZ.

General Atomics has given us the first look at its new Wildfire drone design. The company is developing this armed medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) uncrewed aircraft in response to new U.S. Air Force requirements for a lower-cost successor to the MQ-9A Reaper.

A rendering of Wildfire was included in a video montage, seen below, which General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. division (GA-ASI) released earlier today. GA-ASI first announced work on this new drone last month. The Air Force, in partnership with the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), formally kicked off its new search for a Reaper successor, currently called the Massed Modular Aircraft (MMA), in July. GA-ASI also developed the MQ-9A, which is now out of production.

A good idea spreads like Wildfire.#UAS #Airpower pic.twitter.com/eIONVDjZ1n

— General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc (GA-ASI) (@GenAtomics_ASI) September 9, 2026

Wildfire’s pusher-prop design shown is clearly an extension of the existing MQ-9 family, with an overall planform that is extremely similar to that of the Reaper. Like the latest versions of the MQ-9A, the new drone has a sensor turret under the nose and a large blade antenna under the rear fuselage.

Wildfire does notably lack the Reaper’s distinctive hump on top of the forward fuselage. On the MQ-9A, this feature contains the drone’s satellite communications (SATCOM) antenna. What this might mean about how Wildfire is controlled and otherwise communicates is not immediately clear, but it points to the use of a smaller, lower-cost SATCOM terminal. That, in turn, would most likely be tied to a network like Starshield, the government-focused cousin of SpaceX’s Starlink. We could also see greater semi-autonomous control here, or at least a greater reliance on it.

The resulting shape of the forward end of the fuselage is vaguely reminiscent of GA-ASI’s Gnat series of drones from the 1990s, which evolved into the iconic Predator. The MQ-9 family, in turn, is an outgrowth of the Predator.

The rendering of Wildfire also depicts the drone armed with four Joint Strike Missile (JSM) cruise missiles, with two loaded on what appears to be a single pylon under each wing. The stealthy JSM can be employed as an anti-ship or land-attack weapon. GA-ASI has released renderings of MQ-9s in the past with similar loadouts. The Air Force is already acquiring stocks of JSMs, primarily to arm its F-35A Joint Strike Fighters. Stand-off munitions like the JSM have long been seen as an increasingly important, if not critical, addition to the non-stealth Reaper’s arsenal, helping to keep the drones further away from potential threats.

TWZ has reached out to General Atomics for more details.

“General Atomics is looking at it and asking ourselves, ‘What can we really do? No kidding, no BS, actually do,’” GA-ASI spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley did tell us back in August when asked about Wildfire. “Let’s be honest with ourselves first. How do we come out of the box, day one, with a 10,000-nautical-mile ferry range? Can we carry four LRASMs [AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles]? Can we swarm 100 aircraft under semi-autonomous control? Can we fuse all of that data into a highly effective common operating picture? Can we do that at scalable, affordable mass?”

“So that was the assignment, and our engineers sharpened their pencils and got to work,” he added. “What came out the other side was our new Wildfire UAS. That thing is a beast, and no one who actually does this for a living, and is honestly concerned about America’s warfighting edge, can look at it and not want 100 of them as fast as we can make them.”

Wildfire “addresses all of the concerns posed by the MMA solicitation. We can deliver years earlier and maintain the same high quality. You can have everything that makes Reaper special, plus more, at a price that doesn’t break the bank,” Brinkley also told Breaking Defense for a story published last week.

In terms of what the Air Force has said it is looking for with the MMA, as we have previously written:

“[The service] …wants the MMA drone to perform the same general intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike missions as the MQ-9A. To that end, stated program requirements to date include a speed of at least 200 knots true airspeed, a munition and sensor payload capacity of at least 2,800 pounds, an unrefueled combat radius of at least 2,300 nautical miles with payload, the ability to self-deploy one-way at least 8,000 nautical miles, and the ability to operate from runways no longer than 6,000 feet. The MMAs also need to be highly modular and use open architecture mission systems to make it easier to integrate new capabilities and functionality down the line.”

The Air Force also shared last week that it is targeting a roughly $10 million unit cost for the MMA drones, not including sensors and certain other systems. As mentioned, the Reaper is out of production, but the price tag on a fully-equipped Reaper today is widely reported to be between $30 million and $50 million. The Air Force has itself used the $50 million figure as a reference point in discussing its latest plans for what comes after the MQ-9.

It is unclear how Wildfire might achieve this cost goal while retaining so much obvious Reaper DNA, but even a major 30 to 50 percent reduction in the price tag compared to its predecessor would be a huge deal. In the past, General Atomics’ Brinkley has openly questioned just how cheap an MMA drone could realistically be while still offering comparable capabilities to MQ-9.

The original timeline for the MMA program envisioned the Air Force reaching initial operational capability in 2031 after receiving 20 of the drones. The service is now looking to accelerate that schedule by around two years. The Air Force expects to eventually acquire around 180 MMAs.

The Air Force has tried, without success, to develop a successor to the MQ-9 on several occasions in the past. However, a key driving factor now is huge losses of Reapers in the course of the ongoing conflict against Iran. The service’s MQ-9 fleet has already shrunk dramatically in recent years, in part due to additional losses during operations targeting Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen last year.

“Although we have plenty of MQ-9As today, we are going through them at a rate that is concerning to us,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Niemi, the service’s Chief Modernization Officer, told reporters at a roundtable at the Pentagon last week, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. “There’s not a lot of good options to immediately replace those aircraft.”

GA-ASI has long had a monopoly on MALE combat drone sales in the United States, and is clearly looking to extend that now with Wildfire. However, this market space has been expanding, and other companies are already competing for what could be a very lucrative new deal with the Air Force. Winning the MMA contract could open doors to opportunities elsewhere within the U.S. government and with foreign countries. Variants and derivatives of the MQ-9 are also in service today with the U.S. Marine Corps, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and several additional air arms globally.

More information about Wildfire, as well as its competitors, is only likely to continue emerging as the Air Force pushes ahead with new and aggressive plans to finally acquire a follow-on drone to the venerable Reaper.

Update: 2:15 PM ET –

General Atomics spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley has now shared additional details about Wildfire with TWZ.

“You’re not imagining it. These new Wildfire renders do lack the dorsal hump you see on Reaper, MQ-9B, Gray Eagle, Mojave STOL and many copycat aircraft,” Brinkley explained. “General Atomics has pushed proliferated low-earth orbit controls onto many of our existing aircraft and pioneered that integration across unmanned aerospace. That is a relatively new technology that we already have great experience integrating, and it makes sense to bring that into Wildfire.”

“Proliferated low-earth orbit” (abbreviated variously as pLEO and P-LEO) refers to distributed constellations of hundreds or potentially thousands of satellites in that orbital region. SpaceX’s constellations supporting the aforementioned Starlink/Starshield networks fall into this general category.

“Wildfire is going to leverage ongoing advancements in autonomy on Day One. We envision networking dozens of Wildfires for true combat mass,” according to Brinkley. “Again, not a hypothetical. We’ve been pioneering many advancements in autonomy, AI, and machine learning across the FQ-42A program and using our own MQ-20 Avenger as a CCA [Collaborative Combat Aircraft] surrogate connected to F-22 and F-35. That’s proven, not concept.”

The FQ-42A, also known as the Dark Merlin, is one of two designs now in development under the first phase, or Increment 1, of the Air Force’s CCA program, the other being Anduril’s FQ-44A Fury. The service announced in June that its initial CCA force would be a mixed fleet of FQ-42As and FQ-44As.

“Four JSMs tells you something about Wildfire overall. We can’t just look at overall external weight limits. You have to consider individual hardpoint capacity,” Brinkley continued. “We’ve concepted four JSMs on MQ-9B before, as a concept, but we’ve never done that on Reaper. Wildfire can absolutely do that, from a hardpoint capacity and also an overall MGTOW [maximum gross takeoff weight] perspective.”

“We’re showing two LRASMs on Wildfire, which is twice as much as the DIU solicitation asked for. If you’re going to build a flying weapons truck, give it some teeth,” he added. “These longer-range missiles also give you increased standoff compared to other weapons you associate with the MQ-9, so that also gives you some flexibility. Wildfire can carry two LRASMs for meaningful combat distances.”

The AGM-158C LRASM (Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile) is a derivative of the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) family of land-attack cruise missiles, and is also in the Air Force’s inventory today.

Brinkley also said that Wildfire’s ferry range will exceed the MMA’s target of 8,000 nautical miles.

“We can deliver way ahead of the original FY 2031 schedule [for MMA]. We can deliver more than twice as many aircraft as requested in the same amount of time, because our manufacturing is real. Our network of suppliers, subcontractors and partners is real,” he added. “The obvious question is always cost, and I struggle to discuss costs because no one ever wants to compare apples to apples. There are stated price targets out there, and we’ll hit those. We’ll do it with an aircraft you can trust. We have nearly 10 million flight hours and more than 1,600 aircraft delivered. This is what we do.”

Speaking more generally, Brinkley also highlighted General Atomics’ extensive experience in developing and producing armed MALE drones, including the MQ-9.

“It’s important to remember that Reaper made its first flight 25 years ago and was so far ahead of everything else that it still defines the entire category of medium-altitude, long-endurance strike aircraft worldwide. When you build something new to do this kind of work, it rolls out into the Reaper’s shadow,” he said. “I don’t have to defend MQ-9 because the track record speaks for itself. It’s been called the MVP of Epic Fury [the U.S. military’s nickname for the initial phase of operations against Iran this year] for good reason, and I think it has squashed all questions about the relevance of MALE ISR and strike.”

“So that brings us to questions of affordability versus attrition, cost-per-effect, and the true price of combat operations. It also brings up questions of reliability and mission availability, and Reaper excels at both of these, so you can’t replace it with junk and expect to get the same effects,” he continued. “That’s where Wildfire comes in. Our team went to the graph paper and started sketching out what they would do differently and what they would keep the same. Where are the tradeoffs, and what do you change? No one knows this category of aircraft and missions like we do. We’re not guessing and hoping.”

“I can’t get into deep specifics on Wildfire yet, because it’s too early for that and the goalposts seem to move every time I say something publicly. What I can say is that Wildfire takes all of the known quantities of Reaper, blends them with some cutting-edge technologies and manufacturing advancements, and incorporates our more than three decades of lessons learned about large, unmanned combat aircraft to drive cost-per-effect math down.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post First Look At General Atomics’ Wildfire, Its Successor To The MQ-9 Reaper (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

President Donald Trump has threatened to pursue a ban on U.S. sales of aircraft from Canadian firm Bombardier unless they move production south of the border. American officials have not elaborated on how such a total prohibition on domestic sales could take shape, but there are potential ramifications for the U.S. military, as well as commercial operators in the United States. The U.S. Army, in particular, has made Bombardier Global Express 6500-based ME-11B aircraft a cornerstone of its future aerial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) plans. For the moment, the U.S. Air Force flies its own fleet of E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) communications jets based on the Global Express family.

“NO MORE SELLING BOMBARDIER IN THE UNITED STATES!” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social social media platform yesterday. “If they want our Market [sic], they must build here, and stop treating America like a ‘piggyback.’ BUY AMERICAN.”

The post, which was subsequently reshared by U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra, also reiterated Trump’s accusations that the Canadian government has been deliberately slow-rolling certification of certain jets from rival U.S. planemaker Gulfstream. Back in January, the President also said he would “decertify” Bombardier aircraft in the United States over this issue, which would prevent them from operating in the United States, but this threat has yet to materialize into reality. Aviation authorities in Canada did certify five specific Gulfstream business jets in March, but do not look to have issued broader type certifications since then. Canada’s demand for more fuel system icing testing, at least on G700 and G800 models, has been cited as a factor in the length of the certification process. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) previously granted Gulfstream a conditional certification for these types that required demonstration of full compliance with domestic aircraft fuel icing regulations no later than the end of this year.

Bombardier and Gulfstream actively compete globally in the large and super midsize business jet categories. A number of airlines in the United States also continue to operate CRJ-series small airliners, which were Bombardier products until 2020, when the line was sold to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) in Japan. Today, the Canadian planemaker has a substantial U.S. presence, centered primarily in Wichita, Kansas, but does not build complete aircraft in the United States. We will come back to this later on.

Trump has specifically targeted Bombardier several times across both of his terms amid larger trade disputes with Canada. During Trump’s first administration, the U.S. government notably injected itself into a spat between the Canadian firm and Boeing that ultimately upended a proposed order for F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters for the Royal Canadian Air Force.

How the Trump administration might now seek to block sales of Bombardier jets in the United States is unclear. If there is no legal mechanism for instituting an outright sales ban, U.S. authorities could try to decertify jets from the Canadian firm or implement prohibitive tariffs or other economic measures. In addition to retaliatory certification actions, Trump has also threatened to levy tariffs on Canadian aviation firms in the past. Any of these courses of action could draw legal action or other retaliation from the Canadian government.

All of this raises questions about potential impacts on the U.S. military. As mentioned, the U.S. Army is in the process of acquiring a fleet of Global Express 6500-based ISR planes, designated ME-11Bs, under its High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES) program. The Army has already divested all of its older turboprop-powered ISR aircraft as part of the transition to HADES. The service has also been utilizing several contractor-operated ISR planes based on different Bombardier business jets in the interim.

There is also the aforementioned Air Force fleet of E-11As. However, this may increasingly be something of a moot point, as these aircraft are now set to be retired in the 2028 Fiscal Year and supplanted with new space-based communications capabilities. There is still a possibility that Congress could block that plan, at least for a time.

TWZ has reached out to the Army and the Air Force in light of Trump’s latest remarks.

It is important to note that the U.S. certification process for military and civilian aircraft is separate, and that the Trump administration could exempt the former from any new action against Bombardier. After Trump’s decertification threat in January, the White House had told multiple outlets that in-service aircraft would be exempted from any such actions, but would not clarify whether further exemptions would be made for future U.S. military acquisitions.

Upending Bombardier’s business in the United States might have additional downstream effects, including on supply chains that support commercial and military fleets. Disruptions could also negatively impact any future sales opportunities to the U.S. military. When it comes to the latter point, since Trump started his second term, there has been a broader push to recapitalize U.S. government executive aircraft fleets. This has already included the purchase of new Gulfstream G700-based C-39A executive jets for the U.S. Coast Guard.

The Air Force is also working to acquire a successor to its existing Gulfstream-based C-37 executive jets, tentatively designated the C-37C. Multiple branches of the U.S. military operate a host of other Gulfstream-based aircraft, including special mission types like the Air Force’s EA-37B Compass Call electronic warfare jets.

All this being said, there is no guarantee that Trump’s latest threats against Bombardier will materialize, whether or not they might impact U.S. military fleets. The President has already faced public pushback, including from at least one member of his own party, citing the Canadian firm’s existing economic contributions to the U.S. economy through its aforementioned American subsidiary.

“The presence of Bombardier in Wichita supports a local workforce of more than a thousand employees, who contribute their talent and expertise to our nation’s defense and aerospace capabilities,” Senator Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, wrote in a post on X yesterday. “This afternoon, I reached out to the Trump administration to make certain the President is aware of the significant contributions of Bombardier to Kansas and the importance of its presence in Wichita to many Kansas workers at Bombardier and in the Bombardier supply chain.”

“I will continue working to see that Bombardier’s manufacturing operations not only remain in Kansas but continue to grow and create American jobs,” Moran added. “Kansas is home to a hardworking, skilled workforce, and I will continue welcoming leaders in aircraft and defense manufacturing to do business here in the Air Capital of the World.”

“Bombardier’s American workers are based all around the United States with sites in Kansas, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Connecticut, Illinois, Delaware, California, Washington D.C. and New Jersey, as well as overall direct employment presence in more than 20 states,” Bombardier said in its own statement response to Trump’s comments, per NBC News. “Bombardier has also announced extensive plans to grow its defense activities as well as its service network and will, later this year, inaugurate a new facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana.”

The threat alone of U.S. government action could still have negative impacts for Bombardier broadly. The company’s stock price fell by some seven percent after Trump’s post yesterday, though it has rebounded somewhat as of the time of writing.

