For more than a year, U.S. Army forces in Europe have been experimenting with new counter-drone capabilities, as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures to go with them, under the umbrella of what is dubbed Project Flytrap. In doing so, the service has also been gaining valuable new insights into how uncrewed systems can help shape the battlefield for friendly forces. It is particularly interesting to hear how the Army envisions using uncrewed platforms to open up new avenues for deceiving opponents.

Army Col. Timothy Price, head of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, discussed the use of uncrewed platforms for deception and other operational concepts that have emerged in the course of Project Flytrap during a talk yesterday. Price’s remarks came at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual convention, at which TWZ is in attendance. 2nd Cavalry Regiment, based in Germany, is a brigade-sized mechanized formation equipped primarily with variants of the Stryker 8×8 light armored vehicle.

Price, by way of introduction, described modern battlefields full of uncrewed platforms in the air and on the ground as presenting new twists on long-standing problem sets. More specifically, he started by describing the typical approach to getting past a minefield or similar obstacle using an established framework called SOSRA, which stands for Suppress, Obscure, Secure, Reduce, Assault.

“If we were going to breach a mined wire obstacle, the first step of SOSRA – suppress – would be the utilization of indirect fires, to get the enemy’s head down, and direct fire systems, so they would not maneuver on you, fix them in place, and you can make a decision about how you’re going to approach the problem,” the 2nd Cavalry Regiment commander explained. “The next step would be to obscure it. In the historical sense, obscurations used is [sic] smoke, to mask your movement to the point of breach, so the enemy doesn’t know what you’re doing. And then, of course, secure would be to establish frontside security, [and] allow your engineers to come up within this local security bubble. They’ll utilize some kind of line charge to open the breach, reduce it – that’s the ‘R’ – and then bring on a follow-on force of assault through.”

“We were brought up around the old traditional mined wire obstacles that we had to physically breach. This is no different,” he added. “It’s just a multi-domain environment. So it’s built up of a combination of electronic warfare, kinetic UAS [uncrewed aerial systems] threats, and then counter-UAS threats, and then the network that holds [that all] together that forms the obstacle, which a unit has to maneuver through in order to maintain the offensive.”

Within this environment, Col. Price described the suppression step of SOSRA as having a different kind of probing dimension, particularly to feel out an enemy’s uncrewed capabilities, as well as those in the electromagnetic spectrum. He also noted that brigade-sized formations like this no longer necessarily have all the required tools organizationally to ‘service’ that aspect of the mission. This is in part because what has to be suppressed, including ground control stations for enemy drones, might now be miles behind the front line.

So, “what we have to do is allow the enemy to turn on their systems. How do I suppress them to allow division, or higher, to put an effect on them for suppression? It probably looks like flying small, attritable UAS [sic] into their security area” in the rear, he said. This, in turn, “cause[s] the enemy to do one of two things, either … go from passive to active with their EW [electronic warfare] systems, or to turn on radars to actually figure out what they’re seeing, which then forms the signature which higher headquarters can use to target.”

Though Col. Price did not describe it as such, there is already something of a deception aspect to this step in fooling enemy emitters to switch on and expose themselves. This, as a general tactic, is also hardly new. Stimulating air defenses, in particular, is a key part of operations to gather intelligence on those capabilities, as well as to suppress and destroy them. Once you have categorized and geolocated an emitter, it is a logical step to then target it. The ultimate goal, with data being passed along a more deeply networked kill chain, is for the time it takes for fires to be brought to bear to be almost instantaneous.

Regardless, deception comes far more into play in the obscure step, according to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment commander.

“Obscuration is different, as well. So instead of trying to hide behind smoke as we maneuver through it, what is the deception plan, right? How am I trying to show the enemy a signature that says I’m going to breach over here when I’m actually going to breach here, right?” he asked rhetorically. “So, that’s probably the implementation of UGVs [uncrewed ground vehicles] with some kind of decoy emitter on top of them to pull the enemy’s eyes, resources, and time to a point that allows me to focus my assets and resources on the point of breach.”

The use of uncrewed platforms as decoys is also not new, and even more complex concepts have emerged within the U.S. military in the past. Uncrewed systems have also been developed for military and other purposes over the years that are designed to mimic something else entirely, including for purposes of deception. This includes masquerading as birds and other animals.

Back in 2019, TWZ was the first to report in detail on a Navy effort to develop and field an entire networked, cooperative electronic warfare ecosystem, at that time referred to as the Netted Emulation of Multi-Element Signature against Integrated Sensors, or NEMESIS. This was also a drone-heavy cross-domain concept intended to make many types of sensors over vast areas believe they were ‘seeing’ the same false fleets of aircraft and/or ships, and deceive and confuse the enemy on a grand scale. This, in turn, represented a massive leap in electronic warfare capabilities.

