Chinese authorities have reportedly taken possession of an F-35 cockpit canopy and weapons-bay door that were inexplicably diverted to Hong Kong while being shipped from Australia to the United States. The incident appears to have left physical components that incorporate aspects of the fighter’s low-observable design in the hands of a country that has spent years doing whatever it could to gain information on the aircraft and America’s stealth technology secrets in general.

So, what does all this mean? Let’s put it in perspective.

The parts in question were being shipped by UPS from Australia to the United States in late May, according to people familiar with the matter cited by Bloomberg. The components from a Royal Australian Air Force F-35A were being sent to the United States for inspection and possible repair or disposal.

F-35 sustainment procedures explicitly cover the movement of F-35 parts, including unserviceable components, through the program’s logistics network. The U.S. Air Force’s transportation guidance directs F-35 shipments outside the Defense Transportation System to follow approved Joint Program Office procedures. In other words, moving an unserviceable Australian F-35 component to the United States for inspection, repair, or disposition is consistent with the normal sustainment process.

What is highly unusual is where this particular shipment ended up. F-35 components moving through an established international logistics system apparently stopped in South Korea, and were then routed to Hong Kong. Chinese authorities subsequently took possession of the parts and have not returned them, according to the sources cited by Bloomberg.

“For security reasons, we can’t discuss the status of specific shipments or our shipping procedures,” Lockheed Martin told us in response to a request for clarification about the incident. The company added that it “follows all U.S. regulations established by the Department of War and regulated by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) regarding the shipment of aircraft components. Our teams handle every shipment with the utmost diligence and safeguards to ensure the integrity of the F-35 program and the security of our allied partners.”

The Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office has acknowledged a “shipment issue” involving F-35 components and said U.S. authorities and industry partners are working to recover them and investigate what happened.

Lockheed Martin, UPS, and the Pentagon have not publicly provided a detailed account of how the shipment was diverted or what happened to the parts after they reached Hong Kong.

Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles also confirmed that Canberra was aware of the incident and was working with the United States and Lockheed Martin.

Marles has sought to play down the potential security implications of the components, saying his understanding was that the shipment did not contain sensitive equipment or sensitive parts. That does not by itself answer the more specific question of what could potentially be learned from these particular pieces of an F-35. After all, not every physical component of an F-35 is necessarily highly classified or capable of revealing meaningful information about the aircraft’s design. At the same time, a cockpit canopy and weapons-bay door involve structures, materials, interfaces, tolerances, and treatments that all have to work within the aircraft’s low-observable design. If radar-absorbing material or other specialized treatments remain on the components, that could potentially make them far more sensitive from a technological exploitation standpoint.

The condition of the parts is also unknown. We do not know how much of their coatings or other treatments remain intact, whether Chinese authorities have examined them, or what information could actually be extracted from them in their current state.

Above all else, there is little specific information in the public domain about what F-35-related technical information Chinese intelligence already has acquired over the years, what physical components or materials it may already possess, or what additional information could be gained through espionage, cyber operations, industrial access, observation of deployed aircraft, or other means.

Without these facts, it is impossible to gauge what damage could have been done by this loss. Still, viewed in a vacuum of those unknowns, simply having an F-35 canopy and weapons-bay door in Chinese possession represents a significant loss of control over sensitive physical hardware — there is no way around that reality — and the severity of that loss could be substantial depending on the physical state of the parts.

The circumstances are particularly sensitive because, as we mentioned in the opening of this article, China has pursued multiple avenues for acquiring information on the F-35 for many years, with publicly documented cases involving cyber operations, technical information, supply chains, and human expertise. Some aspects of China’s subsequent stealth aircraft designs have also prompted comparisons with U.S. aircraft, although claims that China simply ‘cloned’ entire aircraft are not supported by the available evidence.

China And The F-35: A History Of Espionage

In 2014, U.S. authorities charged Chinese businessman Su Bin with conspiring with two other Chinese hackers to break into the computer systems of U.S. defense contractors. Prosecutors alleged that the group targeted information on aircraft including the F-35 and F-22. The alleged hacking campaign ran from 2009 to 2013.

Su Bin later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nearly four years in prison. The Justice Department’s 2026 case against former Air Force fighter pilot Gerald “Runner” Brown connects the two cases. Prosecutors allege that Brown used a co-conspirator to negotiate his work training Chinese military pilots with Su Bin.

Brown, a retired U.S. Air Force major who spent more than 24 years in the service, subsequently worked as a contract simulator instructor training U.S. military pilots on the A-10 and F-35. In February 2026, the Justice Department charged him with providing and conspiring to provide unauthorized defense services to Chinese military pilots.

CASE UPDATE from @NewYorkFBI: Former U.S. Air Force Pilot Arrested for Providing Defense Services to the Chinese Military https://t.co/JhwhJHS83v@FBILouisville @FBIIndianapolis and @FBILosAngeles provided assistance in this case. pic.twitter.com/3KElqci05y

— FBI (@FBI) February 25, 2026

According to the criminal complaint, Brown traveled to China in December 2023, where he allegedly began training People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) personnel. Prosecutors say he also answered questions about the U.S. Air Force for three hours on his first day in China. Brown has been charged, and the allegations have not been adjudicated. He is one of multiple former Western aviators alleged to have provided training services and/or intelligence to Beijing.