Trump’s trade war with Canada more broadly is still escalating after a new round of talks collapsed last month. The President and other U.S. officials also continue to make remarks about the country becoming the United States’ 51st state.

Many questions remain to be answered about Trump’s new threats against Bombardier and how they could be implemented, if at all. The President has certainly created new uncertainty regarding the Canadian planemaker’s access to the American market without yet definitively clarifying when the U.S. military could be exempted.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Trump Threatens Canadian Jets At The Center Of Army Aerial Surveillance Plans appeared first on TWZ.

Russia is displaying some of its newest air-launched precision weapons in public for the first time at the El Alamein International Airshow in Egypt this week. The S-71K Kovyor and related S-71M Monokhrom, and the S8000 Banderol, reflect Russia’s effort to field larger numbers of relatively inexpensive standoff weapons alongside its more sophisticated and costly missile types. As such, their development and early employment are closely tied to the war in Ukraine, but they also reflect wider global interest in these kinds of weapons.

The weapons, seen in the tweet embedded below, comprise, clockwise from top left: S-71K Kovyor, an unknown smaller guided munition, S8000 Banderol, and S-71M Monokhrom:

Novel munitions for the Russian aircraft, on an expo. pic.twitter.com/L1UPTb8qhX

— krakek (@krakek1) September 6, 2026

For Russia, the requirement has become increasingly important as the war in Ukraine has evolved into a prolonged contest in which industrial capacity is as critical as technology. Russia has expended huge numbers of cruise and ballistic missiles against Ukrainian targets while also developing an enormous strike-drone campaign. At the same time, Ukrainian air defenses have become progressively more capable, forcing Moscow to use combinations of missiles, drones, decoys, and different flight profiles to penetrate or saturate the defensive network. One lesson is the fact that a weapon does not necessarily have to be as capable as a high-end cruise missile if it can be manufactured in much greater numbers and still present a credible threat to the target.

The S-71M, which TWZ previously reported on in detail after Ukrainian intelligence obtained an example, is a compact, turbojet-powered weapon with a distinctly angular airframe intended to reduce its radar signature. Imagery from Egypt gives a better look at its front end, including a faceted nose flowing into a broad central fuselage. The nose has at least one optically flat transparency for an infrared or TV seeker. Its wings are sharply swept and fold against the belly of the weapon for carriage, while the rear of the weapon terminates in an inverted-V tail arrangement. The overall shape is notably different from Russia’s more conventional cruise missiles of the past.

Ukrainian analysis found that the S-71M incorporates an OFAB-250-270 high-explosive fragmentation bomb as its warhead and relies primarily on inertial guidance, rather than carrying a sophisticated terminal seeker, although the seeker window raises questions about that.

Ukrainian intelligence also described its construction as being relatively straightforward, with fiberglass composite material making up much of the outer structure and no evidence identified of specialized radar-absorbing coatings.

As we noted previously, the weapon appears intended as a less expensive, but still survivable standoff weapon option that can be produced in significant numbers.

The S-71M has been tested from the Su-57 Felon fighter, also present at El Alamein. In a press release, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), responsible for the Su-57, said that the S-71M and the S-71K displayed alongside it “were designed for fifth-generation fighters,” although there is no reason why they couldn’t be launched from a wide variety of platforms.

A Su-57 performing at El Alamein, with one of its main internal weapons bays apparently loaded with Kh-69 standoff missiles:

T-50-9 in El-Alamein, opening both main weapon bays. Two, presumably, Kh-69 can be seen in the front one.

Source: @ T汪汪T pic.twitter.com/f6csKc6Y9D

— George N. (@GeorgeN28581) September 8, 2026

Regardless of launch platform, the nature of the war in Ukraine makes the S-71M particularly useful. Russia has increasingly relied on extemporized glide bombs for attacks against targets relatively close to the front, but those weapons require the launching aircraft to operate within a certain distance of Ukrainian defenses. At least in their earlier iterations, such weapons were also crude and prone to failure. Longer-range cruise missiles offer considerably greater standoff but are more complex and expensive. The S-71M sits somewhere between those categories, providing an air-launched, powered weapon with a relatively large warhead and some degree of low observability without the cost and complexity of a full-size, truly stealthy cruise missile.

The S-71K appears to represent a more capable version of the basic concept. Public information remains limited, but the weapon has been associated with electro-optical guidance and greater onboard processing, potentially giving it a capability to deal with targets in a more flexible manner than the largely pre-programmed S-71M. Exactly how that capability is employed, and how autonomous the weapon actually is, remain less clear from the imagery and information released to date.

As displayed at El Alamein, the S-71K retains the overall faceted, low-observable appearance of the S-71M but has a visibly different airframe and wing arrangement. Its body is notably broad and compact relative to its length, with folding wings that are relatively thick, and a more refined inverted-V tail giving it more the appearance of a small uncrewed aircraft than a conventional air-to-surface missile.

Meanwhile, the Banderol represents a somewhat different path to the same general problem. Ukraine’s intelligence service previously obtained and analyzed an example of the small jet-powered cruise missile, which TWZ reported on last year. The weapon is considerably smaller than Russia’s principal cruise missiles and has been associated with launch from drones and helicopters. Its reported range of around 500 kilometers (311 miles) and relatively small warhead make it something of a complementary system intended to provide another, more economical way of putting a precision weapon onto a target from the air.

In terms of its appearance, the Banderol is more conventionally missile-like, with an ogival central fuselage, a pointed nose, and sharply swept folding wings. Its proportions underline just how small it is compared with Russia’s better-known air-launched cruise missiles.

The Banderol is particularly relevant in the context of the economics of the Ukraine conflict. Russian forces have increasingly used combinations of relatively inexpensive one-way attack drones and more expensive cruise and ballistic missiles. The drones can be produced in large numbers and used to complicate air-defense operations, while the more capable missiles provide greater speed, range, payload, or penetration capability. A small turbojet-powered weapon such as Banderol offers another point on that spectrum.

At least one image has recently emerged showing a Banderol carried by a Russian Mi-28NM Havoc attack helicopter. This would be in line with unconfirmed reports from Ukraine last month that Russia was using the Mi-28 as an additional launch platform for the weapon, including firing them from over the Sea of Azov to attack targets around Odesa.

An S8000 “Banderol” (“Dan-T”) small cruise missile mounted on a Russian Mi-28NM attack helicopter. pic.twitter.com/Xcx3MmFK3B

— OSINTWarfare (@OSINTWarfare) September 6, 2026

Its reported use also illustrates how the distinction between a cruise missile and a large one-way attack drone is becoming increasingly blurred. The Banderol incorporates a conventional missile-like airframe and jet propulsion but has been associated with drone operations and makes extensive use of commercially available components. TWZ’s earlier examination of the weapon also highlighted the extent to which modern Russian weapons programs can combine relatively simple airframes with foreign-sourced electronics and propulsion technology.

Russia has revealed an Orion (Inokhodets) UAV carrying the S8000 Banderol air-launched cruise missile, marking the clearest Russian footage yet of the weapon integrated with the drone. #Russia #Orion #CruiseMissile #Defense pic.twitter.com/yLHb7h1oW9

— Drone Wars (@Drone_Wars_) July 13, 2026

Likely Banderol loitering munition on the ground (perspective exaggerates it's size) and under Orion drone.

Banderol has been reported as one of the munition used in recent strikes and appears to use a jet engine and a FAB-100 warhead or similar. pic.twitter.com/j50DUsNuVe

— krakek (@krakek1) April 27, 2025

Seen together at El Alamein, the three weapons provide an unusually useful snapshot of where Russian air-launched strike development is heading. They are presented alongside a fourth, so-far unidentified munition. This unnamed weapon is notably short and fat, with a cruciform tail, and an optical window in the nose. Its overall size and shape suggest it may have been developed specifically to arm drones.

The appearance of the weapons at an arms fair underscores the fact that Russia is not the only country confronting the problem of producing and fielding sufficient precision weapons at an acceptable cost. The growing interest in lower-cost cruise missiles, loitering munitions, attritable aircraft, and other forms of expendable precision strike is now evident well beyond Russia.

Russia is also clearly trying to make these weapons harder to intercept, an increasingly important consideration as Ukrainian air defenses have demonstrated an ability to shoot down even glide bombs in some circumstances. The S-71K in particular incorporates unusually pronounced low-observable shaping, suggesting that survivability was also a central requirement from the outset.

There is, however, a significant complication to Russia’s attempt to turn its wartime experience into an export opportunity. Buying any kind of weapons from Moscow has become considerably more difficult because of sanctions, restrictions on access to foreign technology and financing, and the wider political risks associated with maintaining a Russian defense relationship. Those factors matter just as much to a prospective customer as the performance of the weapon itself.

Author’s note: earlier reporting on the S-71 family appears to have transposed the S-71K and S-71M versions. Most authoritative accounts now indicate that the more refined, more stealthy version is the S-71K Kovyor (meaning carpet), while the simpler weapon is the S-71M Monokhrom.

Update, September 9:

Rostec, the Russian state-owned defense conglomerate, has provided more details of the weapon identified at El Alamein as the Banderol. Rostec calls this weapon the ‘Dan-T’ loitering munition, which is an export designation for Banderol.

According to Rostec:

The ‘Dan-T’ munition operates on a ‘fire-and-forget’ principle and is adapted for launch from Russian and foreign aircraft and helicopters. The munition is equipped with a compact jet engine and can strike targets at a range of hundreds of kilometers. The ‘Dan-T’ features a special flight mode designed to evade enemy air defence systems.

Rostec adds that the Dan-T has been combat-tested in the war in Ukraine, where it claims there have been “hundreds of successful launches” against enemy targets in the Special Military Operation zone. “We expect this munition to attract widespread interest from foreign customers,” said Rostec.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Russia’s New Stealthy Lower-Cost Air-Launched Standoff Weapons On Display In Egypt appeared first on TWZ.

The U.S. Air Force is targeting an approximately $10 million unit price, excluding sensors and certain other systems, for a drone to succeed the MQ-9A Reaper. The cost of a fully kitted-out Reaper today is generally reported to be between $30 million and $50 million. The Air Force is also now pushing to accelerate the program to acquire the new drones, dubbed the Massed Modular Aircraft (MMA), amid what it admits are “concerning” Reaper losses in the course of recent operations against Iran.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Niemi, the service’s Chief Modernization Officer, told reporters that the goal was for the MMAs to be “closer to half” the cost of a Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), at a roundtable at the Pentagon yesterday, according to Breaking Defense. He also said the service was hoping to see the price tag on its future CCAs fall to around $20 million after full-rate production of those drones gets underway.

Beyond cost, the Air Force has previously said that it wants the MMA drone to perform the same general intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike missions as the MQ-9A. To that end, stated program requirements to date include a speed of at least 200 knots true airspeed, a munition and sensor payload capacity of at least 2,800 pounds, an unrefueled combat radius of at least 2,300 nautical miles with payload, the ability to self-deploy one-way at least 8,000 nautical miles, and the ability to operate from runways no longer than 6,000 feet. The MMAs also need to be highly modular and use open architecture mission systems to make it easier to integrate new capabilities and functionality down the line.

With all that in mind, Niemi’s MMA cost “estimate includes only the cost of the air vehicle, without being fully missionized,” an Air Force spokesperson clarified after yesterday’s roundtable, per Breaking Defense.

The MQ-9A is out of production, but, as mentioned, the full cost of each one in Air Force service today is generally pegged at between $30 million and $50 million, depending on the sensors, weapons, and other mission equipment they carry. Speaking yesterday, Lt. Gen. Niemi explicitly used the $50 million price point to underscore the MMA program’s unit cost target, as well as explain why the Air Force does not view the newer, in-production MQ-9B as a path to meeting its current needs. General Atomics developed the MQ-9B from the Reaper, but the former is a significantly evolved design with substantial differences from its predecessor.

“If you don’t like losing an MQ-9A that cost on the order of $50 million, with the sensors, you’re probably not going to like losing an MQ-9B at a higher price point,” Niemi said at yesterday’s roundtable, according to a separate report from Air & Space Forces Magazine.

“There’s a, I think, sort of a misconception that because the MQ-9B is in production, we can walk down there with a big fat check and have 100 of them this year,” the general also said, Breaking Defense also reported. “That’s not reality.”

Niemi acknowledged that tradeoffs will have to be made to find an MMA design that is substantially lower cost compared to the MQ-9A.

“You’re going to have to certainly give up something,” he said, per Breaking Defense. “There’s no doubt if we try and pursue the exact same approach that we had with things like the MQ-9, we’re going to get something that costs about the same as an MQ-9.”

However, “what makes the MQ-9 special has nothing to do with the aircraft itself. Like there is no cutting-edge technology for how fast it flies, how high it flies, how far it flies, all that is proven, decades-old technology,” he added, according to that outlet. “So, if you’re focusing on the truck, and you do it in a way where you’re able to make some smart design compromises … we do think you can drive the cost down.”

Niemi said that he expected the MMA, in very general terms, to look much like an MQ-9, including that it would likely also be turboprop powered and have a similarly shaped main wing.

“I think it’s all going to be proven stuff, because that’s how I’m going to drive down the cost so I can get to that goal that I laid out,” Niemi added.

For its part, General Atomics has had choice words in the past regarding discussions about the costs of the MQ-9A and MQ-9B, as well as their capabilities, particularly in light of recent losses. We will come back to the matter of attrition in a moment.

“Some say we need cheaper, disposable aircraft, so that we can use them and throw them away, or lose them and not feel bad about it. No one is talking about actual capability, ready today,” C. Mark Brinkley, a spokesperson for the company, told TWZ back in June after new discussions about a Reaper successor for the Air Force first began to surface. “No one is talking about all of the hard lessons, already learned, about icing and weather and weapons integration. No one is talking about the multiple survivability upgrades available for the existing platforms and the lack of investment in those.”

“These make-believe weapons that don’t exist have the luxury of being anything you imagine them to be,” Brinkley added at that time. “Unscratched lottery tickets, promising all of the win and none of the lose [sic].”

“I think it’s really unfortunate that MMA has been branded as a ‘Reaper replacement’ because it misrepresents what America needs now and what we need later,” he told us last month. “We need an immediate backfill solution to a critical shortage of unmanned MALE [medium altitude, long endurance] ISR/Strike. We need to get going on that now. MMA isn’t a backfill solution, or even a bridge to a backfill solution. This isn’t that.”

Brinkley was speaking here in the context of a discussion about Wildfire, a new drone General Atomics is now developing in response to the MMA requirements.

Wildfire “addresses all of the concerns posed by the MMA solicitation. We can deliver years earlier and maintain the same high quality. You can have everything that makes Reaper special, plus more, at a price that doesn’t break the bank,” Brinkley also told Breaking Defense for its story yesterday.

All of this brings us back around to the matter of MQ-9A losses and the Air Force’s efforts now to accelerate the schedule for the MMA program.

Exactly how many MQ-9As the Air Force has lost due to enemy fire or for any other reason in the course of operations against Iran this year is unknown, but it is reliably reported to be in the dozens. The service is also understood to have lost dozens more Reapers last year during operations targeting Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen. The service is on record saying that its Reaper fleet had shrunk to 135 airframes as of May, down from an official total of 165 as of the start of Fiscal Year 2026. It is also important to note here that these inventory numbers do not include Reapers operated by the Marine Corps or the Central Intelligence Agency.

Air Force officials have offered glowing assessments of the MQ-9A’s performance in operations against Iran, despite these losses, but have also said that the level of attrition is worrisome. That reality, in turn, had major impacts on discussions that led to the current MMA program.

“Although we have plenty of MQ-9As today, we are going through them at a rate that is concerning to us,” Niemi said yesterday, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. “There’s not a lot of good options to immediately replace those aircraft.”

When the MMA program was first announced in July, the stated goal was to have an initial operational fleet of 20 of the drones in service by 2031. The Air Force is now working to push that timeline to the left, but still sees fielding of the new drones as being around three years away, at least. The service eventually hopes to acquire at least 180 MMAs.

“I can’t buy an MMA today. The reality is, based on the budget and other constraints, that I’m not going to buy a whole lot of MQ-9Bs today either,” Niemi conceded, per Breaking Defense.

