Le 3 octobre, Axel Illary publiera sur Amazon Peau noire, Dieu blanc. Essai sur l’aliénation spirituelle des Noirs, déjà disponible en précommande numérique. Le titre place face à face une identité, « peau noire », et une représentation, « Dieu blanc ». Le nouvel essai du journaliste-écrivain s’attaque aux effets de la domination coloniale sur […]
L’article Peau noire, Dieu blanc : quand Dieu porte les couleurs des oppresseurs est apparu en premier sur .
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Sep. 14, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
In what environmental advocates describe as “another gift to the fossil fuel industry,” the Trump administration plans to end rules limiting the release of planet-heating emissions from power plants that burn coal and gas.
Power plants are considered the largest industrial source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US and account for about a quarter of the nation’s climate pollution, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In 2024, the EPA under the Biden administration used the Clean Air Act to require that many new gas plants and existing coal plants reduce their carbon emissions by 90%, including by installing carbon capture technology, by 2032.
The EPA estimated that the rule would reduce the amount of CO2 emissions by about 1.38 billion metric tons over the next two decades, the equivalent of about a year of emissions from the entire US electric power sector.
Another gift to the fossil fuel industry!
— Safe Climate Campaign now @safe-climate.bsky.soc (@safe_climate) September 14, 2026
The US will allow power plant polluters to dump unlimited planet-warming pollution that power plants pump into the air while burning coal and gas.@maxinejoselow https://t.co/ZeiSaFkEpC
On Monday, Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator under President Donald Trump, announced an end to this policy at a meeting of energy ministers at the Group of 20 conference in Houston.
Not only will this prevent the enactment of a policy that the EPA has estimated would prevent around 1,200 premature deaths and 360,000 asthma cases by 2035. But the administration is also rolling out a proposal seeking to prevent future administrations from regulating carbon emissions as a health risk.
It is an effort that runs parallel to the administration’s rescission of the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which allowed the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act on the grounds that they are harmful to human health. That move is also being challenged in court.
Power plants are regulated under a different section of the Clean Air Act, Section 111, which allows the EPA to regulate facilities that “cause, or contribute significantly to” dangerous air pollution.
But whereas the courts have previously interpreted this statute to regulate the outputs of entire facilities, the Trump administration is asking courts to adopt a novel reading of the statute which says each individual chemical under scrutiny must “contribute significantly” to climate change.
As Meredith Hankins, legal director for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, explained in a policy memo last week, it likely won’t be easy for the administration to prove that the CO2 emissions from US power plants aren’t a significant driver of climate change.
“Power sector emissions account for a quarter of total US emissions, so if they cannot be counted as significant, it’s hard to conceive of any emissions that would,” Hankins wrote. “In fact, if the US power sector were a nation, it would be the world’s fifth-largest emitter after China, the United States, India, and Russia. That’s a pretty ‘significant contribution’ to the problem.”
The effort to gut power plant regulations comes after the hottest meteorological summer recorded in US history and amid a year with one of the largest numbers of climate disasters on record, including widespread drought, destructive wildfires, and repeated flooding and tornado outbreaks.
As the planet has warmed over the last half-century, the US has seen a sharp, near-sevenfold increase in weather disasters costing over $1 billion, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“While wildfires rage, floods devastate communities, and families struggle to afford skyrocketing electricity bills and insurance premiums, the Trump administration is handing the fossil fuel industry a license to keep polluting,” said Holly Bender, chief program officer for the Sierra Club, following news of the EPA’s rollback of power plant rules. “This is full-throated climate denial while the climate crisis happens in real time and a shocking betrayal of the American public.”
She added that “the Sierra Club will fight back against this reckless and dangerous proposal with everything we have in the courts, in Congress, and in communities across the country.”
If successful, the reversal of the power plant rules would be one of the most significant steps in Zeldin’s push to eviscerate the EPA’s authority to combat climate change on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. Earlier this summer, during a meeting of the National Coal Council, he bragged that “many of the items” on the industry’s “wish list are now done.”
He has put the wheels in motion to roll back virtually every Biden-era regulation on the coal industry, including rules limiting pollution from mercury and toxic metals, controls on toxic wastewater from coal plants, and limits on coal ash.
And while seeking to undermine the legal basis to regulate greenhouse gases, Zeldin’s EPA has also taken a sledgehammer to its practical ability to do so, dismantling offices that collect climate data, erasing information about human-caused climate change from the agency’s websites, and filling research panels with scientists employed by the fossil fuel industry.
Former State Department energy official Alan Eyre noted that on the world stage, the US “has always been obstructionist” when it comes to climate policy. Under Trump, he said, “we’re actively malevolent.”
The U.S. Air Force is now aiming to have at least 500 Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) in service by 2032. The service also wants to have an equal number of Massed Modular Aircraft (MMA) drones to succeed its MQ-9 Reapers by that time. In terms of stated CCA force structure plans, this is a substantial step up, with the service having most recently talked about acquiring “over” 150 of these drones by the end of the decade.
Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink shared updates on the CCA program during a keynote speech at the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference, at which TWZ is in attendance. The service’s top civilian also announced that General Atomics’ FQ-42 and Anduril’s FQ-44 drones have now received official nicknames: Vengeance and Fury. This only represents a change for the General Atomics design, which the company had previously named Dark Merlin. In June, the Air Force announced that it was ordering both types into production.