The Honeywell case provides yet another example, this time involving the defense industry’s supply of technical information.

In 2021, the State Department reached a $13-million administrative settlement with Honeywell over alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Honeywell had voluntarily disclosed alleged unauthorized exports and retransfers of ITAR-controlled technical data.

The case involved 71 engineering drawings containing dimensions, geometries and layouts for manufacturing castings and finished parts used across multiple aircraft, engines and military systems. The State Department said the unauthorized exports and retransfers involved Canada, Ireland, Mexico, China, and Taiwan.

Among the systems covered by the drawings were components associated with the F-35 and F-22. The case did not allege that Honeywell deliberately sought to provide China with sensitive military technology; rather, it concerned alleged violations of export-control requirements.

There has also been a physical supply-chain precedent.

In 2022, F-35 deliveries were temporarily halted after the Pentagon discovered that a magnet in the aircraft’s Honeywell-built turbomachine pumps —which provide critical power functions to the jet — contained a cobalt and samarium alloy produced in China. The material itself was not considered a security or flight-safety threat, but the discovery demonstrated how difficult it can be to maintain complete visibility over a global supply chain involving thousands of companies and multiple tiers of subcontractors.

Taken together, these cases demonstrate several different pathways through which China has appeared in the F-35 security story: cyber theft, unauthorized technical-data transfers, supply-chain exposure, and alleged exploitation of former Western military expertise.

The Hong Kong incident would add another major category: physical access to actual F-35 components.

These are only some of the publicly documented examples. There is no public way to know the full extent of information or physical material Chinese intelligence may have acquired over the years, but is very likely far larger in scope than what is available in the open source.

Chinese Access Concerns Have Shaped F-35 Export Policy

The security issues surrounding the F-35 are significant enough that concerns about China have affected not only how the United States protects F-35 technology, but where Washington is willing to export the aircraft in the first place.

The proposed sale of F-35s to the United Arab Emirates became deeply entangled in U.S. concerns about Abu Dhabi’s growing military and technology relationship with China.

Washington had approved a potential package involving 50 F-35As, but U.S. officials and lawmakers expressed concerns about Chinese intelligence activity and technology in the UAE. Among the broader concerns were Chinese telecommunications infrastructure and the possibility of Chinese military or intelligence access to facilities associated with advanced U.S. weapons. A Congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report later cited the potential presence of Chinese intelligence collection capabilities and military facilities in the UAE as risks to the proposed F-35 sale.

The issue has now resurfaced with Saudi Arabia.

The State Department recently approved a potential $24.3-billion sale to the Kingdom involving 48 F-35s and associated equipment. But U.S. intelligence agencies have reportedly warned that China’s military and technology relationship with Saudi Arabia could create opportunities for Beijing to obtain sensitive F-35 information.

According to reporting based on U.S. officials familiar with intelligence assessments, a Defense Intelligence Agency report raised concerns about Chinese military access to Saudi bases, Chinese technology in Saudi telecommunications infrastructure, and whether secure facilities could be maintained for F-35 operations. The assessments also questioned whether Saudi Arabia would limit contact between Chinese military and intelligence personnel and F-35-related sites.

What Could The Components Reveal?

As we noted earlier, there is no way to gauge the intelligence impact of the loss at this stage. The central unknown of what China already knows about the F-35, and what it may already have in its possession — especially related to these components — is the key variable here.

Regardless, an F-35 canopy and weapons-bay door can provide information that cannot otherwise be easily obtained and gives a different level of fidelity in terms of material exploitation than what construction data and blueprints alone could.

The F-35’s low observability is the product of an extremely complex combination of airframe shaping, construction materials, external coatings, manufacturing tolerances, speciality apertures, and more.

A canopy is a particularly demanding part of any stealth aircraft. It has to satisfy optical and structural requirements while also controlling radar reflections. The cockpit is historically a major source of radar reflectivity, including the pilot’s helmet. Therefore the canopy’s materials, construction, interfaces, and specialized treatments can be critical to the aircraft’s overall low-observable performance, and especially from the critical frontal aspect.

The F-35’s canopy has been an ongoing work in progress for many years. It has had chronic material issues, especially when it comes to delamination. Multiple iterations spread over two decades have recently resulted in a major improvement of the issue. The tight balancing act of keeping the canopy transparent enough, while controlling the F-35’s stealthy signature and having that mix of materials be robust enough to last for a reasonable amount of time has been a major investment for the program. If the canopy is of a later variation, that loss alone could be substantial and could help China with their own low-observable canopy development programs even if they already had original information on the F-35’s canopy original design dating back years.

The F-35’s canopy has been a notorious work in progress, specifically the low observable coating/delamination issue which has improved a lot in recent years with new materials and processes. So no, you do NOT want to lose that in to China! https://t.co/9V0jdRAiwA

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) September 19, 2026

The F-35’s weapons-bay door has its own sensitivity issues. It is effectively a major section of the aircraft’s outer shell, with its structure, edges, interfaces, tolerances and treatments all having to function without creating unacceptable radar signatures. Its construction and material attributes can be reasonably extrapolated for the rest of much of the F-35’s outer mold-line. Above all else, if the radar absorbent material remained intact on the door, that would signify a major loss when viewed without any understanding of what China already knows about the F-35’s radar absorbing surface treatments. Historically speaking, RAM technology is among America’s closely guarded material sciences secrets.