There is also overlap here with reported sightings of what are now commonly called unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and that used to be called unidentified flying objects (UFO). As we have reported on repeatedly over the years, while some UAP sightings remain unexplained, many more have turned out to be drones. Adversaries have been using uncrewed capabilities for intelligence gathering and deception purposes against American interests at home and abroad, likely in part by exploiting UAP stigma for cover. We have talked in the past about how drones will be used in more and more exotic ways to confuse opponents.

I don’t know what this is, or if it’s legit BUT remember we are in a new age of misdirection, decoy and guile. Specifically using low end drone technology. There are more ways to stimulate an enemy air defense system, distract a populous, assess the flow of public info from a… https://t.co/wW7YVlbayB

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) September 21, 2026

When it comes to UGVs, specifically, 2nd Cavalry Regiment, as well as units elsewhere across the U.S. Army, have been experimenting with various designs in recent years. The service has been trying for years to expand its operational use of UGVs, in general, but has faced repeated setbacks.

“It’s also spectral camouflage. So how are we controlling our heat and thermal signatures on our vehicles and our people?” Price continued. “It’s basic soldier discipline issues. It’s how we use our radios. It’s where we’re talking, where we’re not. But that’s what obscuration looks like.”

As a reminder, Project Flytrap’s primary focus has been on counter-drone capabilities, which come into play heavily during the secure stage.

“There’s multi-layered assets on top of that to allow that convergence for our success at the point of breach. I’m going to focus on our corner, our part of the battle, right?” he said. “So, I’m looking at active and passive electronic warfare systems – that can either, one, find [threats], let me know that I’ve got some kind of system flying or operating against me and, then, if it’s an active system, take some kind of effect to maybe cut a downlink and disrupt that system – all the way down to the individual soldier with a shotgun.”

As mentioned, the ‘obstacle’ to be ‘reduced’ at the end of this is not necessarily something as simple as a minefield surrounded by barbed wire anymore. Now it could be enemy one-way-attack drone capabilities preventing holding up an advance. Col. Price, in turn, described friendly kamikaze drones as part of the equation for breaching past those threats. Decoys and deception have a continued role to play in this phase.

“This is where, at the brigade level, we introduce one-way attack munitions to try to destroy the C2 [command and control] network that the enemy is using to operate this reconnaissance/strike complex” that is standing in the way, he explained. “There’s layers to it, right? Like they’ve got a close side to this that’s the local part of this reconnaissance/strike complex. They’ve probably got a theater level that the Corps [the U.S. Army’s command echelon above divisions] and higher is trying to target as we are forcing people to turn on systems to communicate. But at the regiment level, I’m looking at one-way attack munitions, focused on C2 nodes, headquarters, and ground control stations that [sic] I can disrupt their ability to put lethal effects on me as we begin to open the breach.”

The U.S. Army is in the process of fielding a variety of weaponized drones, including loitering munitions and designs capable of releasing grenades and other small bomblets.

During a question-and-answer session that followed his remarks, Col. Price was asked about whether lessons learned and other observations from Ukraine, and specifically that country’s recent Operation Vivaldi counteroffensive, had contributed to this evolving framework.

“In terms of Vivaldi, I’m not an expert, so I’m not going to make any kind of estimations on how that worked or why,” he said in response. “But I will say, if you look at the focus of that operation, you can probably make the assumption that there was convergence of efforts across the different headquarters to enable success. So that’s how I would relate to the two.”

“In order to be successful for a multi-domain breach, the tactical level requires my higher headquarters to be part of that solution to enable me with resources and capabilities that I don’t have in here at the brigade level,” he continued. “I would imagine it’s very similar in the other operational comparisons.”

Though certainly true, in broad strokes, this response in some ways underscores how the U.S. Army continues to lag behind global trends in the use of uncrewed systems, as now typified by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Army leaders have been open about this continued reality in the past, despite efforts to try to reverse it.

“We’re behind. I’ll just be candid. I think we know we’re behind,” Army Lt. Gen. Charles Costanza said during a panel discussion at AUSA last year, in response to a direct question at the panel from our Howard Altman. Costanza was talking about both the employment of drones and counter-drone capabilities, and highlighted work being done then under Project Flytrap, as you can read more about here.

Costanza was head of V Corps, a key component of the U.S. Army presence in Europe, at the time. He was removed from that post abruptly in August for reasons that remain unclear, but were reportedly tied to disputes between top Army leadership and Secretary Pete Hegseth. Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll resigned last month, amid reports of months of friction with Hegseth about various policies.

The Pentagon under Hegseth has launched a number of initiatives to accelerate the fielding of new uncrewed capabilities across the U.S. military, especially within smaller ground units. This now includes plans for a new Autonomous Warfare Command (AUTOWARCOM) unveiled last month.