“We will have autonomous fighters like the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCA. We intend to have at least 500 of these in service by 2032,” Meink said in his speech. “Our intent is to field 100 MMAs in 2029 at even a lower cost than the CCAs and a fraction of [the] cost of manned aircraft we build today. Then by 2032, 500 of these [MMA] platforms will join our force.”
When it comes to CCAs, “today, the first FQ-42 and FQ-44 increments are already rolling off the assembly line,” Meink added. “They’ll be performing many of the same missions that we do with manned fighters today.”
The Air Force’s stated CCA force structure targets have fluctuated significantly in recent years. In 2023, then-Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall outlined plans to acquire at least 1,000 CCAs, if not more, across the life of the entire program. However, Kendall and other Air Force officials subsequently talked about a far smaller initial fleet of between 100 and 150 drones.
“These contracts reaffirm our confidence in the strategic path forward for the program to procure over 150 combat capable CCA by the end of the decade,” Meink himself said in a statement in June when the production orders for the FQ-42 and FQ-44 were announced.
The FQ-42 and FQ-44 are also being acquired under the first phase, or Increment 1, of the CCA program. At least one additional increment is planned, and could lead to orders for one or more additional types of CCA. Though it is not immediately clear, it is possible, if not probable that Increment 2 CCAs are factored into the latest 500 drone figure.
“We talk about 500 by 2032, [but] we could actually build more of them than that,” Secretary Meink also said today during a question-and-answer session immediately following his speech. The goal of the CCA program “from the get-go” was “simple aircraft that you could build fast and at a lower cost,” he continued.
“So now we’re in a situation to [sic] where we could actually build more than we can actually afford to buy,” he added.
It is unclear what the unit costs of the FQ-42 or FQ-44 are currently. The Air Force has said previously that it is targeting a price point of around $20 million apiece once full-rate production gets underway.
Beyond any fleet size target, the Air Force is still very much in the process of figuring out how future CCAs will be deployed, launched, recovered, supported, and otherwise operated on a day-to-day basis, as well as employed tactically. During today’s question-and-answer session today, Meink drew attention to a dedicated Experimental Operations Unit (EOU) the service has established to lead the process of laying the groundwork for future CCA operations. The EOU notably led a significant new round of operational testing of YFQ-42 and YFQ-44 prototypes at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada back in July, which TWZ was first to report on. The EOU supported another similar test exercise at Edwards Air Force Base in California in April.
“Getting them [CCAs] into these developmental kind of operational units, so they can start experimenting with that – familiarity breeds confidence, right?” Meink said.
The Air Force continues to make it clear that it sees its future CCA fleets as essential for providing capabilities and operational capacity necessary to succeed in future conflicts, especially a potential high-end fight against a near-peer opponent like China.
“Collaborative Combat Aircraft change how we project power and generate mass in highly contested environments,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ken Wilsbach said in a statement when the FQ-42 and FQ-44 production contracts were announced. “Delivering this capability to our warfighters faster ensures our forces maintain the tactical edge required to deter and, if necessary, defeat any adversary.”
As mentioned, the Air Force also now has plans to acquire 500 very different combat drones under the MMA program, and at a unit cost of approximately $10 million. This is also a notable increase in total planned fleet size for this effort, with a target of at least 180 airframes having been previously shared publicly.
The MMA drones are expected to conduct the same general strike and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) mission sets the service’s MQ-9A Reapers perform today. Major Reaper losses in the course of operations against Iran, compounded by significant additional attrition and deliberate divestments in recent years, are key drivers behind the MMA effort, which officially kicked off in July.
“As we saw in Epic Fury [the nickname for major combat operations against Iran earlier this year], ISR/strike platforms have been essential. We have used MQ-9 and even now the ULTRA aircraft to great effect,” Meink said during his speech today. The MMA program is “building on these lessons” and “will provide affordable, attritable, long-range strike, and we will be able to field them at scale.”
“MMA is designed to deliver the results our combat commanders need,” Chief of Staff Wilsbach said during his own separate keynote at the Air, Space & Cyber Conference today. “That’s how we stay ahead by moving quickly, investing in new tech, and delivering to our warfighters what they need to win.”
If the Air Force can meet its target of having a fleet of at least 500 MMA drones by 2032, this will be another significant boost to the service’s overall uncrewed capabilities. As of May, the Air Force had 135 MQ-9s left in inventory, and there have been more reported losses since then.
General Atomics, which developed the Reaper, has already put forward a new design called Wildfire as a potential successor. Many other companies are already lining up to submit their own proposals to meet the Air Force’s MMA needs.
Between the latest CCA force structure plans and the new MMA program, the Air Force’s fleets of combat drones are on track to look very different by 2032.
Contact the author: joe@twz.com
The post Fleet Of At Least 500 Collaborative Combat Aircraft By 2032 Now In USAF’s Plans appeared first on TWZ.
Thousands of Greeks accompanied popular singer Giorgos Mazonakis to his final resting place on Monday after an overnight vigil in Nikaia, suburb of Piraeus, where he grew up. With tears in their eyes holding roses or flower bouquets in their hands, a sea of deeply touched young and old people paid the last farewell to […]
The post Thousands of Greeks pay farewell to beloved Giorgos Mazonakis appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.
