A recent report put out by a relatively obscure Washington think tank, Defense Priorities, is getting an unusual amount of attention. In simple terms, the report written by the shop’s military analysis director Jennifer Kavanagh and entitled “A Second Island Chain Strategy for Asia” looks at current US security policy in the Asia-Pacific region and […]
The alarms raised by the relationship between a Spanish NATO commander and a woman of Russian origin he met on Tinder, the dating app, are the latest chapter in a new espionage battleground: web applications. Sharing content on social media, posting your morning run, or looking for love online has become a latent risk for militaries around the world.
The U.S. military’s top officer on Wednesday talked about how AI is changing the character of warfare and offered two examples to illustrate his points. His comments included new insights into how two U.S. Army AH-64 Apache crew members were rescued after being shot down by an Iranian drone near the coast of Oman in June. The recovery effort involved America’s first known use of an uncrewed surface vessel (USV) executing a personnel recovery action as part of a military search and rescue operation.
“Information moves so fast that leader decision times have compressed from weeks down to days down to seconds,” explained Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during his keynote speech at the Air & Space Forces Air, Space and Cyber Conference that TWZ is attending. “In the future fight, advantage will go to the side who can see first, who can understand first, decide first, and act first, and along the way, be a learning organization, and no factor is accelerating change as fast as artificial intelligence and advancing cyber capabilities.”
“AI is here now, and it’s already changing the way militaries see, sense, decide, and act across the joint force,” the chairman proclaimed.
The first example Caine used to highlight these changes took place on June 8. After the Apache went down, “U.S. CENTCOM launched a rapid, responsive joint search and rescue effort to recover the crew. That response drew on the totality of the joint force, and ultimately was required to use enabled unmanned vessels to participate in the rescue of downed U.S. service members for the first time ever.”
A flight of U.S. Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, armed with rockets and Hellfire missiles, taxi out to conduct a scheduled flight in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. In addition to rockets and missiles, the Apache is additionally armed with a 30mm chain gun. (U.S. Army photo) U.S. Army Central
As we noted in our previous coverage, CENTCOM deployed “a U.S. Navy Corsair unmanned surface vessel,” the command’s spokesman told us at the time.
The Corsair uncrewed surface vessel (USV) (Saronic)
The ability to pull off that rescue mission “did not appear overnight,” Caine pointed out. “It came from the men and women of Task Force 59, CENTCOM’s forward-leaning unmanned joint maritime unit who spent the last several years testing, integrating, and operationalizing unmanned systems and AI in one of the most demanding and kinetic environments on Earth right now.”
“What helped make this possible was not a bunch of general officers and flag officers,” Caine continued. “What made this possible was a bunch of entrepreneurial sailors and members of the joint force on watch floors, at piers, managing networks of unmanned systems across thousands of miles of water, and using AI to turn massive amounts of data into a crisp, clear, perfect maritime picture that allowed us to go grab those two soldiers in the water.”
A top-down view of the Saronic Corsair USV. (Saronic)
The second example Caine shared about the use of AI “points in the other direction, not how quickly we are using these tools, but how quickly these tools are changing the threat.”
In Ukraine, “we see first-person view drones operating in heavily contested EMI [electromagnetic interference] environments. Some now using AI-enabled computer vision to continue to drive towards targets, even when there’s no GPS or the links are cut. That gives small units affordable precision and shows how quickly software and autonomy are changing what is possible at the tactical edge, and the results are stark.”
“In certain locations on the front line of troops right now, the life expectancy of a new Russian recruit arriving on the front lines is as little as 20 to 30 minutes,” Caine added. “Think about that. This is what happens when low-cost precision is fielded fast, adapted quickly, and scaled across the battlefield.”
“The price of lethal exchange is decreasing day over day,” the chairman noted. “One wonders what the future of close air support looks like, but I am comforted by the fact that each and every one of you are in this room thinking about that. Taken together, these examples from the Straits of Hormuz to the front lines in Ukraine show how quickly technology is changing the character of war, and this means our joint force needs to do two things at one time.”
“[W]e need to prepare the joint force to win in this kind of conflict,” the general stated. “We have to assume from now on that our formations will be hunted by autonomous systems, jammed across the spectrum, and tracked in real time, and we have to transition the joint force to be prepared to fight and win our future war by generating and delivering lethality at scale with an agile, optimized, high-low mix of combat capabilities to give the young members of the 2.8-million member all volunteer joint force the tools that they need before they need them.”