For units like the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, new drone-centric concepts of operations are already taking shape. Beyond using them for surveillance and as one-way-attack munitions, there is also a clear focus emerging on employing expanding uncrewed capabilities to deceive opponents and prevent them from making the best use of their own resources.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Drones Are Creating New Opportunities For The U.S. Army To Deceive Its Enemies appeared first on TWZ.

Lockheed Martin has unveiled the PAC-3 Edge, a new interceptor that would represent the top tier of the U.S. Army’s Patriot air defense missile family. The missile is being developed to deliver greater performance against advanced threats than the current PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE), as the Army advances a competition for its next-generation interceptor.

The company says PAC-3 Edge will offer improved performance against increasingly challenging aerial threats, including advanced ballistic and hypersonic missiles. The design builds on the PAC-3 MSE’s existing technology while incorporating a new seeker, an upgraded control system, and a more advanced solid rocket motor developed with Northrop Grumman.

In terms of appearance, PAC-3 Edge differs significantly from the PAC-3 MSE. It does away entirely with the mid-body strakes. The missile body also lacks the distinctive tapered section that separates the narrower forward section from the broader rear section on the MSE version.

Lockheed announced on October 9 that it had been selected to advance to the next phase of the Army’s Future Interceptor program. Company officials said testing is expected to begin in 2027, with initial deployment targeted for 2031.

The Army’s selection of Lockheed and another unnamed competitor marks a significant development in the service’s effort to improve the Patriot system’s ability to deal with more sophisticated threats. The Army previously abandoned its Lower-Tier Future Interceptor (LTFI) program in 2024, citing cost concerns, and instead emphasized incremental improvements to the existing PAC-3 MSE. The subsequent emergence of the Future Interceptor competition points to renewed interest in a more substantial leap in capability.

A More Capable Patriot Interceptor

PAC-3 Edge is intended to preserve the advantages of the existing PAC-3 family while improving the missile’s ability to engage targets at longer ranges and higher altitudes.

One of the central changes is a new seeker being developed by Lockheed Martin’s Strigo Product Center. The company says the technology will improve target detection and tracking, helping the interceptor deal with more demanding threats. The company has not disclosed the seeker’s technical details, but one possibility is a dual-mode or multimode configuration, combining different sensing methods to improve target acquisition and tracking in challenging conditions. Such an approach could help an interceptor maintain a reliable track against maneuvering targets and better distinguish real threats from decoys or other countermeasures.

Tim Cahill, president of Missiles and Fire Control (MFC) for Lockheed Martin, told TWZ that the same seeker technology that will be used in PAC-3 Edge will also find its way into future offensive and defensive systems going into the future. “So it isn’t just a one single seeker solution, but it will be a family of seekers that will operate across a number of regimes,” Cahill explained. “Frankly, I’d like to not tell everybody exactly what we’re doing, but it is clearly different from what is out there right now,” Cahill said, adding that hardware assemblies and components are now being tested in the lab, and that seekers have been flown on aircraft testbeds.

The missile will also use a three-pulse (as opposed to two-pulse) solid rocket motor designed by Northrop Grumman. Unlike a conventional motor that provides most of its thrust in a single sustained burn, a multi-pulse design can deliver thrust at different points during flight. That can help preserve energy for the terminal engagement, when an interceptor may need to maneuver aggressively to reach a target.

Lockheed says the combination of the new seeker, propulsion system, and control system improvements will provide greater maneuverability and improve performance at extended ranges and higher altitudes. To ensure greater agility, Jason Reynolds, vice president and general manager of Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) at Lockheed Martin, explained that the new missile adds a greater number of more capable attitude control motors (ACMs), compared to the PAC-3 MSE. These small thrusters ring the missile’s forward body.

The new characteristics could be particularly important against maneuvering ballistic missile warheads and hypersonic weapons, which can pose difficult interception problems because of their speed, altitude and dynamic flight profiles. However, the company has yet to demonstrate PAC-3 Edge’s performance in flight testing.

The extent to which PAC-3 Edge could overlap with, or potentially augment, the capabilities of the Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system also remains unclear. THAAD is designed to intercept ballistic missiles at higher altitudes and longer ranges than Patriot, where midcourse window bleeds into the terminal intercept window. If PAC-3 Edge delivers a substantial improvement in engagement range and altitude over PAC-3 MSE, it could potentially provide at least some backfill for THAAD.

The announcement did not provide detailed performance figures for the new interceptor, including its maximum engagement range, speed, or specific target set. It also did not establish how much better the missile will perform than the PAC-3 MSE in operational conditions.

Addressing An Air Defense Force Under Pressure

The Army has a pressing need to improve its air and missile defense capabilities while expanding the number of interceptors available to its forces.