The sudden death of Greece’s popular singer Giorgos Mazonakis opened the Pandora’s Box about illegal medical practices and pseudo-scientific “alternative” methods aiming first of all at the healing of the pockets of scam doctors with warm euros. His sudden death shocked the Greek society and mobilized health and police authorities in a speed we could […]
The post Mazonakis’ death opens the Pandora’s Box of illegal medical practices in Greece appeared first on Keep Talking Greece.
Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works advanced projects division has shared all new information about its stealthy Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) type drone design named Vectis, which it first unveiled a year ago. One of the most intriguing details is the true nature of its air inlet configuration, pointing to the premium on survivability the Skunk Works has placed on its CCA offering, especially when compared to other CCA designs.
Vectis has a far more exotic, deeply recessed “submerged” top-mounted air intake than was originally disclosed when Vectis first came out of the shadows. This further underscores the heavy emphasis Skunk Works says it has been placing on its CCA’s ability to stay undetected and live to fight another day. Vectis is also the first tailless CCA design we have seen from a U.S. manufacturer.
Ron Fehlen, Lockheed Martin Vice President and General Manager of Skunk Works, gave TWZ and other outlets an update on Vectis last week ahead of today’s start of the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference. Skunk Works says work on constructing the first prototype of Vectis – a word that means lever or pole in Latin, and that Lockheed Martin has said reflects the ‘leverage’ the drone offers – is underway now. The goal is to have it flying by the end of next year. There are already plans to build four more prototypes using internal funding.
Check out the Skunk Works’ new Vectis video below:
“It is designed, as you can likely see, to be both survivable and affordable and flexible across the range of missions that our customers need, have needed, and continue to need into the future,” Fehlen said by way of introduction. “The technical specs, as you can imagine, are designed to meet and, in some cases, exceed the customer sets that we are working with and their requirements and their mission needs.”
The basic core of the single-engine Vectis that we have seen now is largely unchanged from what had been shown at the time of the unveiling last year. It is still a tailless drone that has a lambda wing planform and air intake mounted on top of the central part of the fuselage, as well as a prominent chine line around the forward end and a shovel-like shape to its nose. New renderings do show revised positions for various conformal antennas and/or sensor apertures around the central fuselage. These are all established features of low-observable (stealthy) aircraft designs.
Skunk Works’ Fehlen also shared last week that Vectis is approximately 34 feet long and has a wingspan of around 38 feet. As a comparison, the Navy’s two-seat primary jet trainer, the T-45 Goshawk, is roughly 39 feet long by 30 feet wide.
The biggest new detail, as mentioned, is the shaping and position of Vectis’ air inlet. Fehlen stressed that this is actually not a new feature, and has “been a part of the design since the beginning,” but was not reflected in previously released renderings and scale models.
The intake was depicted in the past as having a relatively straightforward configuration. It did appear to have a saw-tooth leading edge, another indication of stealthy design considerations. The visuals we have now show the intake is deeply recessed into the top of the fuselage, sitting behind a downward-sloping v-shaped channel.
Vectis doesn’t have a fully flush-mounted inlet, like what is found on Boeing’s MQ-25 Stingray tanker drone, among other designs, but it is close to it, very loosely similar to what’s found on the B-21. The rear is slightly raised above the v-like pocket where air flows down into the intake. Flush or near-flush intakes offer particular benefits when it comes to low-observability (stealthiness) and aerodynamic efficiency, but are also notoriously problematic, especially in certain flight regimes, as you can read more about here. This is even worse for high-performance aircraft that have a wide operating envelope and have to maneuver at higher angles of attack. The CCA would likely fit into this category, at least to a degree.
When it comes to Vectis, “there’s a lot of different reasons behind it [choosing this submerged intake configuration], but I’ll pick up on a couple here for you,” Skunk Works’ Fehlen explained. “The first is it reduces that frontal drag. So, anything sticking out in the wind, as many – as all of you know, I’m sure, creates drag on the aircraft itself. So, if you want better performance from a range, et cetera, then you need to be able to reduce that drag, and that’s an example.”
“It’s also interesting to me, particularly as the Air Force speaks about Agile Combat Employment, the ACE concept, as you’re aware. There is an advantage to having an inlet on the top of the aircraft if you’re out in more austere environments and you’re concerned about FOD [foreign object debris] pickup off of a runway,” he added.
ACE refers to a set of U.S. Air Force concepts of operations focused primarily on relatively rapid and irregular deployments, particularly to far-flung, austere operating locations, and with the expectation that logistics support could be very limited. The ACE construct is at the very core of the Air Force’s CCA program requirements and its plans for operating those drones in the future.
Fehlen also confirmed that the inlet’s design has to do with survivability, but did not elaborate in any detail, which is unsurprising considering the sensitivities of such design elements. The original Vectis promotional video Lockheed Martin put out last year, seen below, showed an S-shaped duct behind the air intake and exhaust shrouding, which are features designed to further reduce a platform’s signature.
In terms of performance, Lockheed Martin has yet to share any hard specifications it is targeting for Vectis, or disclose details about the engine the design will use. Fehlen did also highlight the drag-reducing performance advantages of the drone’s tailless design, including for maximizing range.