For the time being, Australian officials have said they do not understand the parts to be sensitive. The investigation will ultimately have to establish what the components actually contain and what could be learned from them.

The incident comes at a moment when China’s own stealth fighter efforts are undergoing an extraordinary expansion.

The PLAAF is now operating the J-20, China’s first operational fifth-generation stealth fighter, in increasingly large numbers. The smaller J-35 is also moving toward broader service, including a carrier role for the People’s Liberation Army Navy.

China has also moved into what Western observers generally describe as sixth-generation fighter development.

Two new tailless combat-aircraft designs emerged publicly in December 2024. One is the large Chengdu aircraft commonly referred to as the J-36, while the other is associated with Shenyang and is variously called the J-XDS or J-50. Both have continued flight testing and yielded several prototypes with individual refinements.

The exact capabilities and eventual operational roles of these aircraft remain uncertain. They are developmental designs, not established operational equivalents of the F-35 or other sixth-generation systems. However, China is clearly building an increasingly broad ecosystem of fifth- and next-generation low-observable combat aircraft, both crewed and uncrewed. In the latter category is a growing number of stealthy drones, including long-endurance types.

China didn’t likely need physical access to an F-35 canopy or weapons-bay door to develop the J-20, J-35, or its next-generation aircraft. But additional information about how a mature Western stealth aircraft handles materials, coatings, interfaces, manufacturing, and the integration of those elements can still have great potential value to an industry developing its own systems. This includes technologies intended to counter the U.S. combat aircraft and their low-observable characteristics.

The F-35 has been produced in large numbers, is operated by a growing coalition of countries, and has been subjected to years of testing and operational experience. Its low-observable design represents decades of accumulated U.S. research and industrial know-how. At the same time, the global scale of the program inevitably makes control over sensitive information more complicated. More aircraft, more maintainers, more industrial partners, and more international logistics mean more points at which information and physical hardware have to be controlled. Over time, a program of this size will see an erosion in its secrets, but a major loss can drastically accelerate what should be a more gradual and controlled decline in security.

The potential intelligence value of the components also has to be considered in the context of foreign material exploitation, or FME. Major military powers maintain dedicated capabilities to recover, examine and characterize foreign weapons, aircraft, sensors, materials and other equipment. The objective is not necessarily to reproduce an entire system. More important is determining how something is built, what materials and manufacturing techniques are used, how individual components perform, and where industrial strengths or limitations may lie.

That is why countries have historically gone to extraordinary lengths to recover even crashed or damaged pieces of sensitive military hardware. The bigger the prize, the more risk an intelligence service would be willing to take in order to realize a recovery.

The sensitivity surrounding the physical remnants of an F-35 is not new. When a Japan Air Self-Defense Force F-35A disappeared over the Pacific in 2019, the search quickly became more than a rescue operation. U.S. and Japanese forces mounted an extensive effort to locate the wreckage, with U.S. Navy P-8A aircraft and a destroyer joining the search. TWZ noted at the time that even scattered F-35 wreckage could expose valuable technological secrets, while the aircraft’s location on the seabed raised the prospect of an underwater espionage and recovery operation.

USFJ is supporting @MoDJapan_en search & rescue efforts for missing F-35A w/@US7thFleet P-8A aircraft & @air_fifth coord. @USForcesJapan continues to hope for the safe recovery of the pilot @JASDF_PAO pic.twitter.com/9E7x6QZxpY

— U.S. Forces Japan (@USForcesJapan) April 10, 2019

That concern has also been evident in subsequent F-35 recovery operations. In 2022, the U.S. Navy recovered an F-35C from roughly 12,400 feet in the South China Sea after a carrier landing accident, removing the possibility that the aircraft could be accessed by another country.

pic.twitter.com/JvQZErAAK0

— OedoSoldier (@OedoSoldier) January 27, 2022

Unanswered Security Questions

At this point, there is no public evidence that the Hong Kong diversion was a deliberate Chinese intelligence operation, although it is certainly possible. It is also unclear whether Chinese authorities have examined the F-35 parts or what level of new and useful information has been recovered from them.

If, as reported, Chinese authorities have taken possession of the parts and have not returned them, that would be an extraordinary development. If the diversion was genuinely the result of a shipping or logistics error, the outcome would itself be extraordinary. It would raise serious questions about the security controls surrounding the movement of F-35 hardware even without evidence of deliberate interference.

The timing is also notable. Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived in Washington this week for a state visit with President Donald Trump, with the two leaders meeting amid broader disputes involving technology, security, and the future of U.S.-China relations. Whether the F-35 shipment comes up directly in those discussions is not known, but it would be an obvious subject for U.S. and Chinese officials to address through diplomatic channels.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump, accompanied by the President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan." pic.twitter.com/hyPHOBC99Q

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 24, 2026

For now, however, the central question remains how the parts got there. Until that is answered, we won’t know if this was a simple logistics failure or a deliberate intelligence operation. And beyond that, what China already knew about the components it now may have in its possession — a question we may never truly get an answer to.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post F-35 Canopy And Weapons-Bay Door Loss To China: Separating Fact From Fiction appeared first on TWZ.