TWZ has been reporting on the strain facing the Patriot force and its interceptor supply for years. In July 2025, we reported on the Army’s plan to expand its Patriot air defense force by roughly a quarter, adding four battalions as the service sought to meet growing operational demands. More recently, we have detailed the challenges of replenishing interceptors after intensive combat operations, including the scale of U.S. missile and drone engagements in the Middle East, as well as transfers to Ukraine.

Related to this, the push for a more capable Patriot interceptor comes as the system faces increasingly sophisticated threats and adversaries that have learned from years of combat. Russia has improved its ballistic missile tactics to pierce the Patriot’s protective umbrella, while Iran has demonstrated ways to exploit gaps in layered missile defenses, including introducing extremely high-speed ballistic missiles and cluster warheads that open at high altitude.

PAC-3 MSE is currently the most advanced operational member of the PAC-3 family. It is designed primarily as a hit-to-kill interceptor, destroying targets through the force of direct impact, but it also incorporates a small explosive charge known as a “lethality enhancer,” as TWZ has previously detailed.

PAC-3 Edge is intended to push those capabilities further still. Lockheed says the new missile is being designed to work within the Army’s existing and future integrated air and missile defense architecture, including the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) and the M903 Patriot launcher. The company has also identified containerized launchers and HIMARS Flex among the systems with which it intends to integrate the interceptor.

Such compatibility could allow the service to retain much of its existing infrastructure while improving the performance of the weapons used within it.

The precise extent of that compatibility, however, will depend on development, testing, and integration work that remains ahead.

Production And Cost

Lockheed is developing PAC-3 Edge as the company and the Pentagon work to expand production of the existing PAC-3 MSE.

In January, Lockheed Martin announced a seven-year agreement with the Pentagon to more than triple annual PAC-3 MSE production capacity, initially targeting an increase from roughly 600 interceptors to 2,000 a year. The effort subsequently received a major funding boost in July, when the U.S. government awarded Lockheed a contract modification worth up to $53.86 billion, bringing the total multiyear contract value to $58.62 billion. Lockheed says the effort is intended to more than triple production by the end of 2030, while expanding its workforce and investing in manufacturing infrastructure and its supply chain.

Those efforts could provide a foundation for producing PAC-3 Edge if the missile completes development and enters service. Lockheed has said the new interceptor will be manufactured on its existing PAC-3 production line in Camden, Arkansas, with factory modernization expected to support the eventual transition.

The company has also highlighted substantial internal investment in the new missile and its seeker technology. That investment could reduce development risk and give Lockheed greater control over critical components, although the program’s final cost and production schedule remain important unknowns.

The broader challenge is not simply developing an interceptor with better performance. Advanced missiles can be expensive, and air defense forces must balance the capabilities of individual weapons against the number they can afford to procure and keep available. Sustained combat operations can rapidly consume interceptor inventories, making production rates and replacement costs central considerations.

Cahill says the company has also identified the opportunity to mix and match components between PAC-3 Edge and other missile offerings from Lockheed Martin. “We are getting increasingly modular, and increasingly we’re mixing and matching pieces and parts,” he said.

Ultimately, if it chooses PAC-3 Edge, the U.S. government will decide exactly how to handle production of the PAC-3 MSE and the new missiles. “We would expect the typical thing is you’ll feather them, so you would expect that over time MSEs would come down,” Cahill continued. “We’re still talking, seven, eight, nine, 10 years away. You would expect that the Edge production would go up, but there’s plenty of capacity in the factory to manage whatever surges are going to be needed there.”

At the same time, it should be noted that Lockheed Martin is also working on a lower-cost PAC-3 development, the PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector (ACE). The company says that this interceptor will cost less than half as much as the PAC-3 MSE, meaning it would have a price tag of around $2.5 million. The company says that the PAC-3 ACE will preserve two-thirds of the capability the PAC-3 MSE had, and it has already generated considerable international interest.

Future Interceptor Competition

Lockheed has confirmed that it is one of two companies selected to continue in the Army’s Future Interceptor competition. The identity of the other competitor has not yet been disclosed, and the Army has not publicly provided a complete account of the competition’s requirements.

The effort follows the cancellation of the earlier Lower-Tier Future Interceptor (LTFI) program, which had involved Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. At the time, the Army opted to focus on upgrades to the PAC-3 MSE and on better integration of its existing air and missile defense systems.

Gen Lozano, PEO Missiles & Space, tells @JenJudson that they have cancelled the Lower Tier Future Interceptor program, which would have succeeded the PAC-3 MSE. Instead they will upgrade MSE, and want to move forward with THAAD integration into IBCS. #AUSA2024 pic.twitter.com/NZMPgDH4KP

— Colby Badhwar (@ColbyBadhwar) October 15, 2024

The renewed competition suggests that incremental upgrades alone may not be sufficient to address the Army’s longer-term requirements. The development of faster, more maneuverable missiles and other advanced aerial threats is driving demand for interceptors capable of operating across a wider engagement envelope.