It is important to remember here that the Air Force has already tried multiple times to develop a replacement for the MQ-9 without success. In that time, the idea of what a successor to the Reaper would look like has changed dramatically. As we’ve written previously:

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

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

MMA is also looking at a wider slate of potential vendors. General Atomics, which has long had a monopoly on the U.S. MALE combat drone market, is not the only one angling now for an MMA contract.

Overall, as we have previously written in the context of the Air Force’s latest effort to move beyond the Reaper:

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

The possibility was reportedly raised yesterday that the MMA program could ultimately lead to the fielding of multiple types of drones through successive incremental development cycles. This is exactly how the Air Force is running its CCA program now.

With the Air Force now pushing for a more aggressive schedule for the MMA effort, more details about the designs it is considering may begin to emerge relatively soon. The service certainly has a pressing need already for these drones after so many MQ-9A losses.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post USAF Wants MQ-9 Reaper Successor At A Fraction Of The Cost At $10M Each appeared first on TWZ.

New imagery appearing out of China provides the best look yet at one of the country’s most enigmatic aircraft: the very large, low-observable, flying-wing drone widely referred to as the WZ-X. Seen previously primarily in satellite imagery, TWZ broke the story of the existence of this monster high-altitude, long-endurance drone. The new views that emerged today help clear up one of the most puzzling aspects of the aircraft’s appearance, namely the unusual shape of its enormous wings.

The aircraft was first identified in satellite imagery collected in May 2025 showing the People’s Liberation Army Air Force’s (PLAAF) sprawling test facility at Malan in Xinjiang. At the time, it was difficult to determine whether some of the apparent discontinuities in the wing planform were genuine features, visual countermeasures, or artifacts of the imagery.

The new photograph, seen at the top of the article and below, as well as a new satellite image, shows that the aircraft has a broader-chord inner wing section that transitions into a substantially narrower outer section. Rather than tapering continuously from the center section toward the tips, the wing effectively becomes much more slender over its outer portion in a ‘step down’-like fashion. The resulting planform gives the aircraft an exceptionally long, narrow outer wing. The wing arrangement differs from the B-2 and other stealthy flying wing designs because it has two outer wing sections, in addition to its diamond-like central fuselage, instead of just one.

We still can’t say for sure if this feature is just the way the aircraft’s wing was designed or if it also is due to some other exotic feature, such as wing folding or removable outboard sections. While a more novel explanation is possible, it is somewhat improbable at this point.

Seen from behind, the aircraft has a relatively shallow central fuselage section, with extremely long wings extending outward from it. The landing gear is extended, revealing large main undercarriage doors and substantial landing gear consistent with an aircraft of this size. Split rudders are visible toward the outer wing areas, broadly reminiscent of those used on the B-2.

As in previous imagery, the rear of the center section of the aircraft may also reveal slot-like exhaust openings, supporting the assessment that it is twin-engined.

For an aircraft intended to spend long periods operating at high altitude, a very long overall span combined with a relatively narrow outer wing could be advantageous. Such an arrangement would increase effective aspect ratio and reduce induced drag during efficient cruise, potentially improving endurance and high-altitude performance.

It may also allow the designers to concentrate structural mass and internal volume closer to the center of the aircraft while still achieving a very large span.

There is a potential low-observable tradeoff, however. A significant change in chord introduces additional planform geometry and potential edge-alignment discontinuities that must be reconciled with the requirements of a stealth aircraft. The transition will influence radar reflections depending on its precise shape, orientation, and relationship to the aircraft’s other edges and surfaces. This will also be highly dependent on the aspect the radar is viewing the aircraft from. Modern very low observable designs try to minimize these exact types of features, with large continuous structures being the most advantageous to radar signature. This philosophy can be seen in the design of the B-21’s planform, which was also how the B-2 was supposed to look originally. You can read all about this here.

Regardless, the WZ-X does indeed have a semi-sawtooth trailing edge due to this intriguing feature.

The overall scale of the aircraft is also becoming increasingly apparent. Our initial analysis of satellite imagery put its wingspan at approximately 170 feet, roughly comparable to the 172-foot span of the B-2. That would make it considerably larger than other Chinese flying-wing drones identified to date.

Andreas Rupprecht, an analyst specializing in Chinese military aviation and TWZ contributor, assesses that the WZ-X is likely a twin-engined design similar in configuration to the supposed U.S. RQ-180, but considerably larger.

Rupprecht estimates a length of approximately 46 feet. He also assesses the aircraft as having a relatively spacious central fuselage and a dorsal satellite communications antenna. His estimates of a range exceeding 12,000 miles and a normal cruising altitude of somewhere between 59,000 and 66,000 feet remain unconfirmed.

The WZ-X is notably different from China’s smaller flying-wing designs. The CH-7, for example, has a deeper and more curved center section and is substantially smaller. The WZ-X’s broad, relatively flattened center body and enormous span instead appear particularly compatible with high-altitude endurance.

Its apparent configuration also makes a long-duration surveillance mission plausible. The central body and inner wing section would provide substantial space for fuel, sensors, and communications systems, while the outer wing, combined with its lifting central body, could support highly efficient flight at high altitude.

A low-observable platform of this size could potentially conduct many types of wide-area surveillance and networking assistance while operating in or very near contested airspace where conventional high-altitude UAVs would face greater risks. A strike capability cannot be ruled out, particularly given China’s broader development of combat-capable flying-wing UCAVs, but the aircraft’s proportions appear especially well suited to persistence and reconnaissance.

While the location of the latest imagery is unconfirmed, Malan has developed into a massive center for Chinese drone testing, with satellite imagery showing extensive expansion of its infrastructure in recent years. The facility has been associated with multiple flying-wing designs, including the WZ-X and the similarly mysterious and also very large GJ-X. This substantially different flying-wing aircraft with a cranked-kite planform is also undergoing flight testing. That aircraft is estimated to have a wingspan of around 137 feet, underscoring the breadth of China’s experimentation with large low-observable uncrewed aircraft.

China is pursuing tailless/flying-wing designs across an increasingly wide range of sizes and missions, alongside larger crewed aircraft programs including the J-36 and J-XDS and, eventually, the H-20 stealth bomber.

The WZ-X appears to be part of a much broader effort to develop highly integrated, low-observable aircraft optimized for different combinations of range, endurance, payload, and survivability.

For now, its official designation, manufacturer, propulsion system, performance, and intended mission remain unknown.

However, its configuration appears well suited to the requirements of a very large high-altitude endurance aircraft, although the trade-off between its performance and its stealth characteristics remains equally mysterious.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post China’s Huge WZ-X Stealth Drone’s Strange Wing Configuration Confirmed appeared first on TWZ.

The U.S. Air Force is seeking an anti-aircraft gun system to help defend its air bases around the world from drones and cruise missiles. The Request for Information (RFI) about these systems, posted on the government’s contracting website on Thursday, is part of a larger Air Force effort to play a greater role in air base defense via ground-based air defenses (GBADs), a capacity traditionally performed by the Army. As a result, the Air Force currently has no such systems. Now it is interested in changing that.

The request comes as the war against Iran exposed gaps in how the U.S. can provide effective, sustained air defenses for its foreign installations and amid concerns about a future fight against a peer competitor like China or Russia.

“The Government is conducting market research to identify potential industry sources capable of providing solutions for a Ground-Based, Medium-Caliber Gun Weapon System that fires affordable munitions, enables defense against air and missile threats with an initial focus on subsonic cruise missiles (CM) and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to provide persistent defense in support of [the] United States Air Force,” the RFI notes.

The RFI doesn’t stipulate what it considers a medium-caliber round; however, according to the Army, the list includes 20mm, 25mm, 30x113mm, 30x173mm and 40mm shells.

“To effectively assess and compare air defense weapon system performance, there are 15 critical baseline operational and technical parameters that must be analyzed in unison,” the RFI explains.

“These key metrics begin with the system’s Salvo Probability of Kill (Pk) evaluated against both Cruise Missiles (CM) and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Groups 1-5 at maximum range and altitude, ensuring robust lethality against diverse modern threats,” the RFI notes.

A salvo probability of kill measures how effectively a salvo, as opposed to a single shot, defeats a target. 

The following chart displays the weight, normal operating altitude and speed of the five drone group classifications.

The Air Force wants this system to be “rapidly deployable, maintaining a lightweight, modular, and transportable footprint that can be swiftly projected into austere theater environments to meet emergent threats.” The RFI does not provide further details of how the Air Force is looking to transport these systems; however, the service relies on its fleets of C-130 Hercules, C-17 Globemaster III and C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft to move equipment. The size and weight of the systems determines which kind of aircraft can transport it.

These systems could also be moved by truck or ship or on their own if self-propelled, but those options also incur a cost in terms of the timeliness of delivery, and can be impossible for rapid global deployments.

A key point of evaluation will be the overall cost of the munitions. The Air Force wants to ensure that the shell’s velocity and terminal effects “are maximized without driving the cost-per-engagement to unsustainable levels or exceeding the physical constraints of the host platform,” the RFI states. We’ll discuss these factors in more detail later in this story.

The service is also looking for the integration of “the right mix of radar, electro-optical, infrared, or radio-frequency sensors—to ensure reliable target acquisition and tracking across varying weather conditions, environments, and countermeasure scenarios.”

As we noted at the top of this story, the Air Force is seeking to improve its organic ability to defend its bases. This has become “an increasingly high priority” for the service, Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink told Congress on May 20.

“The Air Force is developing organic air and missile defense capabilities, including Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-sUAS) to defend our air bases in all theatres [sic],” Meink stated in his written testimony. “The fielding of the Air Base Air Defense Systems (ABADS) missile defense capability, including kinetic defenses, at overseas main operation bases contributes to joint layered defense but does not reduce the need for increased joint investment in air and missile defense. We will continue to work judiciously for the development and procurement of these critical defensive capabilities.”

In its Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, the Air Force is seeking about $1.4 billion for a missile defense variant of the Air Base Air Defense Systems (ABADS), according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. In addition, the Air Force also requested $51.8 million in procurement funds for its Small Unmanned Air Defense Systems (SUADS) in Fiscal Year 2026, according to the Air Force Fiscal Year 2026 budget justification book. 

The war against Iran and the Ukraine war have, in particular, illustrated the challenges of defending against drones and cruise missiles.

Iran launched thousands of these weapons against U.S. air bases and a wide range of critical infrastructure targets in Bahrain, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It also launched hundreds of ballistic missiles.

Taken in concert, these attacks have resulted in the deaths of at least nine U.S. troops, more than 760 injuries and the destruction of aircraft, radars and other critical equipment as well as widespread damage to the Middle Eastern nations Iran has targeted.

Concerns about the tremendous expenditure of U.S. interceptors exacerbating the stress on America’s magazine depth of these high-end defensive weapons are an issue that TWZ has raised frequently for years.

There are two facets to potential use of gun systems for base defense. The first is that in complex air defense environments, it provides an inner, last line of defense against incoming threats. If the outer layers fail to take down the target or that target is not considered a priority over others, a hard-kill gun system offers a predictable and relatively reliable fallback. The gun system would become even more important if interceptor stocks run low, even temporarily, and those weapons need to be rationed for higher-end threats. With the outer defensive rings collapsing, the inner becomes far more important.

For small drones, that interceptors would not be effective with anyway, the gun system can take them down in localized air defense scenarios. Then there is also defending bases in lower threat areas where there are not additional layers of SAM systems. A gun system can provide a core aerial defense against lower-end, lower-density drone and cruise missile threats without costing huge sums of money or requiring a huge logistical footprint.

Beyond that, there is a direct cost comparison argument, but again, that is in a vacuum and a gun system cannot take the place of a multi-layered air defense system without inviting huge risk. Still, the engagement cost comparison is worth mentioning.

High-end, expensive, difficult-to-manufacture air defense weapons, like Patriot PAC-3 MSE, are clearly inefficient against drones. For instance, a mass-produced Iranian Shahed-136 can cost about $35,000 to $50,000, while a Patriot PAC-3 can run about $5 million and takes years to procure. By comparison, the cost-per-engagement efficiency of gun-based air defense systems, designed to defend against drones and subsonic cruise missiles, is far greater. One example of how this plays out is the cost of firing the Army’s Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) system. It is a ground-based version of the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) used on various U.S. and foreign warships, and is armed with a six-barrel 20mm Vulcan Gatling-type cannon firing M940 rounds. Those self-destructing rounds currently have a price tag of $80.70, according to the Army’s Fiscal Year 2025 budget request. This means a two-second burst from a Centurion, at a rate of fire of 4,500 rounds per minute, would cost just over $12,100.

Again, this is not a strict apples-to-apples comparison, but it can become a bigger factor during prolonged conflicts when high-end weapons stocks begin to run short. It’s also worth noting that drone interceptors are a rapidly growing capability set that are a lower-cost option for swatting down one-way attack drones and even some cruise missiles. Systems like Coyote have been in service for years with the Pentagon and have been protecting bases overseas with strong results. Even cheaper systems are emerging out of lessons learned in Ukraine. All of these systems have their own advantages and disadvantages, but pairing them with a new gun system would likely have synergistic effects. Overall, deploying densely layered short-range air defenses is becoming increasingly important in its own right, at least in high-threat areas.

Ukraine has a great deal of experience with the costs and prioritization of air defense capabilities. The country faces daily attacks by Russian missiles and drones, which is causing mounting casualties and destruction. This ceaseless bombardment has almost completely depleted Ukraine’s supply of Patriot interceptors, leaving it largely defenseless against ballistic missiles. As we noted yesterday, Ukraine is also running short of air-to-air missiles its Air Force F-16s use to swat down drones.

However, Ukraine has also relied heavily on a wide array of gun-based air defense systems, including the German-made Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAG). Based on the chassis of the Leopard 1 main battle tank, Gepards feature twin radar-aimed 35mm automatic cannons, mounted on a single turret. The German variant sports an S-band search radar and a Ku-band tracking radar. These radars are critical to the Gepard’s ability to locate, track, and engage targets at night and amid poor weather conditions.

The success of the Gepards in Ukraine have helped spur new global interest in SPAAGs.

The following video shows a Gepard blasting an Iranian-made Shahed-136 out of the sky.

A video reportedly showing two Russian Shahed-136 (Geran-2) loitering munitions being shot down by the Ukrainians with a German-delivered Flakpanzer Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft gun (SPAAG) during last night's attack in Odesa Oblast, southern Ukraine.… pic.twitter.com/OhH7vTultm

— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) September 7, 2023

The Air Force force is also looking at directed energy weapons like lasers for force protection and especially for defending bases overseas. While gaining traction across the services due in large measure to the much lower cost of delivering effects, these systems are still works in progress. Gun-based air defenses, on the other hand, are mature and proven, and modern precision-guided, programmable ammunition makes them even more efficient and effective.

Beyond the cost, high-end air defense systems — including their component sensors — though portable, are generally fixed to a specific location. That makes them vulnerable to attack. This has been the case in both the war against Iran and Ukraine. The same concerns hold true of aircraft. Both conflicts have shown aircraft vulnerability to drones when parked out in the open. Ukraine’s Operation Spider Web attack on Russian strategic bombers last year in particular shed light on this issue, which we have been sounding the alarm on for a long time.

For years now, U.S. military officials have often pushed back on the utility and cost-effectiveness of investing more in the physical hardening of bases and other critical facilities, especially shelters to shield aircraft from drones and other threats. However, that is beginning to change. In February, the Pentagon released new guidance about hardening, which “does not mean enclosing an entire facility, but selectively introducing obstacles that disrupt predictable aerial access,” the document explains. “Even modest obstacles can deter low-cost, consumer-grade drones and force higher-risk flight profiles.”

In addition to these challenges, the Air Force is also facing the headwinds of an overall lack of U.S. short-range air defense capabilities, a concern we have been highlighting for years. Currently, there are three gun-based SHORAD systems being fielded by the U.S. military. These include the aforementioned Centurion C-RAM systems.