Ukraine claims it has recently regained about 125 sq. km. of territory near the town of Lyman in the eastern Donetsk region during what has been dubbed Operation Vivaldi. Rodion Kudryashov, a Ukrainian colonel and deputy commander of the Third Army Corps, offered some insights into this offensive and what made it different.

Though the operation is still ongoing, the success of Vivaldi began long before any troop movements, Kudryashov explained in an editorial he published in Ukrainian Pravda.

“After the Third Army Corps was formed, we changed the command system of its subordinate units,” he noted. “Some brigades came to the corps after very heavy fighting, with losses, manning problems and, most importantly, eroded trust in their leadership.”

Third Army Corps Commander Brig. Gen. Andriy Biletsky “then set out one of our key principles: a commander must be responsible for the entire cycle, from training a soldier to the result on the battlefield,” Kudryashov pointed out. “In some places that meant replacing a commander. In others it meant restructuring a staff or strengthening the NCO chain. In some cases we had to build, almost from scratch, processes that on paper should have been working long ago.”

At issue was changing the culture from a more rigid Soviet-era model, with a cumbersome chain of command, to a modern, more flexible one better suited for the current conflict.

“A modern commander has to handle an enormous flow of information and make decisions quickly,” the deputy commander proffered. “He has to understand what unmanned systems, logistics, reconnaissance and adjacent units can do, while not smothering initiative at lower levels with endless approvals. An army where every decision takes hours to travel up and down the chain loses to an army that makes the same trip in minutes.”

Once those changes were put in place, the Third Army Corps had to first stop Russian advances in the sector before it could move forward.

VIVALDI

GoPro footage from Ukrainian assault troops who took part in the Vivaldi counteroffensive, which resulted in the liberation of five settlements in the Lyman direction. pic.twitter.com/2SVXSKlEX0

— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱 (@TheDeadDistrict) September 17, 2026

“When the corps took over its area of responsibility, our first task was not an offensive,” the officer said. “We had to stop the situation from deteriorating and stabilize the forward edge.”

“The enemy was pressing. In some sectors our combat formations were losing cohesion,” he underscored. “The Russians were actively using infiltration tactics: small groups seeped between positions, massed in our rear, threatened logistics and gradually eroded the defensive line.”

“We had to stabilize the forward edge and stop the infiltration,” Kudryashov said. “We had to rebuild command, put in commanders capable of making decisions, form new teams and reconstitute units. We had to set up the surveillance-and-strike system and sustain the front line. We had to stockpile ammunition, drones and other resources, understand the enemy, and plan the next step before the previous one was finished. Only after that could we move forward.”

By June, the corps was able to secure the front “in the sector from Borova to Lyman and eliminate the enemy’s infiltration zones,” Kudryashov continued. “That sounds less impressive than the word ‘offensive,’ but no offensive ever happens without it.”

“You cannot plan a complex operation if you don’t know where your forward edge will be tomorrow,” the deputy commander extrapolated. “You cannot build up forces if your logistics are constantly under threat. And you cannot form a strike group if your units are always forced to patch new breaches. So the first phase of ‘Vivaldi’ was not an advance at all. It was creating the conditions that made an advance possible in the first place.”

Once the front was stabilized, the next step was shaping the battlefield for the offensive. The corps’ unmanned systems units went to work against Russian logistics, striking a pipeline and depots. That forced the enemy to change its fuel and lubricant supply routes.

Ukraine’s 3rd Army Corps released new footage of search-and-strike operations on the Lyman front. FPV drone operators from the 60th Mechanized Brigade’s FATUM unit targeted Russian armored vehicles, a Grad multiple rocket launcher and personnel. #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/1iNG7z2N1c

— NOELREPORTS (@NOELreports) September 24, 2026

“The operation also involved the corps’ brigades, its reconnaissance and unmanned units, and attached forces from the SSO (Special Operations Forces), GUR (Defense Intelligence) and DPSU (State Border Guard Service),” the deputy commander said. “To counter infiltration, a joint headquarters was set up to coordinate special and reconnaissance units at the tactical level under a single concept.”

“In my view, this is one of the main characteristics of modern war,” he further stated. “It is not 10 strong units that each fight well on their own. It is 10 different elements that start working as one system at the right moment.”

An interesting new detail from Ukraine’s 3rd Army Corps about Operation Vivaldi on the Lyman axis.

The Corps says Ukrainian forces carried out a flanking maneuver and, for the first time, airlifted unmanned ground vehicles behind Russian lines, while also suppressing Russian… https://t.co/ZEq8C75bN4 pic.twitter.com/KgKcZ0Zs2P

— Special Kherson Cat (@bayraktar_1love) September 20, 2026

The influential, Kremlin-connected Rybar Telegram channel has acknowledged Ukrainian gains in this sector.

“In the first half of summer, Russian units gradually advanced in Lyman,” Rybar wrote this morning. “However, in August, the enemy launched counterattacks and, by the first week of September, regained some positions, and also began attempts to recapture Shandryholovo and Zarechnoye.”

