The Oregon Air National Guard’s 142nd Wing has taken another significant step toward turning the F-15EX Eagle II into a true multirole fighter, conducting the first live-bomb drops from operational F-15EXs during training at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. The milestone came during a roughly three-week deployment to Nellis in late August and early September in support of the U.S. Air Force’s Weapons Instructor Course (WIC).

Photographs released by the Air National Guard yesterday show F-15EXs from the 142nd Wing carrying live bombs on the flight line and departing Nellis with the weapons loaded. Official imagery shows the jets armed with a single 500-pound Mk 82 freefall bomb on the fuselage centerline, while spotters also captured F-15EXs carrying a 2,000-pound Mk 84 freefall bomb in the same position.

View this post on Instagram

The 142nd’s F-15EXs are only now acquiring a capability that was deliberately absent from the wing’s previous F-15C fleet. The Portland, Oregon-based unit was an air-superiority organization when it operated the F-15C, while the F-15EX is ultimately derived from the F-15E Strike Eagle and has considerably more inherent multirole potential.

As we reported in July, the wing had already begun laying the groundwork for this transition. In May, 142nd personnel traveled to Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, where they loaded and dropped inert BDU-50 and BDU-56 training bombs from their F-15EXs. Those weapons replicate the size and weight of 500-pound-class Mk 82-series and 2,000-pound-class Mk 84-series bombs. Over 10 missions, the crews dropped 24 BDU-50s and 12 BDU-56s.

While the F-15EX had already been tested in an air-to-ground role by the Air Force’s test community, the Mountain Home deployment was the first time an operational Eagle II unit had loaded and dropped bombs. The next step, the wing said at the time, would be live weapons employment at Nellis.

The Air Force has emphasized that the F-15EX’s primary mission remains defensive and offensive counter-air, particularly in the homeland-defense role. At the same time, the service’s plans call for the aircraft to provide combatant commanders with strike packages capable of operating in contested environments.

The F-15EX is inherently well suited to such a mission. Derived from the Strike Eagle lineage, it combines that aircraft’s large payload capacity and long range with substantially modernized avionics and electronic warfare systems. The aircraft’s design leaves considerable room for additional weapons and mission equipment, making an expansion into air-to-ground operations relatively straightforward compared with trying to add that capability to the F-15C.

The 142nd has been building the institutional knowledge required to make that transition. Three of its pilots underwent a nine-month course covering the science, tactics, and procedures associated with air-to-ground weapons employment before returning to help establish the wing’s training program. Weapons personnel also traveled to Nellis earlier this year to work with F-15Es assigned to the 59th Test and Evaluation Squadron and become certified in bomb loading procedures.

As well as teaching pilots how to release a weapon, the wing had to develop an entirely new air-to-ground training pipeline for pilots, maintainers, and weapons personnel at a unit that had not previously operated an aircraft with an operational bombing mission.

Nellis is home to the Air Force’s Weapons School and is central to the Weapons Instructor Course, making it one of the most important locations in the service for developing and evaluating advanced tactics. The 142nd’s participation therefore places its emerging F-15EX air-to-ground capability in an environment specifically focused on integrating advanced weapons, tactics, and mission planning.

The wing’s new live bomb-dropping capability also comes as the Air Force continues to explore how broadly the Eagle II can be employed.

Test and evaluation units have already demonstrated that the aircraft can accommodate sophisticated air-to-ground weapons. Earlier this year, an F-15EX from the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron participated in a munitions-load training event at Kadena Air Base in Japan, where Air Force personnel practiced loading live GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb IIs onto the aircraft.

The F-15EX is also capable of carrying the conformal fuel tanks used by the F-15E, which can provide additional fuel as well as additional weapons stations. The operational F-15EXs delivered to the 142nd have so far been seen without CFTs, however, and the status of the plan to equip the Oregon aircraft with them remains unclear.

CFTs could become increasingly important if the Air Force moves toward more demanding air-to-ground missions for the Eagle II, particularly those requiring substantial weapons loads and long-range operations.

Another unresolved question is how the Air Force will ultimately crew F-15EXs when they are performing more complex multirole missions.

The Eagle II retains the F-15E family’s two-seat cockpit, although the Air Force’s initial operational concept has generally involved flying the aircraft with a single pilot. That leaves an unused cockpit that could potentially become an important asset as the mission set expands.

Former 142nd Wing commander Col. Michael Kosderka previously told TWZ that the addition of a weapons systems officer or other specialist in the rear cockpit could open the door to more air-to-ground capabilities.

“We can start talking about putting all kinds of air-to-ground capabilities into the airplane, potentially putting WSOs or other experts in the backseat as well to have us do any number of multi-role capabilities that it’s just physically not possible to in the C model,” Kosderka told TWZ in an interview back in 2024. “So the X has tremendous growth capability. It’s really exciting.”

Two crew would be particularly relevant to complex strike missions, where managing sensors, weapons, communications, electronic warfare, and other mission systems can place substantial demands on a single pilot. As we have discussed in the past, a back-seater would also be highly beneficial for the emerging drone controller role.

The Weapons School has also been associated with developing two-seat F-15EX operations, indicating that the second cockpit’s utility is already being considered at the tactical-development level.

For now, it would be premature to characterize the F-15EX as an operational replacement for the F-15E Strike Eagle in the air-to-ground role. The 142nd’s newly demonstrated bombing capability remains part of an ongoing training and development process.

Meanwhile, the Air Force is preparing to field substantially larger numbers of F-15EXs. Beyond the 142nd, additional Guard units are planned to receive the type, in California and Louisiana, as well as Michigan.

The Air Force has announced plans to base F-15EXs at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, where they will eventually replace older F-15Es, which, in turn, are slated to move to Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, as part of a broader realignment of the Eagle fleet.

Another two active-duty F-15EX squadrons are slated to replace the former F-15C force at Kadena. The first F-15EX for permanent assignment at Kadena recently departed Boeing’s St. Louis, Missouri, facility for the 142nd Wing, where it will undergo final preparations before its eventual deployment to sprawling Okinawa.

The operational implications of the air-to-ground training therefore extend well beyond Portland.

The Eagle II’s generous weapons payload, long range, modern sensors and electronic warfare systems, and ability to carry both air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons give the Air Force a platform that can potentially perform several missions without sacrificing the characteristics that make the F-15 attractive for homeland defense and counter-air operations. The same characteristics are also extremely relevant to any export operator, which would expect to operate the Eagle II in a multirole capacity.

As well as a weapons-training milestone, the first live-bomb drops by the 142nd Wing provide more evidence that the F-15EX’s mission is continuing to evolve.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Operational F-15EXs Drop Live Bombs For The First Time 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.

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.

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.