Lockheed Martin and a team made up of Boeing and Anduril are now facing off head-to-head to supply a new middle-tier surface-to-air missile to the U.S. Army. The service wants a second interceptor for its new Enduring Shield system, which can already fire AIM-9X Sidewinders, to expand its capabilities, especially against incoming cruise missiles.
Boeing and Anduril announced their offering had been selected to move ahead to the next phase of the competition to develop what is formally called the Integrated Fires Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 2) Second Interceptor on Wednesday. The Army subsequently confirmed to Breaking Defense that Lockheed Martin advanced to phase 2 of this program. Rafael Systems Global Sustainment, a U.S. subsidiary of Israeli defense contractor Rafael, had also been in the running, but was not down-selected.
The Army’s search for a second interceptor for Enduring Shield traces back to at least 2023. The system, developed by Leidos’ subsidiary Dynetics, is entering operational service now paired with the AIM-9X. It is designed to provide short-to-medium range defense against a variety of aerial threats, including drones. The Army has not had any kind of mid-range air defense capability since it retired its Hawk surface-to-air missile systems in the 1990s.
A US Army Enduring Shield launcher seen deployed in South Korea. USAF Pfc. Sang Woo Choi
A model of the missile Boeing and Anduril have put forward was only shown publicly for the first time earlier this year. Boeing says it is a clean-sheet design and it uses a solid-fuel rocket motor provided by Anduril.
A model of the Boeing/Anduril interceptor seen on display at the 2026 Space & Missile Defense Symposium in August of this year. Jamie Hunter
In its announcement about the Army’s down-selection, Boeing shared a previously unreleased rendering of the design, which notably had two sets of fins toward the tail end of the body. The model that has been shown so far only has one set of fins at the very rear of the body. Whether the rendering reflects a newer or older version of the design is unclear. What is seen in the rendering may also be an additional booster rocket motor not seen on the model, which could be necessary for ground-launched applications.
The rendering that Boeing released this week as part of the announcement of its selection to proceed in the IFPC Inc Second Interceptor competition. Boeing
Boeing has also said that the new interceptor is being developed with an emphasis on lower cost and producibility. Modularity and open-architecture systems to enable “faster, lower-cost upgrades by allowing seeker, avionics or software blocks to be swapped without redesigning the entire weapon” have also been particular focus areas, according to the company.
Other details about the missile’s design and capabilities, including how it is guided, remain limited.
“Our scalable production approach is designed to provide a reliable, affordable layer of defense against a range of aerial threats to protect the warfighter with practical, dependable capability when it matters most,” Bob Ciesla, vice president of Boeing Precision Engagement Systems, had said in a statement earlier this week.
Lockheed Martin first showed a rendering of its design last year, but has also shared relatively specific details about it since then. For what has been seen so far, it is visually reminiscent, at least in broad strokes, of a compact air-to-air missile concept called Cuda, which the company previously promoted for a time in the 2010s.
A rendering depicting Lockheed Martin’s proposed interceptor being fired from Enduring Shield launchers. Lockheed Martin
The design is “not new,” Chris Murphy, senior manager of Business Development for Integrated Air and Missile Defense Advanced Programs at Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control division, confirmed to TWZ in October 2025.
“There are technologies that we already have that we’re leveraging,” Murphy added at the time. “But the requirements for the missile are such that they’re going to be new technologies, and there’s going to be some level of development in order to get those integrated.”
“So you know that our [PAC-3] MSE missile [for the Patriot surface-to-air missile system] is a hit-to-kill system, right? We have great confidence in that technology,” he also said when asked specifically about whether the interceptor would have a traditional warhead. “We also work [on] blast-frag[mentation warheads] on other programs. So we will look at everything. That’s part of the trade space the Army has asked us to look at.”
The PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) is generally presented as a hit-to-kill weapon, meaning that it is designed to destroy its target through sheer force of impact. However, it is actually something of a hybrid design that includes a high-explosive “lethality enhancer” charge to increase its chance of scoring a hit, something you can learn more about here.
A breakdown of the PAC-3 MSE’s key features, including the “lethality enhancer.” Lockheed Martin
For its part, the Army has talked in the past about wanting its second interceptor for Enduring Shield to offer roughly comparable capabilities to the AIM-120D Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), but in the same form factor as the AIM-9X. A key driving factor behind the size requirement is retaining magazine depth. The system’s existing palletized launchers can currently be loaded with up to 18 Sidewinders in individual canisters.