“The enemy did not inflict significant losses on Russian troops, as the concentration of units of the West group of forces in the salient remained relatively low,” Rybar added. “However, later, the UAF deployed reserves to launch an offensive towards Zherebets in order to align the front along the water barrier and return it to the configuration of the end of 2025.”

rybar now saying the 144th division is still falling back. the 3rd corps is still advancing and destroying an entire army group as they move. this is historic. pic.twitter.com/2jOa8KR9oA

— david D. (@secretsqrl123) September 22, 2026

Though the battle is still in flux, Kudryashov said there are lessons the rest of the Ukrainian military should heed.

“Winning one battle is not yet winning the war,” he said. “The enemy is learning too. He changes tactics, looks for weak spots and tries to scale what works for him.”

“So our task is to be faster, not only in physically moving forward but also in our ability to see, think, decide and put into practice what delivers results,” the deputy commander avowed. “And to do everything possible so that our soldiers pay the lowest possible price for every next kilometer of Ukrainian land.”

The Latest

On the battlefield, in addition to the gains Ukraine has made near Lyman, it has also largely been able to hold off Russian advances across the front lines. Here are some key takeaways from the latest Institute for the Study of War assessment of frontline operations:

• Sumy: Russian forces recently conducted an infiltration mission east of Sumy City, and they continue to conduct glide bomb strikes against frontline settlements in northern Sumy Oblast to set conditions for future offensives.

• Kharkiv: Russian forces continued offensive operations in northern Kharkiv Oblast and in the Borova, Kupyansk and Velykyi Burluk directions on Sept. 21 and 22 but did not advance.

• Donetsk: Ukrainian forces reportedly continue counterattacks in the Lyman direction, including southeast of Lyman, as Russian forces are attempting to use redeployments to stabilize the area. Russian forces continued offensive operations east and southeast of Slovyansk near Rai-Oleksandrivka and toward Mykolaivka and Fedorivka Druha on Sept. 21 and 22 but did not advance. During this period, they also tried to advance in the Novopavlivka and Oleksandrivka directions but made no gains, as Ukrainian forces counterattacked in both areas.

• Zaporizhia: Ukrainian forces recently advanced or maintained positions in western Zaporizhia Oblast.

• Kherson: Neither Russian nor Ukrainian forces reported ground activity in the Kherson direction on September 22.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, September 22, 2026: The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) falsely claimed that Russian forces have encircled Dobropillya — an intensification of the Kremlin’s cognitive warfare campaign alleging encirclements across various sectors of the… pic.twitter.com/yMoAcyVIme

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) September 23, 2026

In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly this afternoon, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called for Russia to end its war and said it was paying a heavy price — and exacting a terrible toll — for little territorial gain.

“This ridiculous and never-ending war with Ukraine must be ended,” the Ukrainian leader urged. “I do not know a single world leader who would say otherwise. I do not know anyone who is openly for this war, except one man.”

He was referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Ladies and gentlemen, for almost five years now, Russian generals have been trying to carry out Putin’s crazy order to seize our eastern land, the Donetsk region,” Zelensky continued. “And just this year, from January through August, the Russian army lost 248,964 people on the battlefield in Ukraine in eight months. Twenty-one countries in the world have smaller populations… than the number of Russian troops lost in just eight months.”

“It’s madness, but they still keep going there to die because that is what Putin wants,” Zelensky suggested. “After losing so many people, Russia managed to capture just over 1,000 square kilometers of our land this year, and we have already liberated a significant part of it. Russia is a country that already has 17 million square kilometers of its own land without any Ukrainian territory, by the way. So to add another 1,000 square kilometers, Putin is paying with 248 people for every kilometer. Does anyone still think that he is reasonable? And moderate?”

“Russia’s leader, Patient Zero, the man from whom this war began and spread into the world, becoming the largest war in Europe since World War II, will inevitably leave this war,” Zelensky proffered. “But the longer Putin is able to wage war, the more evil he will leave behind in this world. Today, nothing in war works the same way it did, by the way, in 2022, except the courage of people.”

Russian missile and drone barrages have “caused damage, but they didn’t break us,” the president proclaimed. “We build our defense. What is really difficult for us now is Russian ballistic missiles and their new jet-powered Shaheds — Iranian technologies.”

“Just imagine this: since the beginning of this year, Russia has already used more than 2,100 missiles of different types again against us, against Ukraine, our people and our children,” Zelensky stated. “More than 950 of them were ballistic missiles. In eight months of this year, Russia used 63,000 attack drones of different types against Ukraine, our people, and more than 7,700 of them were jet-powered Shaheds, truly destructive and very dangerous weapons. Just think about it. The Russians launch jet-powered Shaheds every hour, every hour, against our cities, our economy, our infrastructure. Our combat aircraft are fighting them 24/7, and this is part of Russia’s strategy to create a new threat every hour, to make life harder for the economy and to disrupt people’s lives, and to stop children from being able to study, to study at school.”

Speaking at the Sixth Summit of the International Crimea Platform in New York on Wednesday, Zelensky said the return of Crimea is a condition for any return to normal relations with Russia.

“Disrespect for international law began in 2014, when Russia entered Crimea,” the Ukrainian leader stated. “There can be no full return to normality without Crimea, the restoration of security, the protection of people and lives, the release of prisoners held by Russia, and a return to the fundamental principles of international law. Territorial integrity matters, state sovereignty matters, and human lives matter. And Russia must learn this.”