For PAC-3 Edge, which is designed to address emerging threat requirements, the planned 2027 testing start and 2031 deployment target leave substantial development work to complete, including demonstrating the seeker’s performance, validating the propulsion system, and proving the missile’s ability to engage representative targets.

For now, the unveiling establishes the direction Lockheed wants to take the Patriot interceptor family. Whether PAC-3 Edge can deliver the promised increase in performance, while meeting the Army’s cost and production requirements, will become clearer as the program progresses. Regardless, from what is being experienced on the battlefield, a more capable, higher-reaching Patriot would be a very welcome addition to the Army’s Patriot family.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post PAC-3 Edge Will Be The Most Capable Patriot Interceptor Ever appeared first on TWZ.

Airbus and Kratos Defense & Security Solutions have completed the first flight of the U740 Valkyrie uncrewed combat aircraft, a Europeanized version of the XQ-58A Valkyrie, advancing their bid to deliver a combat-ready system to Germany by 2029. The flight comes as the German Air Force, or Luftwaffe, moves toward acquiring a new class of jet-powered combat drones, in what could become a major shift in the country’s traditionally limited armed-uncrewed-aircraft capabilities.

The ride of the Valkyrie
With the successful first flight of the Airbus U740 Valkyrie in Europe, we are one step closer to introducing an operational uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) to the German and other European Armed Forces.
The flight achieved all… pic.twitter.com/S2sFrtdmGA

— Airbus Defence (@AirbusDefence) October 12, 2026

The flight took place at an unnamed test facility in northern Europe, Airbus announced on October 12. The aircraft conducted a rocket-assisted takeoff, maneuvers at different altitudes, and flight at speeds of up to Mach 0.8. The test also included in-flight mission adjustments, with Airbus reporting that all objectives were met.

The next phase will introduce Airbus’ Multi-platform Autonomous Reconfigurable and Secure (MARS) mission system, which is intended to provide the aircraft’s European-controlled software and mission-management architecture. Airbus says MARS will support autonomous operations and coordination between multiple uncrewed aircraft while retaining human oversight of critical decisions.

The U740 is based on Kratos’ American-developed XQ-58A, an uncrewed aircraft designed as a relatively affordable combat platform. Airbus is adapting the aircraft with its MARS mission system and presenting the combination as a way to provide Germany with a sovereign European capability without waiting for an entirely new airframe to mature.

Published performance figures for the U740 include a maximum takeoff weight of around 3,000 kilograms (6,600 pounds). Airbus lists a range exceeding 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles) and a service ceiling of 45,000 feet. It has an internal weapons bay and external payload stations beneath its wings.

One distinctive feature is the U740’s rocket-assisted launch capability, which reduces its dependence on conventional runways. The original Valkyrie design is primarily recovered by parachute, but newer versions can take off with rocket assistance and land on a runway, offering greater flexibility in how and where they operate. That could help the Luftwaffe disperse operations or launch aircraft from locations where established airfields are unavailable or under threat. The XQ-58 family has also shown some potential for scaling to different requirements, as detailed in these earlier reports on runway launch and recovery and further platform development. In particular, the U.S. Marine Corps has been exploring ways to expand the XQ-58’s flexibility, including further development of the Valkyrie to meet its own mission requirements.

If adopted, the rocket-assisted launch capability would provide an intriguing throwback to practical German studies during the Cold War, in which F-104G Starfighter fighter-bombers used the Zero-Length Launch (ZELL) system to take off from dispersed locations.

Airbus says the U740 will be able to operate autonomously or under the direction of crewed fighters such as the Eurofighter. The company sees it as a means of increasing the reach, firepower, and survivability of existing combat aircraft, with uncrewed platforms undertaking higher-risk missions.

With the MARS system, Airbus intends to give European customers control over mission applications, data, and key software functions, while enabling autonomous mission execution and coordination between aircraft. This is particularly relevant for Germany, which will likely want to integrate national weapons, sensors, and operational requirements without becoming dependent on a foreign-controlled mission architecture.

Since the underlying airframe is American, the degree of sovereignty Germany ultimately obtains will depend on the practical ability to control and modify software, integrate national systems, and support the aircraft throughout its service life.

The European flight is an important step for the Valkyrie program, but substantial work remains before it can be considered combat-ready. Mission-system integration, further testing, and the demonstration of effective cooperation with crewed aircraft will be central to meeting the companies’ 2029 target.