“I do want to highlight a couple of things that I think are very critical gaps that we have. I don’t think – I cannot add anything to the emphasis on magazine depth for currently fielded systems, or for the need for cheaper and [a] wide-ranging mix of interceptors,” Lt. Gen. John Rafferty, head of the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC), told TWZ and other attendees in a keynote address at the 2026 Space & Missile Defense Symposium last month. “That couldn’t be made more loud and clear from the highest levels of our government.”
At that time, Rafferty also stressed the need to further expand the Army’s ability to provide multi-layered air and missile defense capabilities. Enduring Shield, as the Army’s first middle-tier air defense system in decades, is already a key component of that broader effort.
The Army also more specifically sees Enduring Shield as central to reducing over-reliance on its Patriot surface-to-air missile systems. The immense strain on the service’s Patriot force and its inadequacy to meet existing operational demands are well established at this point, and have only been reinforced by the latest conflict with Iran. The Army is notably in the process of establishing its first new Patriot battalion in years, on Guam, which will actually be a composite unit also equipped with Enduring Shield. Pairing the two systems together helps free up Patriot batteries to engage higher-tier threats, especially ballistic missiles, which may themselves be targeting air defenders directly.
The Army has now at least moved to the next phase of the competition for a second interceptor for the Enduring Shield system, demand for which is already growing.
Since receiving these tanks last year, the crews, serving with Ukraine’s 425th Separate Assault Regiment “Skala,” have used the Abrams in two combat operations in the fight for Pokrovsk, a key Ukrainian logistics hub and part of a defensive belt of towns in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region. They recounted their experiences to Hromadske, an independent media channel in Ukraine.
Fighting around Pokrovsk
The first major deployment described by the crews took place in December of last year, when Abrams tanks were used to support assault groups entering Pokrovsk.
The crewmember with the callsign Kent described moving into the city behind a mine-clearing tank and ahead of two infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) carrying assault troops, during a mission that was deliberately aggressive.
“Since a tank is a priority target — my task was to draw their attention, while our infantry dismounted and moved in successfully.”
The Abrams was also assigned three target points to engage along the route.
“We went right in there, poured it on, and drove back out,” he recalled.
A video showing the 425th Separate Assault Regiment in action in August 2025, soon after receiving the Abrams:
The second operation, on March 31, involved an attempt to enter and hold an industrial area near Pokrovsk to help block Russian movement toward Hryshyne, a contested village in the district.
The operation was prepared for more than two weeks. Ukrainian forces conducted reconnaissance flights, examined difficult sections of the planned routes, and provided crews with extensive video and imagery.
“They knew every meter of the route,” another of the unit’s commanders, with the callsign Kubik, said.
Weather was considered essential. The Ukrainians waited for fog and rain, hoping to limit the effectiveness of Russian drones.
“Without the right weather we wouldn’t have been able to pull off operations like that,” Kubik said.
The operation nevertheless resulted in the destruction of four out of five armored vehicles, some of which are seen in the video embedded below.
Russia's Rubicon Drone Center FPV drones destroyed a Ukrainian assault group near Pokrovsk, hitting an M1A1 Abrams tank, M1117 APC and BMP-2 as the unit tried to advance near Hryshyne under fog cover. #Ukrainepic.twitter.com/ZzE52qAYxp
The commander acknowledged that the Russian side may have had advance knowledge of the operation.
“I can’t rule out the possibility that the enemy knew our plan,” he said.
His Abrams was not immediately destroyed. According to the crew, it completed its task and the assault troops dismounted before the weather changed.
“Once the fog lifted, they started working on it with an FPV drone,” the commander said.
Why use tanks at all?
The losses prompted criticism from Ukrainian military commentators, particularly after footage of the destroyed vehicles was published.
However, the crews defend the decision to use armored vehicles for the missions. According to the men of the Skala interviewed, the alternative was often to send infantry over several miles on foot while carrying weapons, ammunition, water, and other supplies.
“That takes more time,” Kubik explained. “And the enemy isn’t standing still — the enemy is moving toward them.”
Australia-supplied M1A1 Abrams AIM main battle tank in service of the Ukrainian 425th Separate Assault Regiment "Skala."