Tuesday, Zelensky met with U.S. President Donald Trump.

Among the topics of their three-hour meeting were a path to end the war and a renewed discussion about the licensing of Patriot air defense interceptors so they can be built in Ukraine. The country is struggling to defend against Russian ballistic missiles because of the dearth of these munitions.

“Just had a positive and productive meeting with President Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly,” the Ukrainian leader stated on X. “Both the United States and Ukraine want this senseless Russian war to end before winter. We discussed possible de-escalation steps that could pave the way to diplomacy.”

“I am grateful that, in parallel with this, our teams continue to work on launching the production of Patriot interceptor missiles in Ukraine,” Zelensky noted. “This is exactly what will help protect lives if Russia rejects negotiations and continues to rely on ballistic terror against our people this winter and beyond. We also discussed other bilateral and multilateral issues, including the winter air defense package for Ukraine. Thank you to President Trump, his team, and all the American people for their support.”

I just had a positive and productive meeting with President Trump @POTUS at UNGA. Both the U.S. and Ukraine want to see this senseless Russian war ended before winter. We discussed potential de-escalatory steps that can open up the way to diplomacy. I am grateful that in the… pic.twitter.com/Ayvsj9It3m

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) September 22, 2026

For his part, Trump said negotiations about Patriots are ongoing but offered no commitments.

“We’re talking about that,” Trump stated. “We’ll be talking about that now. If you would have come in at the end, we would have had an answer. But we’ll be talking about that. I mean, we talk about it all the time. Very capable people, really amazingly capable people.”

This isn’t the first time the two leaders have talked about a Patriot licensing deal. The issue came up back in July. As we noted at the time, such a deal faces big challenges.

First of all, it could face bureaucratic and regulatory hurdles, like getting congressional approval. Major security concerns exist, not just by having license production of a very sensitive weapon in Ukraine but also having to do with whatever facility will perform the work, which would become a top target for Russia. Even if they got the clearance to move forward, delivery of new weapons will still take years due to the time it takes to build the facility and to source long-lead components.

Even Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s biggest arms makers, currently produces only about 650 PAC-3 MSE interceptors a year, or just shy of two per day. However, under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot PAC-3 MSE annual production to 2,000 in the years to come.

You can read more about the headwinds a Patriot licensing deal would face, even if it were to come to fruition, in our initial story here.

Ukraine’s president also confirmed that “Kyiv is ready to agree to an energy truce on the condition that Russia does not attack its energy, electricity and heating infrastructure as well as its water supplies,” CNBC reported. “Trump has previously called on Ukraine to stop targeting Russian oil refineries with drone strikes, which he says are ‘hurting the world’ as fuel supply disruptions from the Ukraine and Iran wars propel U.S. diesel prices to a record high.”

Ukraine’s repeated attacks on Russian oil infrastructure is having a major impact.

“Russian refinery throughput fell to 3.8 mb/d, its lowest level in more than 20 years and roughly 30% below a year earlier,” according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). “Reported gasoline output is down by 20% compared with 2025 levels, while diesel production is estimated to have fallen by nearly 30%, prompting the government to restrict fuel exports to protect domestic supplies.”

Amid the U.N. General Assembly meeting, strikes by both sides continued.

“At least 16 people were killed and 59 others injured in Russian attacks across Ukraine over the past day, as Russia launched several waves of ballistic missiles at Kyiv overnight,” the Kyiv Independent reported, citing local authorities.

“Two people were killed and eight others injured in Kyiv, where Russian ballistic missiles struck the capital in three waves overnight,” the publication added. “Residential buildings, a maternity hospital, energy, and logistics infrastructure were among the sites damaged, according to President Volodymyr Zelensky.”

“Russia launched 282 attack drones of various types overnight, including jet-powered drones, as well as Zircon anti-ship missiles and Iskander-M, S-400, and KN-23 ballistic missiles,” the news outlet stated, citing the Ukrainian Air Force. “Ukrainian air defenses shot down 227 aerial targets, including 219 drones, four Zircon missiles, three ballistic missiles, and one Banderol munition. Strikes were recorded at 13 locations, while debris from downed targets fell at 10 locations.”

A difficult night for Ukraine as Russia continued attacking our civilians, launching a ballistic missile attack on Kyiv, and attacking Kyiv and other Ukrainian regions with drones.
The air raid alert in Kyiv was turned on at 3:28 a.m. and hasn't turned off since.

In Kyiv, two… https://t.co/l1Vr7AMH5o pic.twitter.com/giT5FjWq80

— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) September 24, 2026

Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy infrastructure continued.

“Over the past 24 hours, two oil refineries were hit – one in Bashkortostan and one in the Samara region. There were also strikes in the Black Sea,” the Ukrainian Defense Ministry stated on X. “We are taking the war back to where it came from. We are bringing peace closer for Ukraine. I thank the units involved for their precision.”

I thank our warriors for the results they achieve every day in carrying out Ukraine’s long-range sanctions. Over the past 24 hours, two oil refineries were hit – one in Bashkortostan and one in the Samara region. There were also strikes in the Black Sea.