The Army also uses the Sgt. Stout, an air defense system based on the 8×8 Stryker light armored vehicle. The Sgt. Stout has a turret that can be fitted with up to two four-round launchers for Stingers. Those launchers can also be swapped out for ones that can be loaded with a pair of millimeter-wave radar-guided AGM-114L Hellfire missiles. The turret also has a 30mm XM914 automatic cannon, which can fire proximity-fuzed airbursting rounds against drones and other aerial threats, and a 7.62x51mm M240B machine gun.

The Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) is armed with 30mm cannons and M240C coaxial machine guns in remote weapon stations (RWS). The RWS on one of the two vehicles is also configured to fire Stinger missiles for a spectrum of ground-based air defense scenarios.

The Army may have additional gun-based systems on the way. In July, the service put out a request for information to companies that can provide a new gun-based air defense option, using a 50mm cannon system to track and defeat Group 1, 2 and 3 drones.

A few weeks later, Northrop Grumman introduced its Raid Hunter 50mm GBAD system, which it said “combines proven Chain Gun® technology, precision‑guided 50mm ammunition and a networked, interoperable system controller to deliver powerful protection against high-volume, mixed-threat aerial raids. It is designed to defeat a range of aerial threats including high‑priority cruise missile threats, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and other advanced threats.”

We’re introducing Raid Hunter, our newly named 50mm gun-based air defense system designed to defeat mass, mixed aerial raids with cost-effective interceptors and deep magazine effectors which can be delivered to the warfighter at scale. Learn more: https://t.co/gnOzpo0RA3 pic.twitter.com/oTqORTG9Q4

— Northrop Grumman (@NGCNews) August 11, 2026

There are foreign options should the Air Force want to go that route. For instance, German arms maker Rheinmetall makes the popular Skyranger 35 gun system, which is a turret that can fit on a wide array of armor hulls.

The Skyranger 35 “is equipped with a KDG 35/1000 revolver cannon in 35 mm x 228 caliber with a firing rate of 1,000 rounds per minute,” according to Rheinmetall, which began delivering these to Ukraine in January. “It has an effective range of up to 4,000 meters and a high degree of commonality with the Oerlikon Revolver Gun Mk 3. Thanks to AHEAD technology, the Skyranger 35 is airburst-capable. In the future, it will also be possible to equip it with modern guided missiles.”

Skyranger 35s mounted on Cold War-era Leopard 1 tanks have just emerged on the battlefield for Ukraine.

You can see a video of that system below.

It seems that Ukraine's 1020th Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment which belongs to the Ground Forces has taken delivery of the first Skyranger 35 SPAAGs mounted on a Leopard 1 chassis made by @RheinmetallAG.

A contract for the delivery of the Skyranger 35 SPAAGs was signed in H2 of… pic.twitter.com/VRWhGx1LCa

— GAU (@deaidua) September 3, 2026

Skyshield is the fixed placement cousin of this system and has been bought by a number of nations.

This is just one example of a large number of potential offerings that could fit the USAF’s interests, from both domestic and foreign origins.

As we discussed earlier in this story, the U.S. is already facing a challenge defending against Iranian threats. A war with China would be more devastating and, when it comes to the Air Force protecting its bases, require far more robust defenses. At the same time, the Air Force is still very early in the process of taking on more responsibility for protecting its assets.

Parties have until 5 p.m. Oct. 9 to submit their proposals to the Air Force for a gun-based air defense system. With limited options and the service pushing to address its growing desire for organic air defenses, it will be interesting to see who comes forward and what systems they offer. We will provide more details about this effort when they become available.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post U.S. Air Force Seeks Anti-Aircraft Guns To Protect Its Overseas Bases appeared first on TWZ.

The first F-15EX Eagle II destined for permanent assignment at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa departed Boeing’s St. Louis, Missouri, facility on August 28, 2026. The aircraft left St. Louis for the 142nd Wing at Portland Air National Guard Base, Oregon, where it will undergo final staging and integration preparations before its eventual deployment to the sprawling Okinawa installation it will call home. The Oregon unit is acting as a coordination and preperation unit for the 18th Wing, a function you can read more about in our interview with the wing’s commander.

This departure represents a critical, long-awaited milestone for the 18th Wing, which has been working toward the permanent stationing of the service’s most advanced Eagle variant to replace its now-withdrawn F-15C/D fleet. The arrival of the F-15EX in Japan, expected to begin in fiscal year 2027, which begins on October 1, 2026, will be a central pillar in the Air Force’s modernization of tactical airpower in the Indo-Pacific region.

EXciting progress for F-15EX!

We've delivered the 22nd F-15EX to the @usairforce. The aircraft will be the first F-15EX destined for @KadenaAirBase in Japan. pic.twitter.com/RlrTKuCCFl

— Boeing Defense (@BoeingDefense) September 3, 2026

“This is an important next step toward bringing the F-15EX home to Kadena,” said Brig. Gen. John Gallemore, 18th Wing commander, in an Air Force release. “Our team is ready to welcome the F-15EX, and this is another milestone that brings us closer to putting this capability in the hands of the airmen who will fly, maintain and employ it from Japan.”

The first F-15EX for Kadena’s 18th Wing, serial 22-0022, was noted flying test sorties from St. Louis in early August, initially in primer paint. By the middle of the month its was flying with its full livery, including the famous “ZZ” tail code.

View this post on Instagram

The F-15EX is a significant jump in capability over the legacy Eagles. With modernized avionics, flight controls, an expanded electronic warfare suite, and increased weapons carriage — as well as potentially new and longer-reaching weapons — the jet is well-suited to operating in the vast Western Pacific. As Kadena prepares for the permanent arrival, the 18th Wing plans to integrate the EX with regional allies, including the Japan Air Self-Defense Force, building upon existing bilateral training exercises.

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, F-22s and other fighters to the base on a rotational basis to fill the gap in the meantime.

The F-15EX will give U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific a high-capacity platform that complements the fifth-generation F-22 and F-35. With its ability to carry large air-to-air and air-to-surface payloads, the Eagle II can serve as a long-range “missile truck,” extending the reach and firepower of stealth aircraft operating closer to contested airspace. Its open-architecture systems also allow it to incorporate new sensors, weapons, and electronic warfare capabilities more readily than the aging F-15C/D fleet.

The aircraft’s value is also tied to its role in networked operations. Exercises such as Valiant Shield have demonstrated how the F-15EX can work with uncrewed aircraft like the  MQ-28 Ghost Bat, pointing toward mixed formations in which crewed fighters provide weapons, sensing, and command-and-control capacity for autonomous wingmen. Operating from strategic locations such as Kadena, the Eagle II could help the Air Force generate more combat power across the vast Pacific while reducing the burden on its limited number of stealth fighters.

Kadena will become the second Air Force location with combat-coded F-15EX aircraft, following the Oregon Air National Guard’s 142nd Wing.

The Air Force has previously announced plans to stand up National Guard F-15EX squadrons in California, Louisiana, and Michigan. Most recently, the Air Force announced plans to put F-15EX fighters at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, to replace older F-15E Strike Eagle jets that will move to Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.

While the movement of this first Kadena-bound F-15EX is a positive step, the wider Eagle II program is currently navigating some issues. According to a new Pentagon selected acquisition report released in August, the Air Force’s decision to aggressively expand its F-15EX fleet from 129 to 267 jets — intended to recapitalize the older F-15E force — has introduced substantial cost and schedule uncertainties that officials are now scrambling to manage.

The report warns that the extended acquisition strategy, which shifted from eight production lots to 12, will require Boeing to execute a “major technical refresh” to combat diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages. As systems like the radar, mission computer, and engines face potential obsolescence over the now-lengthened production timeline, the service faces what the report characterizes as a “significant redesign effort.” Program managers are planning to mitigate these risks by integrating upgrades through operational flight program releases scheduled between 2031 and 2035, a strategy they describe as a “structured, risk-reduced pathway” to avoid production line gaps.

Compounding these technical challenges are tangible production delays, largely stemming from a labor strike at the St. Louis plant from August to November 2025. The report notes that these are “unrecoverable delays,” forcing a cascading schedule slip. While Boeing was contracted to deliver all 12 jets from Lot 3 by early 2026, the company will only be able to field half of those by the end of the year. This has directly impacted the timeline for the Kadena deployment, which was originally envisioned for earlier in 2026, and has left the Air Force relying on “bridging strategies” and rotations to cover operational requirements until the Eagle IIs can fully stand up in Okinawa.

The Pentagon is now moving toward an aggressive production ramp-up, tasking Boeing to hit a rate of two jets per month. Keeping the F-15EX schedule on track will be a challenge, however, requiring successfully navigating ongoing parts shortages for critical systems, all while balancing the needs of foreign military sales customers who are also integrated into the supply chain.

For the 18th Wing, the arrival of the first F-15EX will bring a major advance in capabilities in a part of the world that needs them badly. At the same time, the program’s overall trajectory suggests that the wider transition to the new Eagle will come with some complex logistical and industrial challenges.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post First USAF F-15EX To Be Based In Japan Departs Boeing’s St. Louis Plant appeared first on TWZ.

The United Kingdom is moving toward adding a flying-boom aerial refueling capability to the Royal Air Force (RAF), a requirement being driven in large part by the future Tempest combat jet, being developed under the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) initiative.

In a written response to opposition MP Ben Obese-Jecty, U.K. Defense Minister Luke Pollard confirmed that the RAF’s existing probe-and-drogue aerial refueling capability will eventually be complemented by a boom system. The move would give Britain a sovereign capability to refuel aircraft equipped with the U.S.-standard boom receptacle, including the Tempest, while also improving interoperability with other NATO and allied air forces.

“The Royal Air Force currently operates a probe and drogue air-to-air refueling system and will complement this with the development of a boom system,” Pollard said. “This will ensure we have a sovereign air-to-air refueling capability for the future Royal Air Force fleet that enhances interoperability with NATO allies and partners.”

For the first time we have a Minister confirming the Boom is coming to Royal Air Force tankers, although the when and the how currently remain very much up in the air.

Still significant to have it through government voices and not just through the RAF itself. pic.twitter.com/esRN7NVoPy

— Gabriele Molinelli (@Gabriel64869839) September 2, 2026

The decision follows comments by a senior RAF official in July indicating that the service was already examining how to meet the requirement.

“We currently do not have boom [-equipped tankers] in the UK. We have a requirement for a boom from GCAP, so we have to resolve that requirement and that is what we are now looking at,” the official said at the Air Power Association Global Air and Space Chiefs’ Conference in London, according to Janes. “I [am] certain that at some point we are going to have to work out how we deliver a sovereign boom capability for our own combat aircraft.”

The requirement is particularly significant because GCAP’s Tempest is being designed with a fuselage-mounted receptacle for boom refueling. Unlike the probe-and-drogue arrangement used by the RAF’s existing Voyager tankers, a flying boom uses a rigid, telescoping refueling tube that is maneuvered by an operator aboard the tanker into the receiver aircraft’s receptacle.

One of the major advantages of the boom system is its higher fuel-transfer rate. That makes it especially useful for large aircraft and combat aircraft that need to take on substantial quantities of fuel quickly, reducing the time spent on the tanker.

Tempest is not, however, the only RAF aircraft that depends on the boom standard. The RAF already operates several boom-equipped receiver aircraft, including P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, RC-135W Rivet Joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft, and C-17A Globemaster III airlifters. The E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft also uses a boom receptacle, while the forthcoming RAF F-35A fleet will add another major boom receiver to the service.

Currently, the RAF has no boom-equipped tanker to support them.

Its principal tanker fleet consists of Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) Voyager aircraft operated by the AirTanker consortium and leased to the RAF under a private finance initiative. Unlike many A330 MRTT operators around the world, which acquired the aircraft with a flying boom, the British Voyagers were configured exclusively around hose-and-drogue refueling.

The Voyager K2 is equipped with two wing-mounted Cobham 905E hose-and-drogue refueling units. The K3 adds a third refueling point in the form of a Cobham 805E fuselage refueling unit, or FRU, located at the rear of the aircraft. The latter provides a higher fuel-transfer rate than the wing-mounted units.

Since the fuel is stored in existing tanks, the Voyager’s cabin is still available to accommodate up to 291 passengers and the cargo hold for freight. One Voyager, serial ZZ336, nicknamed Vespina, is modified for long-range VIP transport but still functions as a fully capable tanker.

A video showing Voyager ZZ336 refueling RAF and German Eurofighter Typhoons during the enhanced Air Policing mission in Romania:

Up to 14 Voyagers are available to the RAF under the current arrangement.

The future of those aircraft is now one of the key questions surrounding Britain’s planned boom capability.

One possibility would be to modify some of the existing Voyagers, installing a boom system in the rear fuselage. The baseline Airbus’ A330 MRTT design already incorporates a provision for a flying boom. At the time the United Kingdom ordered its Voyagers, boom refueling was not considered essential, so the capability was deleted to save weight, complexity, and cost — a decision which was to prove very shortsighted.

Such a conversion, however, would involve engineering, certification, ownership, and contractual considerations, particularly given that the RAF does not directly own the Voyager fleet.

Britain could also decide that modifying the existing aircraft is not worthwhile. The current Voyager private-finance arrangement runs until 2035, by which point the airframes will be considerably older. Rather than investing heavily in aircraft approaching the end of their contracted service period, the government could opt to acquire new A330 MRTTs or another tanker type equipped with a boom from the outset.

Another, more remote possibility could involve a podded boom arrangement, a concept that has been around for a while now, but which is gaining traction with the U.S. Air Force as it weighs options for future tanker capabilities. 

It remains unclear, however, whether a podded boom would offer the performance and integration characteristics required for Tempest and the RAF’s wider fleet. There is also a question about what platform it could be installed on.

At the same time, TWZ has previously highlighted how drones equipped with buddy stores could operate in a hub-and-spoke model, ferrying fuel from tankers positioned outside the threat envelope to aircraft operating at the tactical edge. This could be another option that might gain traction as the U.K. Ministry of Defense increasingly looks to unlock the potential of uncrewed capabilities, but must also be considered less likely, especially as a primary solution.

There is also a potential requirement for the tankers themselves to be capable of receiving fuel. Equipping a tanker with a receiver system would allow tanker-to-tanker refueling, extending the flexibility and reach of the RAF’s future air-to-air refueling force during long-range operations. Other A330 MRTT operators already benefit from this feature.

While Tempest is providing the immediate catalyst, a refueling boom capability would also close an increasingly conspicuous gap in the RAF’s tanker force. The service is acquiring and operating an increasing number of aircraft built around the boom standard while relying on a tanker fleet configured around the alternative hose-and-drogue system.

Whether Britain modifies its existing Voyagers, replaces them, or adopts another solution entirely could become an important part of the RAF’s long-term force structure as the Tempest program advances.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post UK Government Commits To Boom Refueling For RAF Tankers appeared first on TWZ.

Ukrainian F-16 pilots are facing such a severe shortage of air-to-air missiles that some daytime sorties have seen them rely solely on the fighters’ internal guns to engage Russian aerial threats, according to a journalist who recently spoke with a senior Ukrainian Air Force commander. Meanwhile, the lack of air-to-air missiles means that the available weapons stocks are now being rationed.

The disclosure provides a remarkable glimpse into the day-to-day reality of Ukraine’s F-16 operations. While the aircraft may be available, the pilots may be ready, and Russian drones and cruise missiles may be approaching, there may simply not be enough missiles on hand to arm the jets.

According to Newsmax journalist Shelby Wilder, the Ukrainian Air Force can find itself monitoring missile shipments as they cross the country’s border, with personnel counting not just the hours but the minutes until those weapons reach the aircraft. The concern is whether the missiles will arrive in time for the next major Russian aerial attack.

The Ukrainian commander, who identified himself by the callsign “Phantom” and as commander of the country’s 107th Wing, confirmed the underlying problem when asked directly whether Ukraine was severely short of missiles for its F-16s.

“Yes, that’s true. Any aircraft without weapons is … useless,” Phantom said.

That blunt assessment is particularly striking given what Ukraine is asking its F-16s to do, and the relentless nature of Russian bombardments against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.

The moment when a Ukrainian F-16 fighter jet shot down a Russian Kh-101 cruise missile at extremely low altitude pic.twitter.com/7zVujRkYaG

— MilitaryNewsUA (@front_ukrainian) June 1, 2026

The fighters have become an important part of Ukraine’s layered air defense network, hunting Russian drones and cruise missiles while also providing a potential counter to Russian combat aircraft, and conducting air-to-ground sorties. Ukraine has operated the F-16 since the summer of 2024.