The argument that infantry could simply move more stealthily on foot also has limitations.
“Every day the Mavic drones are flying, the fixed-wing drones are flying,” he said. “No fog, guys are visible.”
Combined with IFVs, the Abrams can provide the ability to rapidly move troops while simultaneously delivering heavy direct fire against enemy positions and offering substantial protection to its crew.
The crews argue that this capability remains worthwhile even when the tank itself may eventually be lost.
One commander was asked whether deploying a roughly $5-million tank makes sense if a single sortie can result in its destruction.
“Yes, of course it makes sense to deploy it,” he replied.
“First and foremost — it saves the lives of the crew inside it.”
Russian forces captured a relatively lightly damaged M1A1SA Abrams main battle tank operated by the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade in the Pokrovsk direction.
He pointed to fairly basic modifications including rubber strips and a foldable wire cage mounted on the turret, as additional layers of protection against drone attacks.
“A drone doesn’t hit the actual penetrating element directly — it just can’t reach it,” he explained. “It hits the rubber, and then the blast wave travels from there.”
Even with their tanks festooned with explosive reactive armor (ERA) bricks, the crews acknowledge that such protection has limits.
A head-on view of an M1A1 of the 425th Separate Assault Regiment shows the ERA bricks installed around the turret and in front of the hull. Ukrainian Armed Forces
US-supplied M1A1 Abrams tank in service of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with added Kontakt-1 ERA on the frontal hull and standard ARAT ERA on the sides. pic.twitter.com/PC2kDfxefO
— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) May 21, 2024
“They also protect very well. An effective thing,” he said.
A Russian tank with the ‘hedgehog’-type protective covering. Russian state media
For now, the drone threat has led the regiment to keep its Abrams out of combat, as we will return to later.
The Abrams as a machine
The crews’ assessment of the Abrams included praise for its mobility, roomy interior, gun, and fire-control system.
Kubik said he had personally driven an Abrams to 50 miles per hour cross-country.
“The engine is an absolute beast,” he added.
The tank can also rapidly perform a pivot turn, which the crews consider particularly useful when maneuvering in confined spaces. Despite its prodiguous weight, it only rarely becomes bogged down after the kind of very heavy snow-melt that effects all vehicles on the battlefield.
Loading a 120mm M1028 canister cartridge into an M1A1 AIM Abrams main battle tank of the tank battalion of the 425th Assault Regiment. pic.twitter.com/tMd8QcROQe
— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱 (@TheDeadDistrict) June 21, 2026
Its disadvantages include its demanding maintenance requirements. The running gear was described as particularly sensitive, with crews inspecting, lubricating, and replacing components after every sortie.
Fuel consumption is another major burden. The crew cited roughly 400 to 700 liters (106 to 185 gallons) per 100 kilometers (62 miles) depending on terrain and operating conditions.
“On asphalt it burns about 400 liters,” one said. In boggy terrain, consumption can reach “700 liters or more.”
The Abrams thirsty gas turbine engine and extreme logistical demands have always been a criticism of the platform.
An M1A1 of the 425th Separate Assault Regiment fording a river. Ukrainian Armed Forces
The crews said the vehicle’s ability to operate on different fuels is useful, although diesel provides the best engine-hour performance in their experience. Prior to delivery, the gas turbine engines of the tanks were reconfigured to use diesel fuel instead of the standard JP-8 aviation kerosene, according to earlier reports.
They also praised the Abrams’ protected ammunition storage and crew space compared with Soviet-designed tanks.
The version operated by the Ukrainians is an M1A1 rather than the latest Abrams configuration, with less sophisticated electronics than newer variants. It also lacks the classified armor found on its U.S. Army counterpart.
“For me — as a tanker — this configuration, what we have right now, is more than enough,” Kubik said. “The sight is absolutely excellent. The gun is also great.”
The interview ultimately presents a more complicated picture than the declaration that tanks are obsolete on the Ukrainian battlefield.
At the time of writing, at least 25 Abrams have been confirmed visually to have been destroyed, damaged, or abandoned in Ukrainian service. This is from a total of 31 provided by the United States and 49 from Australia.
“For now, we’re not using them further — there’s no way to,” Kubik said. “The enemy has developed their drone component very heavily, and for now we don’t have the means to counter that.”