Details about what other capabilities Vectis might have are still limited. Fehlen noted that the design is expected to be capable of both air-to-air and air-to-ground mission sets. In a new computer-generated promotional video, seen earlier in this story, the drones are depicted launching what look to be AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) and GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) glide bombs, also known as StormBreakers. The AIM-120 has already emerged as something of a default initial weapon for Western CCA-type drones. The video also confirms Vectis has an internal bay that is able to accommodate at least two munitions, likely the size to accommodate medium-range air-to-air missiles.
In addition, the video shows Vectis as having a traditional electro-optical/infrared sensor turret behind a stealthy faceted enclosure under the nose. When the drone was first unveiled last year, TWZ noted that it could carry a variety of sensors, including compact radars and/or infrared search and track (IRST) systems, which would be particularly relevant in the air-to-air role.
During the press call, Skunk Works’ Fehlen reiterated that Vectis is being designed with an eye toward modularity and open-architecture systems. This, in turn, will make it easier to integrate new and improved capabilities and functionality down the line. Open architecture is at the heart of every CCA offering we are aware of at this time.
Fehlen further highlighted Lockheed Martin’s extensive work to date on advanced autonomy packages and crewed-uncrewed teaming capabilities. This includes the development of the Multi Domain Combat System (MDCX), an “autonomy platform” that is already central to the U.S. Navy’s plans for the carrier-based MQ-25 Stingray. The head of Skunk Works also explicitly called attention to autonomous air intercept testing conducted in cooperation with the Air Force earlier this year using the unique X-62A test jet, and said that work is feeding into Vectis’ development.
On top of all this, Lockheed Martin is already actively laying the groundwork for the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 and F-35 fighters to control future CCA drones, via in-cockpit touchscreen-type user interfaces, likely involving tablets, at least at first.
The new Vectis promotional video also shows a traditional ground control station being used to direct the drones, but with the phrase “managed from anywhere” on the screens, as seen below. Fehlen did say that any specific requirements for autonomy, command and control, and other operational capabilities would be up to individual customers, and that third-party vendors could be involved.
Beyond Vectis’ design and expected capacities, Fehlen touted the speed at which work on the first physical prototype is progressing, and highlighted the use of digital design techniques and advanced manufacturing processes.
“This team, when kicked off, took a design on a napkin, which we will likely frame one day in my office … two months later, they were in the wind tunnel validating the design,” he said. “So, in under two months, we’re already getting in the wind tunnel straight from off of a napkin. We had the first digital build in six months, and the first part release in eight months. So it gives you a touch of a sense for exactly how fast we’re moving.”
“This aircraft was designed in a fully integrated digital environment,” he added. “Really, it’s creating that unbroken digital thread from the design all the way through sustainment.”
There has been much talk over the years about whether the promised benefits of digital engineering have lived up to expectations, with former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall having been particularly critical of the technology being at least over-hyped in the past. At the same time, the use of digital design tools has become increasingly commonplace, including on top-priority U.S. military aerospace projects, and not just at Skunk Works.
“We’ve used advanced design and manufacturing processes developed for many years under our own internal investment … for other Skunk Works programs, we’ve pulled that into this, of course, to continue to advance our manufacturing as well as the advanced design capability,” Fehlen continued. “They’re using real production processes.”
The Skunk Works boss stressed that this approach offers advantages not just for accelerating development and prototype, but also for reducing costs and positioning Vectis to enter full-scale production.
“It gives you the reliance and the confidence as you continue to move forward that you’re ready to off and build these things because you’re using those real production processes,” he explained. “An example of that is a technique that we call minimal tooling determinant assembly. It’s a technique that really enables an increased level of affordability and speed through really reducing the amount of touch labor required and increasing the first pass yield. We’ve seen, in many cases, an 80 percent reduction in labor hours to build up the aircraft itself.”
Fehlen made an indirect reference to flat-pack furniture from IKEA to provide additional context, in extremely general layman’s terms, about what this technique offers.
“That’s what we’re talking about, that idea that it can come together very quickly, limited touch, and limited error. We constrain that to reduce the number of labor hours, which is not just a cost implication, but also buoys the speed and how fast we’re going to be able to produce them,” he said. “You can imagine, as well, there’s a lot of simplification that goes into this. We have significantly reduced the part count. Again, back to simplify the build so that you can have a positive impact on speed and affordability, not new techniques, but we’ve applied them here with vigor to ensure that we are getting to the cost point that the services and our customers need in order to make this system effective.”
In terms of actual unit cost, “we’re always looking at, and, of course, we’re targeting to be [at] the CCA competitive price, so we’re very cognizant of it and make trades associated with that,” according to Fehlen. Vectis is “focused more on the CCA side of the house, and obviously the price points that are highly relevant in that regime, and then, of course, making trades along the way, and to make sure that we can meet it.”
The head of Skunk Works was responding here specifically to a question that mentioned the Air Force’s target of a roughly $20 million unit price for drones acquired under the first phase, or Increment 1, of its CCA program once full-scale production is achieved. The service announced in June that it was ordering fleets of both of the Increment 1 designs now in development, General Atomics’ FQ-42A Dark Merlin and Anduril’s FQ-44A Fury. The Air Force has plans for at least one more increment to this program, and has said in the past that it could pursue lower-cost (and less exquisite) designs.