The effort is also unfolding as Germany develops its requirements for what has been described in press reports as a Jagdbomberdrohne, or fighter-bomber drone. The precise operational concept has yet to emerge publicly, including whether the Luftwaffe primarily wants an uncrewed aircraft to accompany crewed fighters or a platform capable of conducting independent long-range strike missions.

Germany has historically lagged behind several other major military powers in fielding armed uncrewed aircraft. Previous attempts to acquire larger reconnaissance drones encountered major technical and procurement difficulties, while political resistance to armed drones delayed the development of a strike capability for years.

The Luftwaffe’s current larger uncrewed aircraft fleet remains limited to five leased Israeli-made Heron TP medium-altitude, long-endurance drones. Germany is also participating in the Eurodrone program, while uncrewed systems were expected to form part of the wider Future Combat Air System (FCAS), before that Franco-German-led effort hit the buffers earlier this year.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and Germany’s subsequent military buildup have intensified pressure to address these gaps. Berlin has set a goal of being ready for war by 2029, and reports indicate that the Luftwaffe wants a new combat-drone capability on a similarly ambitious timeline.

As well as Airbus and Kratos, the emerging competition reportedly includes Anduril, General Atomics partnered with Germany’s INTEC, as well as Lockheed Martin. Boeing and Rheinmetall are meanwhile pitching the larger, Block 3 version of the Australian-developed MQ-28 Ghost Bat, while Helsing and Hensoldt are pursuing the homegrown CA-1 Europa.

The various proposals reflect a broader shift toward uncrewed aircraft that can deliver additional weapons, sensors, and electronic warfare capabilities without putting a pilot at risk. But Germany’s terminology raises an important question about the intended role.

A conventional collaborative combat aircraft, or CCA, would be designed to work alongside crewed fighters, extending their reach and providing additional combat mass. A platform intended to operate independently against targets deep inside enemy territory would place greater emphasis on range and survivability. These roles are not mutually exclusive, but the Luftwaffe’s final requirements will shape the aircraft it chooses.

Germany may not be looking for a single drone to do everything. One option might be a split high-low approach that could pair more capable, longer-range systems for deep-strike missions with cheaper, attritable collaborative combat aircraft that can fly alongside crewed fighters. At this point, it should also be noted that CCAs could also give older fourth-generation fighters a new lease on life, boosting their lethality and survivability by extending their sensor reach, adding weapons capacity, and allowing uncrewed aircraft to take on more dangerous tasks.

Meanwhile, Airbus is also working on its larger U760 Ravenstorm, intended for service in the early 2030s. The Ravenstorm gives Airbus a longer-term path toward a more advanced European-designed uncrewed combat aircraft as it pursues the nearer-term Valkyrie effort.

In the short term, the Luftwaffe will need to determine which capabilities must be available in an initial operational fleet and which can be introduced later. Even an aircraft based on an established design requires substantial integration, testing, training, and infrastructure before it can be employed effectively in combat.

Germany’s 2029 target leaves little time for a program that still has to integrate its mission system and demonstrate how the aircraft will be used operationally. That is a particular challenge for the Luftwaffe, which has little experience operating large uncrewed aircraft, let alone jet-powered systems intended for combat.

The European flight gives Airbus and Kratos a head start in testing the U740 for German requirements, but the next major milestone will be flying it with the MARS mission system. How quickly that work progresses will help determine whether the Valkyrie can meet the Luftwaffe’s timetable.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post European U740 Variant Of The XQ-58A Valkyrie Has Flown appeared first on TWZ.

General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) has offered the first official look at its proposal to replace the U.S. Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicles, called the Wolf. The Wolf is one of two designs competing to become the Army’s future XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV). Just earlier today, we published a detailed update on the XM30 competition, including new information about both entrants and the Army’s testing plans, which you can find here.

GDLS is showing the one-eighth-scale model of Wolf, seen at the top of this story and made by a company called KiwiMill, at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual convention, at which TWZ is in attendance. Wolf is facing off head-to-head against a version of the Lynx from Germany’s Rheinmetall, supplied via the company’s U.S. subsidiary, American Rheinmetall.

It has already been established that Wolf is a further evolution of the GDLS’ Griffin III design, which was first shown publicly at AUSA back in 2018. Griffin III was derived from the ASCOD 2 infantry fighting vehicle, for which Spain was the launch customer, and which is now entering service in Latvia. The U.S. Army’s now-cancelled M10 Booker ‘light tank’ and the British Army’s much-troubled Ajax are also members of this broader family of armored vehicles.

The design of the Wolf, at least based on the model, is substantially different from the earlier Griffin III demonstrator.

Wolf’s turret has a broader, flatter, and overall more streamlined shape, which is in line with its remotely-operated design. There is just a single sensor turret on top, along with space for a forward-looking sensor suite to the left of the main 50mm cannon. What may be apertures for additional sensors or other systems are seen elsewhere along the front and sides of the turret. It also has more launchers for smoke grenades around the front edges compared to the Griffin III.