While tanks remain exceptionally powerful direct-fire and protected mobility platforms, the proliferation of inexpensive uncrewed aircraft has made operating them increasingly difficult.
M1A1 AIM Abrams tanks of the 425th Assault Regiment . The reinforced upper glacis and turret roofs are clearly visible. pic.twitter.com/Sn9h8OWZ9P
— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱 (@TheDeadDistrict) June 21, 2026
“If someone had told me, as a tanker, back in 2022: ‘Take this — we’re giving you an Abrams, we’ll give you time to train and you’ll fight in it,’” Kubik said, “I would never have climbed out of it.”
“I’d only be saying: ‘Bring me shells. I’ll drive non-stop wherever needed, arrive and work.’”
An M1A1 of the 425th Separate Assault Regiment firing its main gun. Ukrainian Armed Forces
As it stands, reconnaissance drones can find the Abrams, FPV drones can attack it, and persistent surveillance makes concealment difficult. Experience has shown that without more effective counter-drone capabilities, even a heavily protected tank can eventually be overwhelmed.
But Kubik believes that will change.
“The day will come when one of our bright minds figures out some excellent solution against drones — and we’ll start using them again.”
Asked whether the era of tanks is over, his answer was unequivocal.
“It’s not over … They’re just waiting it out for now, biding their time. Writing off tanks — in my opinion — is still too early.”
American Rheinmetall and General Dynamics Land Systems have now delivered the first prototypes of their proposed XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV) designs to the U.S. Army. The XM30 program is the Army’s latest attempt to replace its fleet of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The competing MICV designs are set to be put to the test alongside early prototypes of the next-generation M1E3 Abrams tank in the spring.
The U.S. subsidiary of Germany’s Rheinmetall has been developing a version of its Lynx family to meet the Army’s MICV requirements, and announced the delivery of the first example today. General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), which is offering the Wolf, a further evolution of the company’s Griffin III, itself derived from the ASCOD 2 infantry fighting vehicle, said last week that its first prototype had arrived at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. Variants and derivatives of the Lynx and ASCOD 2 are already in service with several countries, which we will come back to later on.
Geoffrey Norman, Director for U.S. Strategy & Growth at General Dynamics Land Systems, shared this picture of him kneeling beside a Wolf prototype in a post on LinkedIn last week. That same post said that the first prototype had been delivered to the US Army. Geoffrey Norman/LinkedIn
“Delivering our first prototype to the Army is an important step as the XM30 Combat Vehicle program enters a more visible phase,” Matt Warnick, CEO of American Rheinmetall, said in a statement accompanying the release. “Team Lynx now has the opportunity to show the Army that we can deliver on the promise of a modern replacement for the Bradley.”
“I could not be happier to be part of the GDLS team that is delivering this incredible new capability on schedule to the Army – they need it now,” Geoffrey Norman, Director for U.S. Strategy & Growth at General Dynamics Land Systems, had written last week in a post on LinkedIn. “The work continues as this first vehicle gets into the Army’s hands.”
The Lynx and Griffin III-based XM30 designs both feature hybrid-electric propulsion. This will offer improved fuel economy, added electrical power generation, and other benefits compared to the Bradley with its traditional diesel engine. The vehicles both have remotely operated turrets, with their two-person crews, as well as up to six passengers, all riding in the hull.
General Dynamics Land Systems’ Wolf is based on the Griffin III, an earlier configuration of which is seen here. GDLS
The Army expects the winning XM30 to provide significant boosts in lethality and other capabilities compared to any existing version of the Bradley. The main weapon on both competing designs is an XM913 50mm automatic cannon, offering a significant increase in firepower compared to the 25mm M242 on the Bradley.
The XM30 will also be able to launch loitering munitions. AeroVironment’s Switchblade 300 has been integrated onto General Dynamics Land Systems’ design. American Rheinmetall’s entry is designed to be able to fire versions of Raytheon’s Coyote Block 3, but whether it can launch other munitions is unclear. The launchers on the Lynx-based XM30 are known to also be capable of firing anti-tank guided missiles, such as the TOW and Javelin. The Army has demonstrated the ability to fire a version of the Coyote from the TOW missile launcher on the Bradley, as well.