“While not discussing suppliers, you can imagine we are ensuring that all of the decisions we make in the development and then the build out of these aircraft are designed around achieving that competitive cost point, while at the same time maximizing the amount of capability,” Fehlen added. “Those are the things that our customers are looking for, and we put it in a survivable solution.”
“There are some [companies] that are really going down the attritable [route], which defines a different price point than the CCA community has been targeting,” he also noted. Attritable designs are “quite a bit less from a cost point perspective and often from a capability perspective.”
With this in mind, there are still larger questions about where exactly Vectis may fit into U.S. military CCA plans, as well as those emerging from allied and partner air arms globally. Skunk Works has said in the past that it was eliminated from the Air Force’s CCA Increment 1 competition because it put forward a very stealthy “gold-plated” design that was not what the service wanted. Lockheed Martin had also indicated that its view of the capability/cost balance on new CCA-type designs had subsequently shifted very much in the opposite direction. Though it is still not entirely clear, what we’ve learned about Vectis in the past year would seem to signal that the pendulum at Skunk Works has swung back the other way again, at least to a degree.
As an interesting point of comparison, Northrop Grumman had also entered a higher-end design for the Increment 1 competition. In the wake of that loss, the company produced a much more familiar CCA design with a more traditional planform, which is now known as the YFQ-48A Talon Blue.
It’s also worth noting here that Skunk Works had publicly shared a future crewed-uncrewed teaming vision that included multiple tiers of drones back in 2022. This ranged from a cruise missile-like design the company now calls the Common Multi-Mission Truck (CMMT) all the way up to a concept for what could have been a very low-observable (stealthy) and highly autonomous flying wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV).
“We listen closely to our customers to deeply understand the operational environment and use those insights and our own analysis to inform the diverse solutions we develop for different mission sets,” Lockheed Martin told TWZ directly after the press call last week in response to a follow-up question about whether the 2022 vision was still relevant and if Vectis had supplanted the upper-tier concept shown at that time. “We continue to evaluate a range of crewed and uncrewed concepts against evolving customer needs.”
“Lockheed Martin Vectis addresses a warfighter need for a survivable, flexible and multi-mission capability, both domestically and internationally,” the company added in its statement. “We’re leaning into that demand, making strategic investments to accelerate Vectis’ progress and maturity and to deliver the capabilities our nation and allies need.”
Publicly, the Air Force continues to eschew any new plans to acquire and field UCAVs in favor of or even in addition to far less exquisite CCAs. The U.S. Marine Corps has so far put forward a similar CCA vision. However, just at the end of last month, the U.S. Navy released new target requirements for what it called a CCA-type drone, but that described something that sounded much more like a UCAV.
Lockheed Martin and a host of other companies globally are being presented with a clearly expanding CCA market, but there is also still obvious interest in higher-tier UCAVs. China, in particular, has positioned itself as the current leader in the stealthy flying wing UCAV space, as well as a dominant actor in advanced combat drone developments more generally speaking. Russia, India, Turkey, and France continue to pursue flying wing UCAVs, as well. That being said, Skunk Works’ Vectis is arguably the closest we have seen to a low-observable UCAV to come out of recent CCA developments.
Regardless, Skunk Works is confident that there is a place for Vectis, together with autonomy and other capabilities it is developing, domestically and internationally, in this future uncrewed air combat ecosystem. It “is a survivable autonomous multi-mission platform, which we believe is the solution needed within today’s operational environment and into the future,” Fehlen said last week.
Skunk Works is committed to “delivering what’s next across … airframes, open architectures, to include artificial intelligence and autonomy, and then crewed-uncrewed integration,” he added. “Make no mistake, it will take advancements across all these areas to get to where our customers are going. We look at the full picture. Vectis is a holistic weapon system from our perspective.”
Altogether, “it’s an urgent need. We know that. We can hear it.”
UPDATE: 3:10 pm EDT
We now have a photo of the full sized Vectis mockup on the floor or Air, Space, Cyber 2026:
Contact the author: joe@twz.com
The post Everything We Just Learned About The Vectis Collaborative Combat Aircraft From The Skunk Works appeared first on TWZ.
This year's European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress showed just how quickly cardiology is changing. Late-breaking trials, new scientific data and major guideline updates all pointed to a field that is becoming both more crowded and more complex.
A central question the conference sought to address was how effectively the two main types of ATTR-CM treatment work. Stabilizers are designed to prevent the transthyretin protein from breaking apart, while silencers reduce its production. The debate centered on whether silencers offer enough additional benefit over established stabilizers in this significant rare disease market.
One of the clearest lessons was that the challenge is no longer simply bringing more treatments to market. It is increasingly about finding the right patients earlier, understanding how different therapies compare and deciding where each option fits as standards of care improve. ATTR-CM was one of the strongest examples of that shift, with the conference data sharpening the debate over whether silencers offer enough additional benefit over established stabilizers. The same pattern could also be seen in new guidelines and in the growing role of digital monitoring.