“We are focusing on defending our skies against Russian unmanned drones to protect our infrastructure inside the country,” Phantom said. “Our target priority is cruise missiles.”

Destroying as many incoming threats as possible before they reach Ukrainian cities and infrastructure requires missiles, with the F-16 primarily armed with the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) and the shorter-range AIM-9 Sidewinder.

According to the new disclosure, those missiles have become a commodity whose availability can determine how a sortie is flown.

The F-16 carries an M61A1 Vulcan 20mm rotary cannon, but using the gun against an aerial target is fundamentally different from engaging it with a missile, and comes with its own risks, as we have explored before. This tactic is especially hazardous when going after small targets and especially slow ones, and it becomes even more dangerous at night.

Ukraine has already demonstrated that its F-16s can use their guns in combat. In May 2025, the Ukrainian Air Force said an F-16 pilot had destroyed three aerial targets and was engaging a fourth with the aircraft cannon before an emergency forced him to eject.

One air-to-air weapon not mentioned by Phantom is the laser-guided 70mm Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rocket, now apparently also part of the arsenal. These rockets would offer the Ukrainian Air Force an extremely valuable, lower-cost option for engaging drones and subsonic cruise missiles. 

Regardless, Phantom specifically called for additional air-to-air missiles, as well as interceptors for ground-based Patriot batteries.

“We require more means of protection, such as Patriot missiles and air-to-air missiles, AIM-9s or AIM-120s to our fleet,” he said.

Phantom’s message is that simply delivering more aircraft is not enough. Ukraine needs a sustainable weapons pipeline to keep those aircraft combat-effective.

Ukrainian Air Force F-16AM Fighting Falcon departing Belgium after receiving depot-level maintenance earlier this year. pic.twitter.com/Hy35iUZd8P

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) August 28, 2026

This is increasingly becoming a wider problem across Ukraine’s air defense network. Patriot interceptors have been heavily consumed, with relatively few replacement missiles now trickling in, leaving Ukraine with limited ability to defend against ballistic missiles in particular. The strain is now spilling into the lower tiers, including the air-to-air missiles carried by F-16s. Ukraine’s continued consumption of interceptors is a major driver, but it is competing with the enormous demand generated by ongoing wars in the Middle East and a broader surge in demand for advanced air defense weapons around the world. With production struggling to keep pace, scarce interceptors are effectively being rationed across an increasingly crowded global battlefield.

“At least we need to try to increase the production, or at least to allow Ukraine to localize the production in Ukraine or other European countries,” he said.

That proposal reflects the fundamental vulnerability of a relatively small fleet operating in a high-intensity air war. Every missile fired at a Russian cruise missile or drone is one less available for the next engagement. A finite inventory therefore has to cover both routine air-defense missions and the possibility of much larger Russian attacks. At the same time, both the AIM-9 and especially the AIM-120 are used for Ukrainian ground-based air defenses too. The AMRAAM, in particular, is the effector for the NASAMS, which protects Kyiv, and other key objectives against cruise missiles and drones.

The problem becomes even more acute because Ukraine cannot know precisely when the next major Russian strike will arrive.

That is why, according to Wilder’s account, the arrival of missile shipments is being followed with extraordinary urgency.

At the same time, Phantom welcomed the major technological leap that the F-16 represents over the Soviet-designed MiG-29s and Su-27s that formed the backbone of Ukraine’s fighter force.

“The F-16s in comparison with the legacy aircraft like MiG-29 or Su-27? This is kind of like a new technology,” Phantom said.

But sophisticated aircraft are only as useful as the weapons available to them.

Ukrainian F-16s have reportedly destroyed huge numbers of Russian drones and cruise missiles, and in July a Ukrainian F-16 was publicly identified by the U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman as having shot down a Russian fighter.

CONFIRMED!
On July 8, 2026, a Russian Su-35 multi-role fighter was shot down on the eastern sector!

Glory to Ukraine!
Together to victory! pic.twitter.com/r8S9fgQaC5

— Ukrainian Air Force (@KpsZSU) July 8, 2026

Phantom also asked Ukraine’s Western partners to think beyond individual weapons transfers and toward production capacity.

He also urged the United States and European countries to do more to prevent Russia from acquiring components used in its own missile production through third party countries.

“We need to make as much as we can to stop providing the parts, most technological parts to Russians, bypassing the direct sales, of course, through the third party,” he said.

Phantom argued that Russia continues to obtain sophisticated components through intermediaries and even ostensibly civilian products.

“It would not be a surprise that Russians [are] using the washing machine that they’re buying from the third party to use those smart details for building missiles,” he said.

His recommendation is tighter sanctions and enforcement designed to cut off Russia’s access to those components.

“Important is to sanction to stop Russia from being able to have access to those parts,” he said.

That, combined with missile shortages, could become an even bigger problem when Russia conducts another major aerial campaign against Ukraine, particularly as Moscow traditionally intensifies attacks against the country’s energy infrastructure during the winter months.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Missile Shortage Has Now Hit Ukrainian F-16 Force appeared first on TWZ.

Germany has now formally accused Russia of directing an attempted explosive-drone attack against Ukrainian cargo aircraft at Leipzig/Halle Airport, a story we previously reported on. At the same time, authorities are separately investigating a sophisticated sabotage attack against a critical power-grid node in Brandenburg, underscoring Germany’s growing concern over hybrid threats to its critical infrastructure.

The two incidents, occurring against the backdrop of growing German and European warnings about Russian hybrid warfare, underscore the expanding range of vulnerabilities facing critical infrastructure across the country.

We now know that Russia is responsible for the attempted explosive attack at Leipzig airport. Russia's repeated hybrid attacks on Germany and Europe are unacceptable. (1/4) pic.twitter.com/o3vBjgpeb1

— German Embassy Washington (@GermanyinUSA) September 1, 2026

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Tuesday that the Russian state had apparently provided the equipment and technical know-how for the Leipzig operation, with locally recruited “low-level agents” allegedly tasked with carrying it out.

The drone, discovered inside the secured area of Leipzig/Halle Airport during the night of August 4-5, was carrying approximately 1.3 pounds of explosives and was found close to a Ukrainian-operated Antonov An-124 heavy cargo aircraft used to transport weapons to Ukraine.

New footage of yet another act of Russian terrorism on EU soil, showing the drone loaded with explosives on the tarmac at Leipzig/Halle Airport, just meters from a Ukrainian Antonov An-124 cargo aircraft.

According to German authorities, the drone was carrying an improvised… https://t.co/eCZaLfz9yx pic.twitter.com/DbRz87wgIv

— SPRAVDI — Stratcom Centre (@StratcomCentre) August 5, 2026

The detonator on the device apparently failed, preventing what German officials said could have been a catastrophe.

The incident appears to have combined several characteristics of the emerging European hybrid threat: a relatively inexpensive drone, military-grade explosives, a strategically significant target, and the alleged use of local operatives to provide distance between the attack and its suspected state sponsor.

As we discussed at the time, the choice of target at Leipzig/Halle is particularly significant. The airport is an important cargo hub, and Ukrainian Antonov aircraft operating there have been used to move weapons to Ukraine. At the very least, an explosive device detonating near one of those aircraft could have disrupted a logistics link supporting Kyiv while simultaneously creating a major aviation safety incident.

A successful attack on one of Antonov’s cargo aircraft could have caused casualties, damaged or even destroyed the aircraft, and disrupted airport operations. The presence of explosive material inside a secured airport area also demonstrates the potential for covert actors to penetrate or exploit security around critical aviation infrastructure. But above all else, the loss of an Antonov Airlines An-124 would have been highly symbolic as the huge aircraft are a global symbol of Ukraine and its resilience.

Investigators later found traces of hexogen, or RDX, a military explosive near the airport on August 14, together with another drone.

Authorities initially believed the second drone could have been part of the planned attack, although investigators have since expressed doubts about that assessment. Nevertheless, German officials now say there is sufficient evidence to attribute the attempted operation to Russia, an accusation that Moscow rejects.

The Leipzig incident was not the only major security concern confronting Germany on Tuesday.

In the eastern state of Brandenburg, authorities said the power grid was deliberately targeted with specially prepared incendiary devices and rockets carrying conductive material. The attack targeted the Turnow-Preilack substation, a critical high-voltage node connecting the Jänschwalde power plant to the 50Hertz transmission network.

According to Brandenburg Interior Minister Jan Redmann, rockets carrying conductive material were fired into extra-high-voltage transmission lines, producing two short circuits. Authorities recovered more than a dozen devices at the site, with the number still increasing as the search continued. Redmann said the design and deployment of the devices required substantial preparation.

The attack caused a brief power interruption, but 50Hertz said all affected lines had returned to operation and that the general electricity supply was never disrupted.

At the Jänschwalde power plant, the incident triggered an automatic shutdown of one generating unit. The unit was expected to return to service Tuesday evening.

A substation and Germany’s Jänschwalde coal-fired power plant were attacked today, knocking a generating unit offline.

Local authorities report that the attackers launched rockets carrying payloads of "conductive material," causing short circuits. pic.twitter.com/dxPNmi2i9W

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) September 1, 2026

While the physical damage was limited, the nature of the attack is likely to attract significant attention from German security officials. Unlike Leipzig, German authorities are not currently attributing the Brandenburg sabotage to Russia. Redmann said authorities could not rule out the involvement of a foreign power, while also declining to exclude domestic extremist or activist groups. Left-wing activists have previously attacked German electricity infrastructure.

But the incident demonstrates the same underlying vulnerability Berlin is increasingly concerned about. In an age of hybrid warfare, relatively small-scale acts of sabotage exploiting weaknesses in infrastructure can have outsized consequences. Redmann described Germany’s critical infrastructure as excessively vulnerable.

“When it comes to our critical infrastructure, we in Germany are far too vulnerable,” he said, adding that the vulnerability extended to airports.

Taken together, the incidents illustrate the breadth of the threat German officials are attempting to address.

Germany’s assessment of the Leipzig operation also points to an increasingly familiar model of suspected Russian covert activity. German officials say Russian state actors supplied the expertise and equipment but relied on local agents to conduct the physical operation. That type of operation could provide Moscow with additional deniability while allowing sabotage to be conducted by individuals already inside the target country. It also complicates the security challenge for European governments.

German intelligence sources cited by German media have reportedly identified possible links between drone, explosive, and weapons incidents in Germany and other European countries, including Bulgaria, Italy, Poland, Romania, and the United Kingdom. Investigators are understood to be examining the incidents in parallel.

If those links are confirmed, the Leipzig operation could represent one element of a broader campaign involving recruited personnel, explosives, and uncrewed systems operating across multiple European countries. Europe has spent much of the past several years strengthening conventional military deterrence while simultaneously confronting an expanding gray zone of cyberattacks, espionage, sabotage, and influence operations. Critical infrastructure is an especially attractive target in that environment. Power grids, airports, railways, telecommunications networks, ports, undersea cables, and industrial facilities are typically dispersed, difficult to protect comprehensively, and often interconnected.

An attacker does not necessarily need to destroy infrastructure to achieve an effect. A temporary shutdown, disruption to logistics or forced security response can itself create economic and operational costs, and help generate a climate of fear and mistrust. This has already been seen in the mass drone incursions over sensitive locations across NATO countries, and especially in Germany.

There has been a growing acknowledgement of a new kind of threat, in which state-backed or state-directed actors could potentially use inexpensive systems, local recruits, and covert methods to create disruption without crossing the threshold of an overt military attack, for years now. Germany is now preparing measures aimed at increasing the costs of executing these kinds of operations for Moscow. The Russian consulate in Bonn is scheduled to close later this month. Berlin also intends to remove Russian House, a cultural and scientific organization in the German capital that German authorities have associated with alleged Russian intelligence activity.

Berlin is also preparing additional measures against Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, vessels used to transport Russian oil and other commodities while circumventing Western restrictions.

Germany also plans additional sanctions and tighter border controls for Russian nationals entering the country.

At the European level, Berlin is supporting the European Commission’s proposed 22nd sanctions package against Russia, reportedly covering approximately 1,600 additional companies and organizations linked to Russia. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Russia would respond to what she called Berlin’s “anti-Russian action.”

NATO and EU officials have backed Germany following the Leipzig attribution. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Berlin had presented clear evidence supporting its assessment of Russian involvement. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen likewise pledged European solidarity.

I just spoke with @Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz. NATO stands in full solidarity with Germany after the Russian hybrid attack in Leipzig on 4 August.

The evidence is clear. And I welcome the measures announced by Germany in response. NATO will continue to strengthen our ability…

— Mark Rutte (@SecGenNATO) September 1, 2026

This morning I spoke with Chancellor Merz to discuss the hybrid attack at Leipzig airport.

I assured him that the EU stands in full solidarity with Germany in the face of this attack by Russia.

We will keep the EU united despite these escalating and serious acts. The German…

— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) September 1, 2026

The incidents at Leipzig/Halle Airport and in Brandenburg underscore Germany’s growing concern over hybrid threats to its critical infrastructure. Both demonstrate how an adversary could potentially impose costs on a NATO country while operating below the threshold of open warfare.

At the same time, these actions come as concerns grow that Russia could openly and directly challenge NATO’s resolve militarily.

Regardless, for Germany and its European allies, the biggest question that needs to be answered may now be how many apparently isolated incidents could actually be pieces of a larger campaign?

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Germany Formally Accuses Russia Of Attempted Drone Strike On Ukrainian An-124 Cargo Jet appeared first on TWZ.

Japan’s Ministry of Defense has included an intriguing description of the ASM-3 Kai missile in its record fiscal year 2027 defense budget request, referring to the weapon as an “air-to-surface/anti-air missile.” Until now, the ASM-3 family has been publicly associated with the air-launched anti-ship (anti-surface) mission, and the wording potentially hints at an additional capability or intended role for the upgraded weapon.

The reference appears in Japan’s FY2027 defense budget request, submitted today, which seeks a record ¥8.89 trillion (approximately $56 billion) for the fiscal year beginning in April 2027. The request is part of a broader push by Tokyo to expand standoff strike, air defense, uncrewed systems, and other advanced capabilities.

The reference appears under a sub-section entitled Durability and Resilience, which calls for funds to “secure ammunition and fuel, increase the number of operational units (by addressing parts shortages, etc.), enhance the resilience of facilities (through facility upgrades associated with the formation of new units and the introduction of new equipment, etc.), and strengthen the operational infrastructure (by enhancing manufacturing capabilities, etc.).”

https://t.co/ntiASteLJx
というわけで概算要求ですが、個人的にはずっと導入を訴えてきたAARGM-ERの導入決定が嬉しい。あとは、ASM-3（改）がまさかの「空対艦/対空ミサイル」とは。 pic.twitter.com/XX09mrx2cE

— 因幡のよっちゃん（稲葉義泰 Yoshihiro Inaba） (@japanesepatrio6) August 31, 2026

In terms of securing ammunition, the document highlights the breadth of weapons systems involved, ranging from 5.56mm small arms ammunition and 30mm cannon rounds, via 155mm precision artillery rounds, up to advanced missiles including the Type 23 ship-launched air defense missile and the ASM-3 Kai.

The Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) ASM-3 is Japan’s domestically developed supersonic air-launched anti-ship missile, originally intended to arm the Mitsubishi F-2 fighter. The improved ASM-3 Kai (“Kai” meaning modified or revised) represents a significant evolution of the weapon, although the full nature of its capabilities and performance have not been officially revealed. The missile has already been observed undergoing testing on F-2s.

2年半振り以上？に飛んでいる102号機を撮影しました
ASM-3改にカメラポット吊してありがたや

2026.06.01
岐阜基地 RJNG
F-2B 102 pic.twitter.com/oUJImUagsI

— ボボ・AKEBOVO (@AKEBOVO) June 1, 2026

The ASM-3 program has also gone through a number of different configurations over its development history, with at least five distinct external configurations identified in previous reporting. The existence of multiple iterations leaves open the possibility that the newly identified “anti-air” designation could ultimately correspond to a dedicated air-to-air variant or derivative of the ASM-3 family, rather than simply a secondary capability of the baseline ASM-3 Kai.