A Bradley Fighting Vehicle launches a Coyote LE SR loitering munition from its TOW missile launcher during a test exercise in 2025. US Army
Next-generation fire control, sensor, and networking/communications capabilities are also key to the Army’s current Bradley replacement plans. With its improved network connectivity, the service envisions XM30s acting as controllers for uncrewed ground vehicles, as well. The Army has already been working to prove out future crewed-uncrewed teaming concepts using the Bradley.
Overall, the Army sees the XM30 as a future “cornerstone of the Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT), designed to enhance lethality, survivability, and maneuverability in high-intensity combat against near-peer adversaries,” according to the Army’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget documents. “The XM30 is versatile in its operational roles, capable of leading the charge, scouting ahead, or providing overwatch while Soldiers dismount and maneuver. Its ability to control robotic systems and semi-autonomous platforms adds another layer of capability, allowing the formation to extend its reach and maintain dominance across the battlefield.”
“The XM30 program is not just a replacement for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle – it represents a transformative leap in ground combat vehicle development. The XM30 is more than a vehicle; it is a software-defined platform designed for interoperability and adaptability, ensuring it evolves with changing technologies and operational demands,” the budget documents continue. “By leveraging digital engineering and modular open systems architecture (MOSA), the XM30 ensures infantry units always have the cutting-edge tools they need to outmaneuver and outgun the enemy. The XM30 also achieves a level of logistical efficiency that ensures sustained operational readiness while reducing costs and complexity.”
The Army now plans to put the XM30 prototypes to the test during a regular rotation at the sprawling National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin in California next spring, according to a report last month from Breaking Defense. Soldiers assigned to the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood in Texas, will operate the vehicles. 1/1st Cavalry is one of the Army’s so-called Transformation In Contact (TIC) units, which are supporting the service’s broader modernization objectives. The brigade is expected to bring prototypes of the next-generation M1E3 Abrams tank to the NTC, as well.
The first ‘pre-prototype’ of the next-generation M1E3 Abrams tank. US Army
The Army has talked in the past about aiming to field a winning XM30 design by Fiscal Year 2029. However, it remains to be seen when it might make a final selection and when the first of those vehicles actually enter operational service.
“We have a plan to carry two vendors as long as we possibly can. It becomes a question about resourcing the money, because you’re not paying necessarily double, but you’re kind of paying double,” Army Brig. Gen. Troy Denomy, Program Acquisition Executive of Maneuver, told Breaking Defense for its story in August. “We’re absolutely trying to keep our options open as long as we can, but money matters.”
That being said, “if there’s not a clear winner at the end of the NTC rotation, ‘then it may be worth not selecting at that point,’ Denomy said,” per Breaking Defense.
This is hardly the first time the Army has attempted to replace the Bradley since it first entered service in the 1980s. Cost, weight, and other factors have derailed several previous attempts, including the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) effort that directly preceded the current MICV program. In February, another report from Breaking Defense had raised questions about the XM30’s future after at least a temporary program pause within the last year. That was followed by a new request for information for a different, but very similar-sounding vehicle.
The M10 Booker, one of which is seen here, is another member of the larger family of vehicles from General Dynamics Land Systems that also includes the Wolf. The Army cancelled this program in 2025. US Army
In the meantime, examples of both of the designs competing to become the future XM30 are now in Army hands and are set to be tested alongside the M1E3 next year.
Update: 5:23 PM ET –
GDLS has now put out a brief press release regarding the delivery of the first Wolf prototype to Aberdeen Proving Ground, which it says occurred on August 21.
“This on-time delivery will allow Soldiers to start putting the Wolf through its paces, with the ultimate goal of getting it fielded into armored brigades as quickly as possible,” GDLS’ Norman said in a new statement accompanying the release. “I would like to congratulate our XM30 team on the successful design and production of this game-changing solution. The Wolf is the most technologically advanced combat vehicle ever assembled.”
The release also included the picture below, showing the Wolf prototype entirely under wraps on a trailer.
The U.S. Army is calling for new potential options for replacing the venerable Stinger short-range heat-seeking surface-to-air missile. The service has already been funding work on two competing designs from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon under its Next-Generation Short-Range Interceptor (NGSRI) program since 2023. The Army is currently aiming to buy 11,000 NGSRI missiles, as well as 2,200 new man-portable launchers, starting in Fiscal Year 2028.
The Army put out a contracting notice regarding what it is calling the NGSRI Alternate Interceptor Demonstration (AID) yesterday. The service is looking to hold an industry day event regarding its plans for the AID at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama next month.