We are taking the war… pic.twitter.com/x8LGqvsJ0e

— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) September 22, 2026

In an effort to defend against Ukrainian attacks, Russia continues to use netting to protect its energy facilities. You can see a recent example in the video below.

After more frequent Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries and fuel depots, Moscow and the Moscow region decided to cover potential targets with anti-drone nets.

This is the reality Putin has brought Russia to. pic.twitter.com/G4QZyTL22c

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) September 23, 2026

Finland’s President Alexander Stubb and Zelensky this morning “signed an Agreement on Enhanced Defense and Security Cooperation under the Drone Deal format,” the Finnish Defense Ministry said in a statement. “It will enable defense materiel cooperation between the two countries.”

“The agreement will enable Finland and Ukraine to transfer technology and knowledge, pursue research, development and innovation cooperation and promote joint manufacturing and drone technology development between their industries,” the MoD stated. “Another objective is to simplify administrative processes, for example regarding the granting of export authorizations, to make the transfer of defense materiel and technologies between the two countries as efficient as possible.”

Finland and Ukraine take their defence cooperation to the next level

Today, we signed a drone deal with @ZelenskyyUa. The agreement enables, among other things, the joint production of defence materiel. Defence sector companies in Finland are ready, and the joint effort can now… pic.twitter.com/UUh2kZPPpk

— Alexander Stubb (@alexstubb) September 23, 2026

With electronic warfare interfering with how drones controlled by radio frequencies operate, Ukraine is testing a new system of small radio beacons placed on the ground that allow drones to navigate without GNSS — including missions deep inside Russia. While many systems might not need this fix, some of the lower-end drones might.

Ukraine is testing and scaling this technology as part of a layered navigation system designed to keep drones autonomous in heavily jammed environments.

“The concept is quite simple,” the BBC wrote. “If the enemy jams the signal coming from above—specifically from GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) satellites, which determine the precise coordinates, speed, and time of any object on Earth—then specific points must be created to provide that same signal from below.”

The idea is to guide the drones by triangulating their location.

“To achieve this, special small devices—radio beacons—are either installed on the ground or air-dropped across a specific area. Their coordinates are known; thus, when a drone flies through the area, it receives coordinate data and signal transmission timing from several beacons. From there, it is a matter of basic geometry: the UAV calculates its own spatial position using data on the distance to the beacon and its altitude above the ground.”

GPS can be jammed. Ukrainian drones still need to fly.

A new beacon network is helping solve that problem.

Small radio beacons placed on the ground allow drones to navigate without GNSS or a constant communications link — including missions deep inside russia.

Ukraine is now…

— 7th Corps of AAF (@7corpsDSHV) September 23, 2026

In the age of robots, uncrewed ground vehicles (UGVs) are playing a larger role in combat. The following video shows one UGV rescuing another one by pushing it back on its wheels.

A Ukrainian logistics UGV comes to the rescue of its overturned teammate, helping get the stranded ground robot back on its wheels. pic.twitter.com/q7d5I2tyOe

— Special Kherson Cat (@bayraktar_1love) September 23, 2026

That’s it for now.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Inside Ukraine’s Operation Vivaldi That Sees Its Troops Gaining Ground In The East appeared first on TWZ.

Taiwan has provided the first public look at its new 105mm 8×8 mobile gun system in action, with the domestically developed vehicle engaging moving and stationary targets during a live-fire demonstration in southern Taiwan. The vehicle is being developed as Taiwan continues to modernize its ground forces in response to the growing capabilities and increasingly frequent military activity of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) around the island.

During the demonstration, held by the Republic of China Army (ROCA) at a training area in Tainan today, the vehicle reportedly engaged a moving target at approximately 0.75 miles and a stationary target at around 0.6 miles. It also fired against targets positioned 90 degrees to the side of the vehicle while operating on a gentle slope, demonstrating the gun system’s ability to engage targets while the vehicle is positioned on uneven terrain.

pic.twitter.com/dn6lHDbf5k

— 青年日報 Youth Daily News, ROC(Taiwan) (@YDN_NEWS) September 23, 2026

Eight wheels. Six-wheel steering. One 105mm gun.
Definitely not your average ride.#ROCArmedForces #MobileGunSystem#MadeInTaiwan pic.twitter.com/oaHsyMNtev

— 國防部 Ministry of National Defense, ROC(Taiwan) (@MoNDefense) September 23, 2026

The vehicle subsequently fired its 7.62mm coaxial machine gun simultaneously with its main gun as part of a scenario intended to demonstrate engagement of multiple targets, including simulated amphibious assault vehicles.

台灣105公厘獵豹輪型戰車實彈射擊https://t.co/cHaXthUCfA pic.twitter.com/aKBBzoVsKz

— 新‧二七部隊 軍事雜談 (New 27 Brigade) (@new27brigade) September 23, 2026

An apparent weapon malfunction was also recorded during the demonstration. One of the 105mm rounds initially failed to fire, according to reports. The crew waited approximately two minutes in accordance with safety procedures before reloading the weapon, after which the vehicle fired normally. Maj. Gen. Chen Chien-chung, head of Taiwan’s Arsenal 202, the Production and Manufacturing Center of the Armament Bureau, said an investigation would be conducted into the misfire.