Reportedly, the ASM-3 Kai is capable of flying more than 400 kilometers (about 250 miles), although the exact range of the operational weapon remains classified. It is powered by a ramjet engine, giving it sustained high-speed performance — reportedly around Mach 3. If it indeed has an air-to-air capability, this would be an advantage in some scenarios, compared to relying solely on a brief but very powerful rocket boost as many air-to-air missiles do.

The weapon is also understood to employ an active/passive radar seeker, providing it with both an active radar mode for detecting and engaging targets and a passive mode that can home in on their electromagnetic emissions. While an active radar seeker is common on long-range air-to-air missiles, the latter passive capability could also be of extreme value in an air-to-air application.

岐阜基地
九州から岐阜へ移動しました。
F-2 101号機、ASM-32発
スペマと離陸しました。#岐阜基地　#ASM3 pic.twitter.com/oFjetR3rWZ

— K.otani (@kotaken8022) December 9, 2025

The ASM-3 is also a substantially larger missile than typical fighter-launched air-to-air weapons. While that imposes obvious carriage and aerodynamic penalties, it also allows for a larger propulsion system, seeker, and warhead than would be practical in a smaller missile.

A weapon capable of traveling hundreds of miles at high speed, while carrying an active/passive radar seeker, could potentially be especially useful against high-value airborne assets such as airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft. These platforms provide vital wide-area surveillance, battle management, and targeting capabilities. At the same time, their powerful radars are necessarily emitting, potentially making them detectable and trackable by a missile employing a passive seeker.

China’s rapidly expanding AEW&C fleet is an increasingly important part of its ability to generate situational awareness, coordinate fighters, and extend its sensor coverage well beyond its immediate borders. The force, which already numbers dozens of increasingly capable fixed-wing aircraft, is a growing operational challenge for Japan and other regional air forces.

The ability to threaten such aircraft from well beyond the range of conventional air-to-air engagements could force an opponent to operate its AEW&C fleet even further from contested airspace, reducing the effectiveness of its sensors and command-and-control architecture. Although a passive seeker could also offer an avenue for homing in on relevant radar emissions, exactly how the ASM-3 Kai’s seeker would operate against airborne targets is not publicly known. Equally, a different variant of the missile, optimized for anti-air missions, could incorporate both passive and active seekers specially adapted for that mission set, although it is very possible a single configuration can accomplish both missions. As well as AEW&C aircraft, such a missile would be just as relevant for other high-value, non-maneuvering targets at long ranges, including intelligence-gathering platforms, tankers, and other support aircraft.

The budget language by itself falls short of establishing whether the ASM-3 Kai has been tested or validated against aircraft. The designation could reflect a broader classification within the budget documents, or it could point toward a genuine expansion of the weapon’s intended target set.

Such a weapon would not necessarily be a replacement for Japan’s existing air-to-air missile arsenal. Instead, an “anti-air” ASM-3 Kai could occupy a specialized niche focused on high-value or otherwise particularly important airborne targets at extended ranges.

The possibility is consistent with Japan’s broader effort to expand the flexibility and reach of its air-launched weapons. Tokyo is pursuing a growing family of standoff weapons as part of a major expansion of its counterstrike and deterrence capabilities, including longer-range missiles capable of striking targets well beyond the immediate vicinity of Japan.

Other air-to-air missiles mentioned in the same section of the document comprise the U.S.-made AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) and the domestically developed AAM-4B, another medium-range weapon, thought to be the first of its kind to be fitted with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna.

Between the exclusive AESA radar and Japan's labour cost, Mitsubishi's AAM-4B might be the most expensive air-to-air missile on the planet pic.twitter.com/rfBnXB8RzS

— Lia Wong (@LiaWong__) May 3, 2022

The FY2027 defense budget request also mentions another apparently new air-launched weapon for Japan, the AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER). Japan has not previously been publicly documented as an international AARGM-ER customer, but the weapon would be an obvious candidate for integration with its F-35 fighters if it wishes to bolster their suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD) capabilities.

In terms of F-2-related developments, the document calls for the upgrade of an initial 10 of these aircraft to make them compatible with the air-launched version of the Upgraded Type 12 anti-ship guided missile, a significant new weapon that you can read more about here.

TWZ has contacted Japan’s Ministry of Defense seeking clarification on the “air-to-surface/anti-air” designation and what it means for the ASM-3 Kai’s intended capabilities and target set. It could also be the case that the description is an error in the budget document.

However, the emergence of such a capability would also come at a time when very-long-range air-to-air weapons are becoming increasingly important as anti-access/area-denial challenges make it harder for fighters to get close to enemy aircraft and the high-value assets supporting them. China has fielded weapons such as the PL-15 and the much larger PL-17, while the United States is developing the AIM-260 and has just revealed the AIM-424 Malice, a U.S. Navy missile reportedly capable of reaching more than 250 nautical miles. The U.S. Navy is also fielding the AIM-174B, a very-long-range weapon developed very much with the Chinese threat in mind, and which we discuss in the video below.

For now, exactly what prompted the “air-to-surface/anti-air” designation for the missile is unclear, but if it reflects a genuine expansion of the ASM-3 Kai’s mission set, it would represent a particularly interesting development in Japan’s rapidly evolving air-launched weapons portfolio.

Hat-tip to Yoshihiro Inaba for bringing this development to our attention.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Japan’s ASM-3 Kai Supersonic Cruise Missile May Have An Air-To-Air Capability appeared first on TWZ.

The U.S. Air Force has stood up a new squadron at Andrews Air Force Base to manage the arrival of HH-60W Jolly Green II helicopters to replace aging UH-1N Twin Hueys. Originally designed for combat search and rescue (CSAR) missions, the HH-60Ws assigned to the 5th Helicopter Squadron will be in a specialized configuration to take on the tasks of ferrying VIPs around the nation’s capital and supporting continuity of government plans. Questions have been raised about using Jolly Green IIs in these roles, and how this may impact the ability of the overall fleet of these helicopters to meet CSAR demands.

The Air Force held a ceremony at Andrews yesterday to mark the formal activation of the 5th Helicopter Squadron, also sometimes abbreviated as 5 HS. The 1st Helicopter Squadron (1 HS), with its UH-1Ns, will continue to operate throughout the transition to the HH-60W, which is expected to be completed in 2030, to avoid any gaps in capacity to meet critical operational requirements. A total of 26 Jolly Green IIs are set to be based at the facility, which is situated just outside Washington, D.C., a one-for-one replacement for the Twin Hueys that are there now. The arrival of the new helicopters will also lead to a small increase in total personnel, 60 in total, at Andrews.

The Air Force originally planned to supplant all of its UH-1Ns worldwide with new MH-139 Grey Wolf helicopters, which is a more direct replacement in terms of size and capability. The service is still acquiring MH-139s to supplant UH-1Ns elsewhere, including ones assigned to Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) units that help provide security around Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos. We will come back to this later on.

“The HH-60W’s increased speed, range and carrying capacity will better deliver safe operations for U.S. senior leaders, service members, and the communities around the region,” the Air Force said in a press release regarding the 5th Helicopter Squadron’s activation.

The Jolly Green II also has in-flight refueling capability, something that is not found on the UH-1N or MH-139, and could be very valuable for missions around Washington, D.C. The HH-60Ws heading to Andrews are set to receive additional modifications, including to the main cabin seating arrangement, communications suite, and defensive capabilities, as you can read more about here.

“In the next few years, the 5 HS will train aircrew and maintainers, establish operational and maintenance processes, and receive new aircraft as it prepares to execute the national security mission within the National Capital Region,” the release yesterday added.

National Capital Region (NCR) refers to a larger area that surrounds Washington, D.C., proper. Air Force operations in and around the NCR are primarily managed through a unit called the Air Force District of Washington (AFDW).

The HH-60Ws will be taking over an AFDW mission set from the UH-1Ns that currently includes daily airlift sorties transporting U.S. and foreign VIPs around the nation’s capital. The helicopters will also be in position to swing into action as part of continuity of government plans. In such a scenario, the Jolly Green IIs would be tasked to help rush senior officials and lawmakers to safety to ensure the continued functioning of federal authorities following an attack or a similarly serious contingency. 1st Helicopter Squadron’s role in responding to the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 was highlighted during the activation ceremony at Andrews yesterday.

The NCR presents particular challenges for crisis response missions and routine day-to-day flight operations. The airspace around Washington, D.C., is most densely defended and heavily monitored anywhere in the United States, and packed full of military and civilian air traffic every day. Where and when military helicopters can operate over the nation’s capital has been a hot topic of debate since a fatal mid-air collision involving an Army UH-60 Black Hawk and a PSA Airlines Bombardier CRJ700 regional jet in January 2025. The Black Hawk was conducting a continuity of government training flight at the time. This has been more recently highlighted by an incident involving a Marine One helicopter carrying President Donald Trump earlier this month. A subsequent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) investigation has highlighted communication issues and factors tied to the construction of a new helipad at the White House.

It is also worth noting here that Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX-1), the primary unit responsible for the Marine One presidential helicopter mission, would play a role in any continuity of government scenario in the NCR. Helicopters from the U.S. Park Police, as well as ones belonging to other law enforcement and civilian agencies, would be utilized, too.

As mentioned, there are significant questions about the impacts of basing HH-60Ws at Andrews will have on the rest of the Air Force’s Jolly Green II fleet. This is something TWZ highlighted when the Air Force confirmed it was moving ahead with the AFDW HH-60W plan with the release of its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request earlier this year.

A particular issue is the Air Force’s decision years ago to scale back total purchases of HH-60Ws, from 113 helicopters down to 91. If the service does not order more Jolly Green IIs in the coming years, this will mean that roughly a third of the entire fleet will be assigned to the AFDW mission.

The Air Force previously confirmed the plan will involve taking HH-60Ws out of “back up inventory.” In the past, the service has defended this decision as being “more cost effective” than a move to “procure additional MH-139A aircraft” to meet AFDW requirements. Whether or not there were other specific operational considerations that factored into the decision to use Jolly Green IIs to meet these needs instead is unknown. The acquisition plan for the Grey Wolf has also been significantly truncated, with the Air Force now planning to buy just 56 of these helicopters instead of 80.

“The MH-139A Grey Wolf was competitively selected to replace the UH-1N for intercontinental ballistic missile security and National Capital Region missions, including continuity of government and transport of United States government officials and security forces,” members of the House Armed Services Committee wrote in a report accompanying a draft of the annual policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2027 Fiscal Year, back in May. “The committee remains concerned regarding the justification for transitioning these missions to an alternate rotary-wing platform and seeks additional details on cost and operational implications.”

At that time, the House Armed Services Committee explicitly directed “the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than December 1, 2026, assessing operational, cost, infrastructure, and readiness impacts of assigning any non-MH-139A rotary-wing aircraft to continuity of government and transport of United States government officials and security forces in the National Capital Region.” The lawmakers stressed that the report had to include “a comparison of procurement cost, cost per flight hour, infrastructure and aircraft modification requirements, and training and manpower impacts” and an assessment of the cost, schedule, and operational disruption associated with required upgrades to Joint Base Andrews facilities for each aircraft type.”

Separate questions have been raised in recent years about the utility of traditional CSAR helicopters in future operations, especially in the context of a high-end fight, such as one between the United States and China in the Pacific. Air Force officials openly talked about exploring alternatives for rescuing aircrew downed deep inside contested environments, but details about those plans remained limited.

At the same time, demand for traditional CSAR capabilities has certainly not gone away entirely. This was underscored by the operation to retrieve the crew of an F-15E Strike Eagle that went down inside Iran in April. HH-60Ws were part of the larger force package sent into Iranian airspace to help recover those aviators.

Wild footage from a USAF C-130 fueling two helicopters over Iran shared by telegram channels. The cars & the dialect are Iranian and from southwest. pic.twitter.com/K9cufOOY26

— Ramin Khanizadeh (@RKhanizadeh) April 3, 2026

Footage of Iranian police firing small arms at a pair of USAF HH-60Ws searching for the downed F-15E crew earlier today. pic.twitter.com/9SwhyhY1Aw

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 3, 2026

In the meantime, the Air Force’s UH-1Ns, a type the service first began operating in the early 1970s. are only getting older and harder to sustain, too. Three of the UH-1Ns currently assigned to 1st Helicopter Squadron saw combat during the Vietnam War. Just last week, one of the unit’s Twin Hueys made a precautionary landing in an open field in Maryland “after experiencing unusual mechanical noise” while on a training flight. This is hardly the first time such an incident has occurred.

There is a possibility that Congress could more directly intervene in the Air Force’s move to start flying HH-60Ws around Washington, D.C. With the expectation that UH-1Ns will remain in service at Andrews for another four years, there is time for the service’s own plans to evolve further.

With the activation of 5th Helicopter Squadron, the Air Force has now taken an important step toward an all-new helicopter force in the nation’s capital.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post USAF Stands Up Unit To Fly HH-60W Helicopters In Doomsday Evacuation Role In Nation’s Capital appeared first on TWZ.

The U.S. military is planning to revamp Moron Air Base in Spain, including creating new parking spaces for as many as nine additional B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers. This effort comes even after Spain denied permission to use the base, and its naval station in the country, for direct strike operations on Iran during Operation Epic Fury. Long-range strikes by bombers flying from Europe played a major role in that operation. It also comes as the Pentagon is reviewing its posture in Europe, which could include major basing changes that fit the Trump administration’s vision for NATO and who it prefers to work with the closest, as well as tactical and strategic concerns.

The makeover is part of a nearly half-billion dollar construction program for U.S. facilities primarily in the Rota, Spain, area, which provide a great deal of support for American forces in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. It was announced on Thursday in a pre-solicitation notice posted on the government’s contracting portal that a contract is expected to be awarded next month.

Moron, located in southern Spain, is a Spanish Air Force Base, used by the U.S. Air Force to provide expeditionary combat support and the bed-down of transient aircraft. It also plays a major role in the “staging of aircraft and personnel in support of U.S. and NATO plans, exercises and contingency operations; and to provide Base Operating Support to tenant units,” according to the Air Force Fiscal Year 2027 Military Construction plan.

The first order of business is “a Combat Aircraft Parking Apron in Moron, Spain,” the recent pre-solicitation notice states. The plan calls for the “expansion of the Aircraft Parking Apron to provide nine (9) new aircraft parking spots in an unloaded condition, or three (3) new B-52 aircraft parking spots in a live ordnance [sic] loaded condition.”

The issue of being able to store live ordnance is critical, since extra space is needed for safety purposes in case of an unintended explosion.

“The current apron is not capable of supporting any loaded strategic bombers due to limiting factors associated with unrelated facilities violating inhabited building safety arcs,” the Air Force budget document explains.

Beyond the new parking spaces, the planned expansion at Moron also calls for 10 new fuel pits and associated piping, the relocation of a Civil Engineer Storage Complex – including a new covered storage building and an open storage yard – and the extension of apron shoulders and access roads, among other items.

The Air Force sees these improvements as an imperative.

“This project is required to enhance readiness capabilities at Moron Air Base, Spain,” the Air Force Fiscal Year 2027 military construction budget documents note. “A key enabler for training and combat operations is substantial infrastructure, promoting a quick response and positioning of forces within prescribed response times. The expanded Strategic Bomber Aircraft parking apron will increase Moron Air Base’s ability to meet future mission requirements.”

If these improvements are not made, “[a]dequate airfield infrastructure will not be available to the DoW [Department of War] or its allied partners, and personnel, aircraft, and resources will lack key facilities and infrastructure to support expanded airfield operations for training and contingency environments,” the budget document warns. “This limitation will impede sortie generation and flying schedules, directly limiting airfield presence and impairing airfield capability and readiness. Therefore, responsiveness for bilateral and multilateral exercises and training missions would be compromised, directly limiting theater presence and impairing mission capability, readiness, and contingency support.”

The project has a price tag of between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000 and is “expected to be completed 1,038 calendar days after notice to proceed,” according to the pre-solicitation notice.