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals came to ESC looking to strengthen the case for Amvuttra in ATTR-CM, but the data arguably leave some important questions unanswered. While the drug is already approved, the estimated benefit appeared more modest than many investors and clinicians may have hoped, particularly given the growing expectation that newer therapies will need to demonstrate clear advantages over established treatments. The key question is whether ATTR-CM silencer treatments offer enough additional benefit on top of stabilizers that are already delivering meaningful clinical outcomes.
In light of this, there remains uncertainty around the extent of Amvuttra's value and whether it will be sufficient to secure a strong position in an increasingly competitive market. The FDA's decision earlier this year to challenge Alnylam's survival claims based on an open-label extension of HELIOS-B only adds to the need for caution. It is, therefore, perhaps unsurprising that Alnylam's share price has come under pressure and that questions are being raised about the long-term commercial viability of Amvuttra in ATTR-CM.
Rather than definitively strengthening the case for Amvuttra, Alnylam's participation at ESC suggests that important questions remain about the true scale of its advantage and whether the evidence is sufficient to establish a clear benefit over existing treatments.
In perhaps a similar spirit, AstraZeneca and Ionis used ESC to revisit the results of the Phase 3 CARDIO-TTRansform trial of Wainua (eplontersen), another potential treatment for ATTR-CM. They faced a somewhat different challenge, however, as the trial had already failed its primary endpoint, with Wainua unable to significantly reduce cardiovascular mortality and recurrent cardiovascular events in the overall study population.
The companies sought to contextualize the findings, but the presentation arguably highlighted one of the trial's central challenges. If the apparent benefit is less clear among patients already receiving stabilizer therapy, the data raise broader questions about how much additional value silencers can deliver beyond treatments that are already producing meaningful clinical outcomes. The broader question, however, is what this means for an ATTR-CM market that is becoming increasingly competitive. As new treatments emerge, should attention shift towards newer therapies, or remain focused on established stabilizers that may already be providing much of the available benefit?
ESC also saw the release of new guidelines that could change how cardiovascular patients are identified and managed. The updated heart failure guidance simplifies how patients are classified and puts more focus on prevention and earlier intervention. In practice, that means clinicians may be looking for risk earlier and across a broader group of patients, rather than waiting until disease is more advanced.
That change is creating more room for digital tools. Huawei used ESC to preview its Watch D3, a wrist-based ambulatory blood pressure monitor designed to track blood pressure in everyday settings. It is one example of how wearables are moving beyond basic wellness tracking and towards data that could help identify risk earlier, monitor patients more closely and support treatment decisions.
Reflecting on ESC 2026, ATTR-CM emerged as a key area of focus. The AstraZeneca and Alnylam data raised questions about whether silencers can offer enough benefit over established stabilizers, while new guidelines and digital tools highlighted the importance of identifying risk earlier and monitoring patients more closely. The key question now, arguably, is which approaches can genuinely improve on what is already available, and which patients are most likely to benefit.
On 11 September, the Commission presented its proposal on the EU-Ecuador Sustainable Investment Facilitation Agreement (SIFA) to the Council for its signature and conclusion.
This is the first SIFA negotiated with a Latin American country and will help promote further EU investment in Ecuador. The EU-Ecuador SIFA aims to make it easier for EU companies to invest and expand their operations in Ecuador. It benefits both EU and local investors.
It will facilitate investment across the whole economy by supporting efforts to address challenges such as bureaucratic hurdles and regulatory uncertainty, which is especially relevant in sectors with untapped potential, such as renewable energy. For the first time in a SIFA, the agreement with Ecuador contains specific provisions which aim to deepen cooperation and facilitate investment in sustainable energy and raw materials - sectors of particular interest for EU investors and Ecuador. The SIFA is closely aligned with the EU's Global Gateway strategy in Ecuador, which supports investments and sustainable infrastructure in sectors such as energy, water sanitation, and waste management.
The EU is a leading trade and investment partner for Ecuador, with the EU's FDI stock in the country reaching €9.1 billion in 2024. The sectors receiving the most EU foreign direct investment include construction, business services, transport, storage, communications, and manufacturing.
Pursuing SIFAs is among the objectives set out in the EU's Competitiveness Compass, which highlighted the need to seek new ways of deepening partnerships and creating benefits for EU businesses.
With its proposals for the signature and conclusion of the SIFA, the Commission is seeking the Council’s approval to sign the agreement. Once the Council gives its agreement it will be sent to the European Parliament for consent. Following approval, the deal can enter into force.
Commission proposals for Council decisions on the signature and conclusion of the EU-Ecuador Sustainable Investment Facilitation Agreement (SIFA)
On 11 September, the European Commission has put forward its proposals to the Council for the signature and conclusion of Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the European Union and India, seeking authorization for its signature and conclusion. If authorized by the Council, this will be the largest trade agreement ever concluded by both the EU and India.
Once adopted and entered into force, the agreement will improve market access, reduce tariffs, tackle unnecessary barriers to trade, as well as provide predictable rules for trade and investment between the EU and India. The EU and India already trade over €180 billion worth of goods and services per year, supporting close to 800,000 EU jobs. This deal will eliminate or reduce tariffs on 96% of EU goods exports to India. Overall, the tariff reductions will save around €4 billion per year in duties on European products. It will make it easier for European companies to access the Indian market and compete on a more level playing field, while it will ensure consumers can benefit from increased choices and more competitive prices.