Compared to the Griffin III, the Wolf’s hull has also been much revised, including the elimination of a traditional driver’s hatch in front of the turret ring. The vehicle’s commander (who also acts as the gunner) and driver sit side-by-side deeper inside the hull. Up to six passengers can ride in a compartment further at the rear. For comparison, the Bradley has a crew of three, as well as the ability to carry six passengers.

The Wolf’s hull also features side skirts that were not found on the Griffin III demonstrator. A different style of tracks is also depicted on the model. The picture of the model that GDLS shared shows sensors facing outward from a position on the side of the hull toward the front, as well. This makes sense, as the design features a distributed camera system to offer a full 360-degree view of the outside to personnel riding within, the broad benefits of which you can read more about here.

“Because we have a reduced crew from the Bradley [which has a commander and gunner in turret] there has to be greater efficiency in how those soldiers execute their tasks,” Geoffrey Norman, GDLS’ director for U.S. Strategy & Growth, previously noted to TWZ. “The software and menu logic are very intuitive.”

Next-generation fire control, sensor, and networking/communications capabilities, as well as improved active and passive defenses, are key requirements for the XM30 program. Both Wolf and American Rheinmetall Lynx-based designs have built-in launchers for loitering munitions, with GDLS having chosen to integrate AeroVironment’s Switchblade 300 more specifically. What we have seen on the Wolf model so far does not appear to explicitly show this particular feature.

Wolf and Lynx both also feature hybrid-electric propulsion, which will bring various benefits, especially in terms of fuel economy and electrical power generation, compared to the diesel-engined Bradley. When it comes to the boost in on-board electrical power, “the emphasis from the Army has really been about having margin on the vehicle for future [system] requirements – directed energy, counter-UAS systems, or fill-in-the-blank,” GDLS’ Norman has also told us in the past.

As it stands now, both GDLS and American Rheinmetall have delivered prototypes of their respective designs to the Army, with initial testing having been conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. Soldier touchpoints and field evaluations are now set to occur at Fort Hood in Texas between February and March of next year. You can read in more detail about both entrants in the XM30 competition and what is known about their features in our past reporting here.

In the meantime, we have now gotten clear views of both designs vying to become the Army’s XM30 replacement for the venerable Bradley.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post This Is Our First Look At The Wolf Armored Fighting Vehicle That Aims To Replace The Bradley appeared first on TWZ.

Raytheon is developing a new iteration of its Coyote Block 2 counter-drone interceptor powered by a solid rocket motor rather than a small jet engine. This pushes the Block 2C+RM version, which also comes with a new seeker and warhead, into the surface-to-air missile side of the interceptor spectrum. With a significant boost in speed, range, and terminal intercept performance, it is designed to address evolving one-way-attack drone threats. The Coyote Block 2 series is already a combat-proven system, with more than 600 kills in the course of operational U.S. military deployments to date.

The unveiling of the Coyote Block 2C+RM came today around the start of the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual convention, at which TWZ is in attendance. The rocket-powered version has been in the works for some 15 months now, and three successful live test launches have been conducted. That followed static test fires of the new rocket motor, which an unnamed subcontractor is supplying, and other testing.

The Pentagon and the U.S. Army have been engaged with Raytheon (now formally RTX) on the development of the Block 2C+RM, but whether there are formal U.S. military contracts to buy this version now is unclear. The U.S. Army is the largest known operator of Coyote Block 2-series interceptors now, with previously stated plans to buy at least 6,000 of them between Fiscal Years 2025 and 2029. We will come back to this later on.

As mentioned, existing versions of Coyote Block 2 are powered by a turbojet engine. A small rocket booster is also used to launch these interceptors, but does not propel them through the entire course of their flight.

With the rocket motor, “you get upgraded propulsion for faster launch and higher velocity flight,” Tom Laliberty, President of Land & Air Defense Systems at Raytheon, told TWZ and other outlets during a press call last week ahead of today’s announcement. “In terms of range and so forth, I can’t really get into any specifics about that, for obvious reasons.”

“What I would just say is it’s significant in terms of the range difference, and in the [sic] what I call end-game capabilities of the missile, where velocity might come into play,” he added. “Then with the seeker [and] warhead [upgrades], it really gets after the sort of more cutting-edge drone capabilities that we’re seeing from the adversary.”

Laliberty also did not elaborate on the specific improvements to the seeker or warhead. Existing Block 2-series Coyotes use on-board radio frequency seekers to find their targets in the terminal phase of flight after first being cued via radars and other sensors on the ground. They also carry blast-fragmentation warheads.