In addition, the Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) calls for new construction, renovations, alterations, demolition, repair work, and any necessary design to a wide range of U.S. assets in the region. This includes “airfield, industrial, infrastructure, administrative, training, retail, food service, munition storage, community support facilities and both vertical and horizontal construction in the Rota, Spain region or other areas managed by NAVFAC EURAFCENT, [Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command/Navy Region Europe, Africa, Central],” the pre-solicitation notice explains. “This tool may also be used throughout the NAVFAC area of responsibility (AOR), worldwide.”

However, as the Air Force budget documents stress, the Moron project is a priority.

The installation has long played an important role for American airpower. It has served as a host for B-1B Lancer and B-52 Bomber Task Force missions and as a way station for a wide array of other aircraft from fighters to aerial refueling tankers.

“Morón Air Base is a vital link in any operation moving east from the United States due to its strategic location close to the Mediterranean and the Middle East, its massive flight line, long runway, aircraft refueling systems and excellent weather,” according to the 496th Air Base Squadron, the facility’s host unit.

The facility played a key role in the run-up to Epic Fury, providing a midway point for a wide array of U.S. military aircraft.

In March, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, one of Europe’s most vocal critics of Epic Fury, refused to allow the U.S. to use its bases in his country for direct attacks on Iran. In addition, Sánchez denied permission for the U.S. to use Spanish airspace for Epic Fury, creating a logistics headache for American aircraft movements to the Middle East.

Sanchez’s decision affected Naval Station Rota, another major U.S. installation in that country. Rota supports the movement of personnel, equipment, fuel, and supplies through its three operational piers. It also has a 670-acre airfield capable of supporting U.S. Navy and Air Force aviation operations, and some of the largest weapons and fuel storage facilities in Europe.

Rota is also the home of Destroyer Squadron 60 (DESRON 60), one of three U.S. Navy destroyer squadrons permanently based outside the continental United States and the only one of these to call Europe home.

Sanchez’s moves set off U.S. President Donald Trump, who was already angered by Spain’s refusal to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP, previously agreed to at last year’s NATO summit. In March, the American leader called Spain “a terrible partner” and threatened to cut off trade.

The situation reached a critical juncture at the NATO Summit in Turkey in July, with Trump again threatening Madrid. 

“We don’t want to do any trade business with Spain anymore… I’d like you to cut it off,” Trump fumed in Ankara to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a press conference with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. “Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don’t participate; they don’t pay. I don’t want anything to do with Spain. Cut off all trade with Spain, please, including visits. Watch them, watch them come running back; oh, they’ll come running back.”

At a NATO summit, Trump said he had ordered Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to cut off all trade with Spain, calling Madrid a 'terrible partner' in the alliance https://t.co/1E2VkRee2j pic.twitter.com/Vt2oNxW8QM

— Reuters (@Reuters) July 8, 2026

However, the rift eased after Sánchez agreed to bump up his country’s defense budget, Trump claimed.

On his way back to the United States after the summit, he told reporters aboard Air Force One: “I did have issues, and ​I still do. But Spain, they came back all the way today. Spain was very generous today.”

Asked what Spain had ​done, he said: “They honored a request for lots of payments, and if they didn’t, we wouldn’t have even ⁠talked to them.”

The two leaders displayed new-found cordiality for the cameras while sharing a box at the World Cup Final between Spain and Argentina at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. 

Though the Moron construction planning predated any of the political drama, as we noted earlier, the Pentagon is reviewing how many troops it will maintain in Europe and where it will base them. Undersecretary of War Elbridge Colby made a rare visit to NATO headquarters on Thursday to meet with officials to discuss the way forward. There, he pointed out that the Pentagon’s review is “designed to ensure that NATO is moving fast and irreversibly toward Europe leading, stepping up to take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe, stepping up to ensure our forces are postured for America’s global needs, and making sure that our access, basing, and overflight are clearly delineated and assured.”

There are a number of other military construction projects on the books for European installations, including about $4 billion earmarked for improvements to bases in the U.K. The largest planned expenditure is more than $1.6 billion for RAF Lakenheath, according to the Guardian. That’s where it is believed that the U.S. is poised to bring nuclear bombs back to the United Kingdom after nearly two decades.

Despite the geopolitical tiffs between the two nations, the investment in Moron and the larger construction package for Spain is a clear signal of how much the military and Congress value having access to bases in that country.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post U.S. Expanding B-52 Bomber Capacity At Moron Air Base In Spain appeared first on TWZ.

Saab’s first Gripen F two-seat fighter has taken to the air, marking the beginning of the flight-test campaign for a variant being developed in close cooperation with Brazil.

The aircraft departed Saab’s airfield at Linköping, Sweden, at 9:40 a.m. local time today and remained airborne for approximately 40 minutes. Saab chief test pilot Jakob Högberg and Brazilian Air Force test pilot Lt. Col. Aviator Abdon de Rezende Vasconcelos were in the cockpit for the inaugural sortie.

According to Saab, the flight was intended primarily to verify the aircraft’s core systems and initial flying characteristics. The company says the aircraft will now enter a more extensive test program, including progressive expansion of its permitted flight envelope.

That work will eventually cover the aircraft’s speed, altitude, G-loading, and angle-of-attack limits, as well as the tactical capabilities and systems associated specifically with the rear cockpit.

“This first flight represents an important step forward for both Saab and the Brazilian Air Force,” said Lars Tossman, head of Saab business area Aeronautics.  “Seeing Gripen F take to the skies is particularly significant for all the Swedish and Brazilian teams whose years of engineering work have helped turn this aircraft into a reality. It is designed to accelerate pilot training while enhancing operational performance in advanced combat missions.”

The Gripen F is the two-seat derivative of the Gripen E, but it is not simply a conventional trainer version of the single-seat fighter. Saab has designed the rear cockpit to be independently functional, allowing the aircraft to retain an operational combat role while carrying a second crew member.

The configuration is therefore intended to support conversion training and mission preparation while also offering potential advantages during complex combat missions through the division of cockpit workload. This could also include as a ‘drone controller,’ a growing area of interest for many air forces and something that Saab is also working toward with its uncrewed aircraft plans.

Combining the Gripen F, in particular, with a high-end drone of the kind that Saab envisages, would make a good deal of sense.

Saab has already pitched its stealthy, supersonic Autonomous Collaborative Platform (ACP) ‘fighter drone’ as an adjunct for the single-seater, describing it as “a great asset to the Gripen E.” Saab envisages the Gripen E serving as a tactical mission commander for one or more ACPs, working in conjunction with the company’s GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft.

The dual-crew benefits of the Gripen F, combined with the ACP, could give Saab an even more compelling route into the CCA market. After all, a fourth-generation fighter like the Gripen (Saab, it should be noted, rigorously avoids using this generational terminology), can remain highly relevant when teamed with CCAs, and a high-performance, stealthy drone like the ACP could make that combination even more potent. It could, at least possibly in some cases, allow air forces to skip the sixth-generation crewed combat air platforms altogether, or at least greatly reduce the need for them.

Brazil is central to the Gripen F program. The country was the launch customer for the two-seat variant and participated directly in its development as part of the broader technology-transfer arrangement underpinning its Gripen acquisition.

The first Gripen F was formally rolled out at Saab’s Linköping facility in June. Brazil’s original 2014 agreement with Saab covers 36 aircraft, in the form of 28 single-seat Gripen E fighters and eight Gripen F two-seaters. Deliveries of Brazilian Gripens began in 2020.

The F-model has also attracted interest beyond Brazil. Saab has subsequently received Gripen F orders from Thailand and Colombia. The South American nation will get two Gripen Fs, while the breakdown of Thailand’s Gripen E/F order has not been revealed. According to Saab, the 16 new-build Gripens ordered for Ukraine will all be single-seaters.

As for the Swedish Air Force, it plans to buy 60 single-seat Gripen Es, but bearing in mind the changing security situation in Europe, and the increasing focus on uncrewed aircraft, a future Gripen F order should not be ruled out. In particular, Saab has said it expects the Swedish government to acquire new Gripen E/Fs to backfill the 12 earlier Gripen C/D variants it has donated to Kyiv, and which are expected to arrive in Ukraine early next year.

Ukraine intends to purchase 20 Gripen E/F aircraft. In conjunction with the sale, Sweden will donate up to 16 Gripen C/D, including advanced ammunition. To replace the donated aircraft, new modern Gripen E/F will be procured for the Swedish Air Force. https://t.co/kPHjVDXnSb pic.twitter.com/IxEhsy2yvN

— Försvarsdepartementet (@ForsvarsdepSv) May 28, 2026

Saab also remains upbeat about the prospect of a Canadian order for the Gripen E/F.

Sweden has made a strong push to sell Gripen to Ottawa, and Saab offered to build the jet in Canada, in an effort to secure support for its previous bid, which it lost to Lockheed Martin and the F-35. Since then, Saab has also emerged as the preferred candidate to supply Canada with its future AEW&C capabilities via its GlobalEye.

Days after trade talks between Ottawa and Washington collapsed this month, further straining the Canada-United States relationship, Saab chief executive Micael Johansson told TWZ and other journalists that Gripen would be the “perfect” option if Canada moves ahead with a joint fighter purchase. The Swedish jet would add “combat mass” alongside the F-35, according to Johansson.

“I don’t think Canada will give up the F-35 completely; they will go forward with that to some extent,” Johansson said.

Johansson also pointed to the Gripen’s ability to operate from highway strips as well as conventional runways: “You get to use all kinds of airstrips that you cannot use with the F-35,” he added.

Part of the Saab pitch to Canada is the establishment of a new domestic final assembly line for the Gripen E/F, which would be the third such facility after Sweden and Brazil.

As for the Brazilian connection, this extends well beyond aircraft procurement. Saab says more than 350 Brazilian engineers, technicians, and pilots have participated in activities covering Gripen development, production, flight testing, and maintenance. Brazilian industry, including Embraer, has consequently become deeply involved in the program.

Meanwhile, Saab is continuing to expand what the fighter can actually do once it leaves the factory.

Recent work has included a test launch of the Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile, as well as last year’s integration of Helsing’s Centaur AI agent, which was tested in a beyond-visual-range combat scenario.

TAURUS LAUNCH
Today a TAURUS KEPD 350 cruise missile was launched from a Swedish JAS 39 Gripen for the first time. The test was conducted at the Vidsel Test Range in Norrbotten.
Today TAURUS is a long-range cruise missile that introduces a new deep-strike capability.
FMV pic.twitter.com/vYcL75Lu4p

— Flygvapnet (@flygvapnet) August 21, 2026

Speaking last week, Johan Segertoft, head of Saab’s Gripen business unit, points to the fighter’s digital architecture as a key enabler of the rapid integration of new capabilities. The company says the Centaur integration took just 10 weeks.

“We chose BVR because it’s one of the most complex things to prove that we could take third-party software and do it, but there’s a lot of things in an aircraft and outside an aircraft that benefit from the advancement of software,” Segertoft said.

Since the Gripen E first flew in 2017, Saab has implemented around 300 capability upgrades, according to Segertoft. He contrasts that with what he describes as a theoretical maximum of around five upgrades for competing aircraft.

That approach is summed up by Saab’s internal mantra, Segertoft says: “code in the evening, deploy in the morning, learn by lunch.”

The Gripen F test campaign will now move beyond basic systems checks toward progressively more demanding flight conditions. Saab’s Flight Test Center in Sweden will conduct the campaign before the aircraft undergoes the remaining acceptance procedures and is eventually handed over to the Brazilian Air Force.

The first flight therefore represents a milestone not only for Saab’s new two-seat fighter but also for the industrial partnership that produced it. Potentially, that model could be repeated in Canada in the future.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Saab’s Gripen F Two-Seater Takes To The Air For The First Time appeared first on TWZ.

NASA is starting to explore options to fill the gaps that will be left by the eventual retirement of its iconic T-38 Talons. Since the 1960s, NASA has been using the jets to support astronaut training and as chase planes. However, the Talons are aging, supportability is already a problem, and challenges to sustain them further are expected to grow as the U.S. Air Force replaces its T-38 fleet with new T-7A Red Hawks.

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas, put out a contracting notice today seeking information about potential T-38 successors. NASA currently has 25 Talons in its inventory, according to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) online database.

“NASA JSC is conducting market research to obtain industry information regarding availability, capability, schedule, sustainment models, and cost efficacy for modern high-performance jet aircraft that could be used in evaluation and an evaluation program for supporting NASA’s astronaut SFRT [Spaceflight Readiness Training] requirements,” the notice explains. “NASA has operated the T-38N fleet in support of astronaut SFRT for several decades. With the U.S. Air Force planning to retire the T‑38 fleet in the 2030-2035 timeframe, NASA is evaluating options to transition to a more modern high-performance aircraft.”

The T-38N variant is specific to NASA and distinct from the T-38A/B/C variants the Air Force currently operates. The U.S. Naval Test Pilot School also has a handful of T-38Cs. Both the N and C variants are based on the original T-38A, which first entered Air Force service in 1961. The Air Force bailed the first Talons to NASA three years later.

The N models have received various upgrades over the years, including the integration of new modern ‘glass cockpits’ with digital displays starting in the 1990s. As of 2011, compared to contemporary C variants, “the T-38N aircraft includes differences in communications and navigation, such as the addition of weather radar, a data link weather system, the terrain avoidance and warning system, the terminal collision avoidance system, GPS with localizer performance and vertical guidance approach capability, and redesigned electrical, inlet, ejector nozzle, and flight management systems,” according to a report from the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Now, “NASA is seeking information on existing, production, or near-production high-performance jet aircraft capable of supporting SFRT,” per today’s contracting notice from the JSC. “NASA is not restricting industry responses to a specific performance class or aircraft design heritage.”

The notice does provide the following list of desired characteristics:

• “High reliability with established maintenance documentation”
• “Self-starting engine capability”
• “Performance comparable to a modern jet trainer/light fighter aircraft”
• “Capability to support dynamic maneuvering, formation flying, and cross-country navigation”
• “Dual-seat, dual-control configuration (tandem or side-by-side)”
• “Modern avionics compatible with instrument flight operations”
• “Aircraft capable of being single-pilot qualified from either seat is highly desired”

“Prior to any fleet transition, NASA seeks to conduct a limited-scope evaluation program using a small number of modern aircraft,” the notice adds. “This evaluation program is not a full fleet buy or replacement. It is intended to operate a small number of aircraft within JSC’s existing operational framework to assess compatibility, logistics, cost efficacy, and training impact.”

Furthermore, “NASA anticipates evaluating a small number of aircraft over a multi-year period,” it continues. “NASA requests information on potential procurement options such as lease, lease-to-own, barter, or other arrangements due to limited upfront procurement funding.”

NASA is looking to be solely responsible for flight operations of the jets, but is expecting contractors to handle maintenance, whether the aircraft are government-owned or not.

The contracting notice does also say that “NASA is open to operating the aircraft under reasonable flight hour limits, maneuver restrictions, or operational envelopes consistent with contractor recommendations.”

Just what kind of limits and restrictions NASA might be willing to accept is unclear. The entire reason for operating the T-38s now is to offer a high-performance platform with a good degree of maneuverability to support the SRFT requirements. These are attributes that are also valuable when flying as a chase plane and otherwise supporting flight research and test activities.

NASA certainly seems to be willing to consider a wide range of potential operations, both in terms of aircraft and operating schemes. When Boeing won the Air Force’s T-X competition to replace the T-38 with what became the T-7A, TWZ noted the possibility that other Talon operators, including NASA, could follow suit.

There are a wide variety of other jet trainers available on the open market. This includes Korea Aerospace Industries’ (KAI) T-50, a design capable of supersonic flight that has been offered on the U.S. market before through a partnership with Lockheed Martin. A version of the T-50 was one of the losing entrants in the Air Force’s T-X competition.

There are several private companies that operate relevant jet trainer types to provide flight training and ‘red air’ aggressor services, too. NASA’s current administrator, Jared Isaacman, founded one of those companies, Draken International, making him once the owner of the world’s largest private air force. He has also personally bought various demilitarized fighters and jet trainers over the years. During this year’s July 4th celebrations in Washington, D.C., he somewhat controversially flew over the nation’s capital in one of the F-5 Tiger II jets that he owns.