The proposal put forward today represents a key step towards ensuring that consumers and businesses can start reaping the benefits of this deal as soon as possible. This is in line with the fast-track procedure laid out by Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maroš Šefčovič earlier this year. The procedure aims at speeding up the implementation of FTA's, which is crucial at a time of geopolitical uncertainty and growing pressure on the global trading system.
The EU-India FTA reflects the EU's commitment to strengthen economic ties with key partners in the Indo-Pacific region. With its proposals, the Commission is seeking Council's approval to sign the agreements which will then require European Parliament's consent, before conclusion and entry into force. The Indian authorities are in parallel going through their own internal ratification procedures.
For more information
Europe has plenty of world-class research, talent and creativity. However, too often ideas originating in Europe are turned into economic success by others, elsewhere. This is because European innovators face barriers here and find it difficult to bring their ideas to life. As a result, the Commission proposed a new European innovation act to help Europe's most innovative ideas be developed, financed and scaled up in Europe.
To strengthen the EU innovation system, the proposal will address two main challenges. Firstly, it will help innovative companies access financing by
This can unlock €10.2 billion per year in additional financing and generate around €35 million in administrative cost savings.
Second, it will establish a common approach for research and development procurement that
With this, companies could expect €25.92 billion in additional annual profits, while public buyers could save €1 billion per year.
The European innovation act is an element of the competitiveness compass, to strengthen the EU's long-term competitiveness, prosperity and technological sovereignty. In parallel, the Commission will help innovators accelerate the transformation of innovative ideas into market solutions through a specific proposal on regulatory sandboxes.
For more information
Questions and answers on the European Innovation Act
Hardware and software products are increasingly exposed to cyberattacks. From baby monitors and smartwatches to apps and computer programmes, products with digital elements are part of our daily lives. The Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) strengthens the cybersecurity of these products and better protects consumers and businesses from cyber threats.
As of 11 September 2026, manufacturers must report any actively exploited vulnerabilities and severe incidents that have an impact on the security of their products. They must submit an early warning within 24 hours, followed by a full notification within 72 hours. A final report must then be submitted no later than 14 days after a corrective or mitigating measure is available for an actively exploited vulnerability, and within 1 month for a severe incident.
In practice, this means consumers can rely on faster notifications and stronger protection for their connected devices, such as door locking systems, keeping their home safe and secure in the event of a cyberattack.
The reporting obligations apply to all products with digital elements made available in the EU, including those already on the market. Manufacturers will submit their notifications through the CRA Single Reporting Platform, established and maintained by the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity.
The Commission published practical guidance to help manufacturers, developers, and businesses meet their obligations. National market surveillance authorities will ensure enforcement of the rules.
The Cyber Resilience Act builds on the EU cybersecurity strategy and the EU security union strategy. It aims to strengthen the EU approach to cybersecurity. The new rules require products with digital elements to be designed, updated, and maintained to protect users from security risks. The CE marking will help them identify products that comply with the CRA requirements.
The main obligations introduced by the Act will apply from 11 December 2027, while the reporting obligations apply from 11 September 2026.
For more information
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is not guilty. This is a statement of law and fact, since Maduro has not been convicted of any crime. He has pleaded not guilty to every charge brought against him, and the accusations made by the United States remain precisely that: accusations. Under the presumption of innocence – recognized in the United States Constitution and in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – the burden rests entirely upon the prosecution to prove guilt. It is not Maduro who must prove his innocence, but it is the United States government that must prove his guilt.
On January 3, 2026, United States forces illegally entered Venezuela, attacked targets in and around Caracas, seized President Maduro and his wife and an elected official, Cilia Flores, and transported them to the United States. Two days later, shackled and injured, Maduro appeared before a federal court in Manhattan. “I am innocent. I am not guilty,” he told the court. Both defendants entered pleas of not guilty and are now imprisoned in Brooklyn while awaiting a trial provisionally scheduled for June 2027.
The United States alleges that Maduro participated in conspiracies to import cocaine, possess machine guns and destructive devices, and collaborate with organizations Washington has designated as terrorist groups. These charges developed out of an indictment announced during Donald Trump’s first presidency in March 2020. The case was substantially expanded after Maduro was kidnapped through a fourth superseding indictment. An indictment, however, is not evidence tested before a court. It is a document prepared by prosecutors and approved through a grand-jury proceeding at which the defense is normally neither represented nor permitted to challenge the government’s account.
The prosecution relies heavily upon the idea that Maduro directed the so-called Cartel de los Soles, or Cartel of the Suns. But even organizations deeply hostile to the Venezuelan government acknowledge that this is not a cartel in the conventional sense. The name has long been used as an umbrella expression for disparate Venezuelan officials allegedly involved in criminal activity, long before Maduro entered political life. It does not describe an organization with a demonstrated membership, command structure, headquarters or chain of authority comparable to Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel. When Washington designated the Cartel de los Soles a foreign terrorist organization in 2025, the Associated Press noted that it was “not a cartel per se.”
This matters because the prosecution’s language performs much of its political work. Allegations concerning individual acts of corruption are assembled into the image of a unified organization, the organization is then attributed to the Venezuelan state, and responsibility for everything allegedly done by anyone within that loose network is placed upon Maduro. The indictment must still demonstrate that Maduro knowingly joined the specific conspiracies charged. Political authority over a state in which crimes occur does not by itself establish personal criminal responsibility for those crimes.