The 155 mm infantry fighting vehicle showcased to media before entering production phase. pic.twitter.com/DBhs66aw5Q

— Taepodong (@stoa1984) September 23, 2026

Despite the incident, the demonstration provided an important look at a vehicle that Taiwan is developing specifically around the country’s geography and battlefield requirements, including a potential amphibious invasion by the Chinese PLA.

A new direct fire support variant of the Clouded Leopard 8×8 infantry fighting vehicle was first publicly displayed at the Taipei Aerospace & Defense Technology Exhibition in 2023. It passed initial combat readiness testing with the ROCA in October 2023, and it was authorized for mass production in April 2024.

The production configuration has undergone significant changes since then.

Its height has been reduced by approximately 12 inches, bringing the overall vehicle height to below 9 feet 10 inches. Its turning radius has also been reduced from 36 feet to 26 feet. The reduction in turning radius was achieved by providing steering to three pairs of wheels, rather than two pairs on the earlier configuration.

Those changes are especially relevant to Taiwan, where large sections of the island feature restrictive terrain, dense urban development, narrow roads, drainage channels, and other obstacles that can limit the movement of heavy armored vehicles.

Taiwanese officials specifically highlighted the system’s suitability for culverts and urban areas, as well as the challenging terrain of Hualien and Taitung on the island’s mountainous east coast.

The vehicle’s principal weapon is a 105mm gun. The weapon can fire the general-purpose ammunition already developed for tank guns, in addition to ammunition developed specifically for the new system. The ROCA displayed armor-piercing, anti-personnel, and training ammunition during the demonstration. The gun also offers useful ammunition commonality with Taiwan’s older, but still active M60A3 and CM11 tanks.

That compatibility potentially gives the vehicle access to an existing ammunition ecosystem while allowing Taiwan to develop specialized rounds for its particular requirements.

Against a PLA assault, the 105mm system would provide mobile direct firepower against amphibious vehicles, armored personnel carriers, fortifications, and other ground targets, complementing Taiwan’s heavier tanks and other anti-armor weapons. Its wheeled configuration also allows the vehicle to rapidly reposition along Taiwan’s road network, giving commanders a mobile source of direct firepower that could respond to amphibious landings and reinforce threatened sectors.

The system falls into the same broad category as other modern 8×8 mobile gun systems, including Italy’s Centauro family and Japan’s Type 16 Mobile Combat Vehicle.

Less successful was a mobile gun system version of the U.S. Army Stryker, also with a 105mm gun, but the service divested that in 2021 because of problems with its dated cannon and autoloader. The U.S. Army then received the M10 Booker Combat Vehicle. Armed with a 105mm main gun, the Booker is a tracked vehicle with a much higher degree of armor protection and off-road mobility, but this, too, was canceled in 2025, amid cost and weight increases.

A wheeled 105mm gun system can provide substantial direct-fire capability while offering advantages in road mobility and potentially lower logistical demands. It also lacks the combination of protection, cross-country mobility, and heavy armament associated with a tracked main battle tank.

For Taiwan, this kind of vehicle provides a comparatively compact armored platform able to move rapidly between positions and bring heavy direct firepower to areas where larger vehicles could face mobility constraints.

If fighting reaches Taiwan’s cities, the ROCA regularly trains for the challenges of urban warfare. The service has also demonstrated unusual measures to conceal and protect its armored vehicles, including disguising tanks and other vehicles as scrap piles or civilian construction equipment to complicate PLA targeting.

The vehicle’s development is also being influenced by the threat of battlefield drones. Taiwanese military officials say the system is expected to receive additional counter-drone capabilities before entering mass production. One planned modification is an anti-drone cage around the vehicle.

More ambitious changes could involve the installation of a larger-caliber automatic weapon. Reportedly, the vehicle could eventually receive another machine gun or larger-caliber automatic cannon, with the 30mm M230 chain gun identified as one possible option. The proposed weapon could use canister-type ammunition designed to disperse numerous fragments against small drones.

Adding dedicated counter-drone equipment to the mobile gun system would therefore give the vehicle another role beyond direct engagement of conventional ground targets.

The prominence of counter-drone measures in the planning of the vehicle also reflects the increasingly contested environment in which Taiwan’s armored forces would have to operate. In a conflict with China, armored units have to operate under the threat of persistent surveillance and attacks from a wide range of uncrewed systems, making concealment, mobility, dispersion, and organic counter-drone capabilities very important to any change of survival. Questioning just how long any armor would last in a full-on invasion scenario is absolutely relevant. As we have seen in Ukraine, the drone threat alone has sidelined even the most capable armor. At the same time, Taiwan is working toward its own drone-heavy battlefield doctrine, part of a broader plan to turn the island into a “hellscape” for any invading force.

Overall, the September 23 demonstration offered a useful glimpse into the thinking behind Taiwan’s indigenous armored vehicle program.

As part of a wider modernization of ROCA armor, the service has also received 108 M1A2T Abrams tanks, broadly equivalent to the M1A2 SEPv3 version — or System Enhancement Package version 3 — which you can read more about here.

With production of 178 series examples of the new vehicle scheduled to begin in 2027, Taiwan’s new 105mm mobile gun system is moving toward becoming a significant component of the island’s domestically produced armored fleet.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post This Is Taiwan’s New 105mm 8×8 Mobile Gun System appeared first on TWZ.