With expectations that funding for new jet trainers will be limited, at least initially, NASA could well seek to enter into some kind of new arrangement with the Air Force (or another branch of the U.S. military) just like it did in the 1960s. It’s also worth noting here that the T-7A program continues to suffer significant delays due to technical issues and other factors. This has led the Air Force to repeatedly push back its own T-38 replacement timeline. The service’s original goal was to reach initial operational capability with the Red Hawk in October of last year, but it is now targeting August 2027 to achieve that milestone. A full-rate production decision is now not expected to come until January 2029. So, the prospect of NASA actually getting T-7s anytime before the USAF gets all the jets it badly needs is questionable.

There are also no indications that NASA’s SFRT requirements will slow in the meantime, either. If anything, these training demands could grow as work continues toward the resumption of crewed missions to the Moon under the Artemis program. The Artemis IV mission, currently scheduled for 2028, is set to be the first time astronauts have set foot on the lunar surface since Apollo 17 in 1972.

From the wording of today’s contracting notice from JSC, NASA is still some years away from making a final decision on what will come after the T-38N, but the hunt is now on.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post NASA’s Hunt To Replace Its Iconic T-38 Talon Jets Kicks Off appeared first on TWZ.

Europe is entering an interesting, and potentially highly consequential, period in the development of beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air weapons. While the public emergence of new U.S. weapons in this class has unsurprisingly grabbed the headlines in recent months, Europe is meanwhile working on several projects that ultimately seek to field its next generation of far-reaching air-to-air missiles.

As in the United States, the immediate catalyst is the rapid evolution of Chinese air-to-air missiles, particularly the PL-15 and newer systems that are emerging around it. The India-Pakistan air combat experience from last year has brought the issue into sharper focus, demonstrating the operational consequences of underestimating an opponent’s long-range air-to-air capabilities. However, while Pakistan said its Chinese-made fighters and missiles shot down several Indian aircraft, the precise circumstances, numbers, and tactics involved remain the subject of competing claims and outside analysis.

For Europe, the MBDA Meteor is currently the state of the art in terms of BVR air-to-air missiles, and its unique set of capabilites is something we have discussed in depth in the past. The question is increasingly not simply how to improve the Meteor, but what should come after it, and what kind of weapons architecture (or ‘kill chain’) will be needed for the next generation of crewed and uncrewed combat aircraft and their weapons.

One of the most intriguing current developments is France’s Comet program, which appears to be led by the French side of the pan-European MBDA consortium. Very little is publicly known about the weapon, and its exact specifications remain unclear. It nevertheless appears to represent an effort to provide a significant step beyond the current MICA family, offering greater range and speed. If the apparent timeline of around 2030 is correct, Comet could be viewed as a relatively near-term response to an increasingly demanding threat environment.

Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) research institute in London, told TWZ that Comet looks like “a response to the exchanges between the Pakistanis and the Indians, where, on day one, the Indians underestimated how aggressive the Pakistanis were going to be, particularly with PL-15. It seems coincidental at the very least that this kind of thing has just popped up onto the horizon.”

That would distinguish Comet from the U.K.’s Future Air Superiority Effectors, or FASE, program which appears to be associated much more closely with the longer-term requirements of the U.K.’s Future Combat Air System and GCAP/Tempest.

Talking to TWZ, Justin Bronk, a research fellow for airpower at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), explained that FASE “is likely aimed at providing significantly better combat capabilities by the early-mid 2030s than a mid-life upgrade of the Meteor missile would be able to offer within the bounds of its basic layout and size.”

Creating an interesting overlap with FASE and Comet is a joint Franco-British study looking at what comes after Meteor. In April, the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding launching the 12-month effort that will assess future air-combat threats and potential next-generation missile concepts. The study is intended to identify the technologies required for a successor weapon and establish a development roadmap. While the two countries are at least formally examining the same post-Meteor problem, their longer-term combat air priorities appear to be diverging.

Beyond Meteor

Meteor remains one of Europe’s most capable air-to-air weapons. Its ramjet propulsion system gives it an important advantage over conventional solid-rocket missiles by allowing it to retain propulsion and energy much further into an engagement.

However, the threat environment that Meteor was designed against is changing. Meteor’s requirements were established in an environment dominated by the Soviet/Russian air-to-air missile threat. Today’s planning increasingly has to account for Chinese weapons such as the PL-15 and newer systems that may combine very long range with substantially greater speed.

“Since the Meteor is still more than a match for current Russian air-to-air missiles in air-to-air engagements, it is likely that the capability goals for the FASE program will use far more capable Chinese air-to-air missiles, aircraft, and sensors as pacing threats,” Bronk ​​​​added.

That raises the uncomfortable question of what happens when both sides can launch extremely capable BVR weapons against each other?

Simply put, higher speed now matters more, because it reduces the target’s reaction time and can make the terminal engagement substantially more demanding. One of Meteor’s advantages is the considerable energy it retains when it reaches the terminal phase, but the tradeoff is a slower average speed across the entirety of its flight envelope.

Barrie explained: “Meteor’s fly-out speed is somewhere between Mach 3.5 and somewhere below Mach 4. If you launch a PL-15 off a J-20, which is doing Mach 2, that weapon probably stays above Mach 5 for an awfully long time, which is one of the issues. It’s that risk of a mutual kill. Obviously, if the weapon against the J-20 is coming out at Mach 3.5 to Mach 4, then you have a bit an issue there.”

At the same time, a missile’s effectiveness depends on many other factors, including launch conditions, flight profile, midcourse guidance, seeker performance, electronic warfare environment, and target maneuvering.

However, the nature of the threat may push the next generation of European weapons toward a combination of greater range, substantially higher speed and greater terminal energy rather than simply another incremental improvement to Meteor. Indeed, the United Kingdom has dropped its plans for a Meteor mid-life upgrade, presumably to focus its efforts on an altogether more ambitious and capable successor, or successors.

Does the next weapon need a ramjet?

The Meteor was designed around a ramjet motor, especially since it was expected to face a ramjet version of the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder) missile. This was never fielded, and, as far as we know, China doesn’t have a weapon in this class either. A Meteor successor therefore won’t necessarily use the same kind of propulsion.

Meteor demonstrated the advantages of air-breathing propulsion, but there are trade-offs involved in using a ramjet or another air-breathing system. Achieving very high speeds while maintaining useful range and maneuverability can become increasingly difficult, and propulsion complexity adds cost and potentially consumes valuable internal volume.

The performance being attributed in open sources to Chinese solid-propellant weapons like the PL-15 suggests that another approach is possible.

Barrie would not be surprised if the ramjet is dropped. “The issue with a ramjet is it’s not impossible to get above Mach 5, but it’s difficult, and there are lots of compromises you probably have to make … I wonder if they may just look at energetic solids.”

A future European missile could therefore use a substantially larger solid-propellant motor, potentially coupled with a different boost and sustain architecture, to achieve the required combination of speed and range. Using more than one stage, or a multi-pulse solid rocket motor could be other solutions to the issue.

The size problem

Perhaps the biggest opportunity for a new European BVR weapon comes from the aircraft that will carry it.

Meteor was developed within the physical constraints imposed by existing fighter aircraft and their weapons-carriage arrangements, including internal carriage in the F-35. A future combat aircraft such as Tempest is expected to have significantly greater internal volume available for weapons.

“One of the drivers for Tempest is internal carriage, obviously, but lots of it,” Barrie continued. “A big main bay, and then probably sizeable side bays as well. That lets you carry a considerably larger weapon mass internally than an F-35. If you look at size of the platform in terms of what they’ve released, it’s a big aircraft, and one would assume it has a very significant internal weapons bay.”

A larger missile can carry more propellant, potentially support a more powerful propulsion system, accommodate a larger or more capable seeker, and provide additional volume for electronics and other subsystems.

As we have explained in the past:

There are different ways of increasing the range of an air-to-air missile, but this process is always easier if the weapon can be made larger. Bigger dimensions can translate to a bigger engine, more fuel, multi-stage rocket motors, and air-breathing engines, like the ramjet used in the Meteor. Other range-extending options that the United States has examined include throttleable “multi-pulse solid rocket motors” and more exotic “propellants, grain configurations, cases, and liners,” all of which would also be able to ensure greater range — as well as higher speed — compared to existing weapons.

The result could be a weapon that is considerably larger than Meteor but still fully compatible with the aircraft for which it was designed.

This reality, and the use of the plural effectors in the U.K.’s FASE terminology raises the possibility that the future European BVR requirement may not be for one missile, but for a family of weapons — at least as far as the British are concerned.

Why “effectors” may matter

If FASE ultimately refers to multiple effectors rather than a single missile, that could point to the broader direction of future air combat, involving crewed aircraft as well as various uncrewed wingmen.

Tempest is expected to operate as a so-called quarterback, supported by a number of uncrewed combat aircraft, remote carriers, or other systems operating considerably farther forward. Those uncrewed systems will have different size, payload and weapons-carriage constraints from the crewed aircraft.

This means that not every platform will need the same BVR weapon, or even be able to accommodate them, when it comes to the larger missiles.

Instead, a future force might require something resembling a family:

• A large, long-range, high-speed weapon for the crewed Tempest aircraft, optimized for the highest-end air-superiority engagements.
• A medium-sized weapon suitable for existing fighters and potentially future aircraft with more constrained weapons carriage.
• A smaller weapon optimized for CCAs or other uncrewed systems where internal bay dimensions, payload and cost are more restrictive.

A modular missile could possibly cover two of these categories at once. More broadly, these weapons could share technologies without necessarily being identical missiles. Common seekers, electronics, datalinks, software, guidance technologies or other subsystems could potentially be reused across the family.

The result would be a fundamentally different approach from simply developing a single Meteor replacement.

The seeker may be as important as the motor

The front end of a future European BVR weapon is another area where significant change is likely.

An active electronically scanned array (AESA) seeker would seem a logical baseline for a next-generation weapon. The United Kingdom’s previous work with Japan on the Joint New Air-to-Air Missile program, or JNAAM effort was particularly interesting in this regard, given Japan’s experience with active electronically scanned air-to-air seekers.

A future weapon could also incorporate a passive radio-frequency capability alongside its active radar. That would provide another means of detecting or tracking emitting targets and could increase the weapon’s resilience in a heavily contested electromagnetic environment.

For its PL-17 ultra-long-range air-to-air missile, China appears to have chosen a combination of active and passive seekers, although, as Barrie points out, it also appears to have been designed around a very specific target set: E-7 Wedgetail, E-2 Hawkeye, other airborne early warning and control platforms, and support assets, like tankers and strategic electronic surveillance and attack aircraft.

Whether such a capability is worth the additional cost and complexity is another question. A highly sophisticated multimode missile will inevitably be expensive, however, the same technologies could potentially provide utility against a broader range of targets than conventional fighter-on-fighter engagements. An air-to-surface capability should also not be ruled out, with a passive seeker potentially bestowing an anti-radiation missile (ARM) capability on the weapon.

Another passive seeker alternative could be based on an imaging infrared (IIR) sensor. This could provide an interesting complement to an active-radar seeker, making use of the same kind of two-way datalinked midcourse guidance system already included in Meteor. It could be especially relevant for engaging small or low-signature (stealthy) targets and in a heavily contested electromagnetic environment.

The weapon is becoming part of the network

Perhaps the biggest change will be the extent to which future BVR missiles exploit the wider kill chain, becoming much more than weapons guided by the aircraft that launches them.

The key requirement is for the missile to be track-source agnostic. This means a future long-range air-to-air missile could receive targeting information from a CCA, an airborne early warning aircraft, another fighter, a naval platform, or potentially space-based sensors.

For example, with Tempest operating alongside forward-deployed CCAs, the sensor that initially detects a target could be the CCA. The launching aircraft could then receive the track, launch a weapon, and continue receiving updates from multiple platforms.

Alternatively, a CCA could launch the weapon using targeting information generated by the crewed aircraft or another sensor elsewhere in the force, provided it is on the network.

Two-way datalinks, midcourse guidance, electronic warfare resilience, and the ability to accept high-quality third-party targeting information become central requirements. Some of this functionality is available, to varying extents, on some current air-to-air missiles, but it will be even more important as air combat becomes increasingly reliant on distributed sensor networks and crewed/uncrewed aircraft teaming.

If it can rely on offboard sensors, the missile’s engagement range no longer needs to be constrained by the organic sensor range of the launching fighter. Faced increasingly by the realities of an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) environment, this could enable weapons that fly far beyond what the launch platform could independently detect and engage. The A2/AD threat is already pushing research into much farther-reaching air defense missiles, potentially with a range of up to 1,000 miles.

This also opens the door to more exotic propulsion concepts, including multi-stage weapons designed to combine very high-speed boost with a separate sustain or terminal stage.

The next generation of long-range air-to-air missile may therefore be defined as much by the kill chain they plug into as by the architecture and performance of the missile itself.

What happens to Meteor?

Meteor is one of Europe’s strongest examples of a successful multinational defense program. Six European nations participated in its development, and the program eventually produced a weapon that is widely regarded as a highly capable system.

Now, however, the countries that developed Meteor do not necessarily have identical requirements for the next generation.

The United Kingdom is moving toward GCAP/Tempest with Japan and Italy. Its future combat air requirements will increasingly be shaped by that program and by the threat assessment driving it.

The United Kingdom appears to want a very large, very high-performance weapon optimized for Tempest and the future air-superiority mission, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. Japan likely needs very much the same.

Meanwhile, other Meteor users may prioritize a weapon that can be integrated onto existing fighters and remain affordable in larger numbers.

France’s Comet effort could meet that requirement, since it appears to be a comparatively rapid response to the emerging threat. With that in mind, France could eventually find itself with a near-term weapon, a future clean-sheet requirement, and a continuing relationship with the Meteor family, all while pursuing its own future combat air requirements.

Overall, it is far from clear whether the Meteor consortium will survive for another generation, at least in its current form.

Could Japan become part of the answer?

Given that it’s a partner in GCAP/Tempest, and based on its previous air-to-air missile studies with the British, Japan is particularly interesting in this context.

Japan faces a threat environment in which long-range air combat is of obvious importance, and Japan has already demonstrated advanced capabilities in active electronically scanned air-to-air seekers. The Japanese-developed Mitsubishi AAM-4B became the first air-to-air missile to feature an AESA seeker.

Although earlier air-to-air missile cooperation between Japan and the United Kingdom did not evolve into an operational program, the two countries are now developing a combat aircraft together through GCAP.

With Britain and Japan designing the future combat aircraft together, they could eventually develop some of its principal weapons together as well, although Italy’s requirements are likely very different.

Thinking beyond the missile

Europe can almost certainly build a faster missile than Meteor, but there are plenty more questions about what kind of air combat system that missile — or missiles — will fit into.

A future BVR weapon will have to operate from multiple types of platforms (crewed and uncrewed), receive targeting data from offboard sensors, communicate with CCAs, function in a highly contested electromagnetic environment, engage maneuvering targets at extreme range, and retain enough energy to remain dangerous in the terminal phase.

Increasingly, it seems that, rather than a single weapon, a family of effectors will be the solution.

For the United Kingdom, FASE may become one of the most important programs to watch because it could reveal how Britain intends to bridge the gap between Meteor and the weapons of the GCAP/Tempest era. At this stage, FASE appears to be ‘for U.K. eyes only,’ although Japan and Italy would appear to be likely beneficiaries, due to their teaming on GCAP.

Elsewhere, Comet could provide an early indication of how France intends to respond to the emerging long-range missile threat while maintaining flexibility for a future system.

And for the wider Meteor consortium, it remains to be seen whether the program’s success can be carried forward into another multinational weapon, or whether the emergence of GCAP/Tempest and increasingly divergent national requirements marks the beginning of the end for the Meteor model.

Either way, the next generation of European BVR weapons is likely to be larger, faster, more networked, and more deeply integrated with the combat air system around it. At the same time, the need to create a family of effectors designed around a distributed force of crewed aircraft, CCAs, and offboard sensors will bring some formidable challenges.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post What Europe Needs Next In Beyond-Visual-Range Air-To-Air Missiles appeared first on TWZ.