Venezuela is not a major producer of coca leaf or cocaine. The principal cocaine-producing countries remain Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. Venezuela has been used as a transit territory, particularly for cocaine originating in neighboring Colombia. But transit through a country does not prove that its president commands the traffic, and nor does it substantiate the extravagant political image of Venezuela as the central source of the drugs entering the United States. The US Drug Enforcement Administration’s own 2025 threat assessment concentrated overwhelmingly upon Mexican organizations and their supply chains. The global cocaine trade operates primarily through production in the Andean region, maritime export corridors, Central America and Mexico, not through a single organization supposedly commanded from the Venezuelan presidential palace. The International Criminal Court’s investigation into the situation in Venezuela, for example, is an investigation into alleged crimes within its jurisdiction. It is not a conviction of Maduro and has not produced an individual judgment of guilt against him.
The US government is expected to rely upon cooperating witnesses, including former Venezuelan intelligence chief Hugo Carvajal and former general Clíver Alcalá. Both men pleaded guilty to serious offenses in the United States. Their evidence cannot be treated as disinterested truth. Cooperating defendants may hope to obtain sentencing benefits by assisting prosecutors. Their claims must therefore be corroborated and subjected to cross-examination. Until that happens, their statements do not establish Maduro’s guilt. In fact, it is better to see their statements as proof of their own attempt to lighten their sentences and launder their soiled reputations.
The circumstances under which Maduro was brought before the US court create an even deeper problem. Washington did not request extradition through an agreed legal process. It employed military force within another sovereign country without Venezuela’s consent or authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, subject to narrow exceptions such as self-defence. Arresting a person accused of drug offenses is not one of those exceptions. International-law specialists described the operation as an unlawful use of force, while governments including Brazil, Mexico, and China condemned the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty.
Maduro’s lawyers have argued that the prosecution violates the immunity enjoyed by an incumbent head of state. Venezuela continued to recognize Maduro as its constitutional president when the United States seized him – a fact tacitly recognized by the United States when it calls Delcy Rodriquez the Acting President. Washington cannot necessarily extinguish the international legal status of another country’s head of state merely by withholding diplomatic recognition. The defense has consequently requested dismissal of the indictment on immunity grounds and has separately challenged the narco-terrorism count for lacking an adequate jurisdictional connection to the United States. Oral argument on these questions is scheduled for November 2026.
The case of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández exposes the selectivity of Washington’s supposed war against narco-states. Hernández was a close US ally during his presidency from 2014 to 2022. After leaving office, he was extradited – not abducted through a military invasion – and tried in the same federal district in New York where Maduro is now being prosecuted. In March 2024, a jury convicted Hernández after a three-week trial. Prosecutors presented evidence that he had accepted millions of dollars from traffickers, protected cocaine shipments with the Honduran police and military, and helped move more than 400 tons of cocaine towards the United States. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Unlike the claims against Maduro, these allegations were tested through testimony, cross-examination and a jury verdict. Yet on December 1, 2025, President Donald Trump pardoned Hernández and secured his release, claiming that the former president had been treated unfairly.
The contrast could hardly be more revealing. Trump pardoned a former president whose participation in cocaine trafficking had been established in a US courtroom, while threatening and eventually invading Venezuela to seize a president against whom no verdict had been rendered. Hernández belonged to Washington’s political camp; Maduro did not. One was released despite his conviction, while the other was captured despite his legal innocence. This disparity does not by itself disprove the accusations against Maduro, but it demolishes the claim that Washington acted from a consistent concern about narcotics. The determining distinction was political alignment, not the strength of the evidence.
The implications of this case extend far beyond the specific circumstances of Maduro and Cilia Flores or their consequences for Venezuela. Allowing a foreign state to override the jurisdiction of another country’s legal system, pursue an accusation for which there is no evidence, and proceed with a trial that lacks a basis in international law effectively establishes the US court system as one with global and unlimited jurisdiction. The ambivalence of governments around the world toward this case is therefore alarming, as it risks signalling consent and normalizing such gross overreach. This is particularly relevant for Mexico, which is already facing a series of accusations and extradition demands from the United States with clear political implications. The outcome of Maduro’s trial could set an important precedent for how Mexico – and other countries – are treated in similar circumstances.
Nicolás Maduro is not guilty therefore expresses the only defensible conclusion at this stage. He was seized through an act of military force, placed before the courts of the state that had pursued his overthrow for years, and charged based on a politically constructed theory that has yet to survive adversarial examination. He remains innocent unless and until admissible evidence proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Sovereignty is not an ornament, an indictment is not a verdict, and an accusation issued by a powerful state does not become truth merely because that state possesses the weapons to seize the accused.
Stephanie Weatherbee Brito is the co-coordinator of the International Peoples Assembly (IPA).
Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. He is the author of forty books, including Washington Bullets, Red Star Over the Third World, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South, and How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa, written with Grieve Chelwa. He is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, the chief correspondent for Globetrotter, and the chief editor of LeftWord Books (New Delhi). He also appeared in the films Shadow World (2016) and Two Meetings (2017).
Login