“The Army is seeking to identify additional potential sources to fulfill the NGSRI requirements,” the notice explains. “The Army plans to conduct a demonstration in the Spring 2027 timeframe. A successful demonstration by an offeror may lead to an award for missile procurement.”
A picture showing a test of Lockheed Martin’s NGSRI entrant, called QuadStar. Lockheed MartinRaytheon has previously released this image in relation to work on its NGSRI design. Raytheon
“The current NGSRI program was initiated to meet the Department of the Army requirement for Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) surface to air missile systems to replace the legacy FIM-92 Stinger man-portable air defense system,” the notice adds. “The NGSRI is a high performance, soldier portable, fire and forget, surface to air missile system capable of defeating rotary wing, fixed wing, and Group 2/3 Unmanned Aircraft System threats.”
US Marines fire a Stinger missile during training. The NGSRI program is seeking a replacement for Stingers in Army and Marine Corps service. US Army
In U.S. military parlance, Group 2 covers drones with gross weights between 21 and 55 pounds, that can fly up to altitudes of 3,500 feet, and hit top speeds of up to 250 knots. Group 3, the next tier up, is a far broader category that encompasses uncrewed aerial systems weighing anywhere between 55 and 1,320 pounds, with operational ceilings between 3,500 and 18,000 feet, and with top speeds between 100 and 250 knots.
It is also worth noting here that the Stinger has received upgrades in recent years to improve its effectiveness against drones. You can read more about that missile’s evolution since it was first introduced in the 1970s here.
“The NGSRI missile is backwards compatible with the legacy Stinger missile platforms such as SGT STOUT and Marine Corps Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS),” yesterday’s contracting notice also stresses. This has been a key requirement since the program started.
Sgt. Stout is the name given to an air defense system in Army service today that is 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.
A Sgt. Stout air defense vehicle fires a Stinger missile during training. US Army
The four-round Stinger launchers used on the Sgt. Stout are the same ones found on the older Humvee-based Avenger air defense systems, which are in increasingly limited use in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Army Avengers were recently in the news after images emerged showing them protecting President Donald Trump at his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey.
An Army Avenger system seen deployed in Bedminster, New Jersey earlier this month. USAF Lt. Col. Andrew Scott
In its current form, the Marine Corps’ MADIS consists of two 4×4 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV) in different configurations. One is armed with Stinger missiles, as well as an XM914 cannon and M240 machine gun, all mounted on a single remote weapon station. The other has the same type of remote weapon station, but without Stingers, and also has added electronic warfare, electronic support measures, and sensor capabilities.
A Marine MADIS vehicle fires a Stinger missile during training. USMC
Stinger is still perhaps best known in its shoulder-fired form, also known as the Man-Portable Air Defense System (MANPADS) configuration, as seen in pictures earlier in this piece. The Army has already been pursuing new individual launchers, or Control Launch Assemblies (CLA), for use with existing Stingers, which could also be used with future NGSRI missiles. Lockheed Martin has publicly put forward a new CLA design as part of its NGSRI proposal, which is called QuadStar, as seen in the video below.
Stinger is also in widespread service globally. Any replacement the U.S. military might adopt, especially one that is backwards compatible with existing launchers, could easily translate to interest from foreign armed forces. The ongoing war in Ukraine and other conflicts in recent years have contributed to a new surge in demand for MANPADS worldwide, including to help counter growing drone threats.
The U.S. military has been putting new emphasis on diversifying supplier bases and greater government control of intellectual property rights, especially for munitions, in recent years. This is a general focus area that has grown even more since President Trump’s second term began last year. Officials have been open about their desire to reduce reliance on traditional prime contractors and bring in more smaller and non-traditional firms, even for very high-profile weapon system programs. These efforts reflect a particular push to avoid so-called ‘vendor lock’ and promote greater competition, which can also offer benefits when it comes to cost and scaling production.
When it comes to NGSRI, as mentioned, the Army is looking to buy thousands of these missiles, as well as individual launchers, in the coming years. A new demonstration next year would also not preclude the service from ultimately ordering NGSRIs from either Lockheed Martin or Raytheon.
With plans to start production of the selected NGSRI design in Fiscal Year 2028, which starts on October 1 of next year, the Army will need to make a decision about how to proceed with NGSRI relatively soon.
Login