During last week’s call, Laliberty was asked about whether new faster-flying jet-powered one-way-attack drones, like Iran’s Shahed 238 and Russia’s Geran-4 and -5 derivatives, had prompted Block 2C+RM’s development. He was also queried about Block 2C+RM’s ability to defeat traditional cruise missiles.

“Unfortunately, I can’t get into the specific threats, but I can tell you the intention is to have this cover all types of Class 3 drones,” he said in response. “If you think about the Class 3 drone kind of ‘spectrum,’ there’s a pretty good overlap there with the capabilities of cruise missiles, as well, right? So it all depends on the specific[s] of the cruise missile.”

The U.S. military defines Group 3 drones, whether they are weaponized or not, as designs that weigh anywhere from 56 to 1,320 pounds, are able to fly up to an altitude of 18,000 feet, and reach a top speed of no more than 250 knots. The Shahed 238’s combustion engine-powered predecessor, the Shahed 236, is a prime example of a Group 3 kamikaze drone. The claimed top speeds of the jet-powered derivatives (approximately 270 to 320 knots) actually push the upper boundaries of this broad middle-tier category. TWZ regularly highlights the additional challenges that jet-powered kamikaze drones like the Shahed 238 and Geran-4/5 present. We also routinely note how the line between longer-range one-way-attack drones and cruise missiles has become increasingly blurry. The Block 2C+RM itself also further blurs the definition between a drone-like counter-drone interceptor and a more traditional surface-to-air missile.

RFE/RL takes apart a Russian Geran-4 drone to uncover what makes the jet-powered unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) faster, harder to intercept, and capable of operating deep inside Ukraine — from its turbojet engine and advanced camera to foreign-made communications and navigation… pic.twitter.com/WGNdlpS9w1

— Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (@RFERL) September 25, 2026

The conflict with Iran, as well as other crises in the Middle East in recent years and the ongoing war in Ukraine, make clear that even slower-flying Group 3 kamikaze drones present real dangers now. Those threats are magnified when these one-way attacks are employed in large volumes and/or in complex attacks mixed in with ballistic and cruise missiles.

As noted, Raytheon has highlighted how Coyote Block 2C+RM also has a faster overall response time compared to its predecessors, offering additional flexibility for engaging incoming waves of drones. The new version also works with all existing four- and eight-cell launchers, which can be variously mounted on vehicles and static positions on the ground, as well as on ships.

As mentioned earlier, the U.S. Army is the primary operator of Coyote Block 2s today, with the interceptors being used in both vehicle-based and palletized versions of its Low, Slow, Unmanned Aircraft Integrated Defeat System (LIDS). The U.S. Air Force has also been at least involved in the operation of fixed-site versions of LIDS at forward-deployed locations. The U.S. Navy has integrated launchers for Coyote Block 2s on several Arleigh Burke class destroyers, as well.

It’s also worth noting here that Coyote is generally described as a lower-cost interceptor, with a unit cost reported in the past to be around $100,000. How the new rocket-powered version will compare to existing types price-wise is unclear, but this is an increasingly important factor for the U.S. military and others, especially when considering the cost curve against the expected target set. As an example, the estimated cost of a Shahed 236 is in the $50,000 range.

To be clear, Coyote Block 2C+RM is still in development, and when it might start to enter operational service with any user remains to be seen.

“We’ve got additional tests scheduled into the first half of next year, and we’re working with the Department of War,” Raytheon’s Laliberty said last week. “We’ve got an ongoing investment from Raytheon, but now essentially received some government sponsorship as it kind of transitions into the program of record, and that’s still kind of ongoing with the Department of War in terms of how all of that is going to be structured. Certainly, in follow-on contracts for Coyote, this can be cut in.”

Raytheon has no plans to stop producing jet-powered Block 2 versions, either, at least for now. Beyond the U.S. military, there are now contractors to supply these interceptors to Qatar and Jordan.

The Block 2 series is just one part of the larger and still growing Coyote family of drones. A separate series of Coyote Block 3 drones, which evolved from the original electric motor-driven pusher propeller Block 1 design, is also steadily expanding. This includes versions configured as loitering munitions and as counter-drone interceptors carrying still unidentified “non-kinetic” payloads. The U.S. Army is already in the process of acquiring Block 3 types in addition to Block 2 interceptors.

As an aside, the U.S.-based subsidiary of Germany’s Rheinmetall is currently competing in the Army’s XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV) competition with a design that will be capable of employing Coyote Block 3. The launchers on American Rheinmetall’s Lynx-based XM30 offering will also be able to fire anti-tank guided missiles like the TOW and Javelin. You can read more about the XM30 competition and the other design in the running, General Dynamics Land Systems’ Wolf, here.

More broadly speaking, Coyote Block 2C+RM will be entering a hugely expanding market space for lower-tier and lower-cost counter-drone interceptors globally. The U.S. Army alone is already pursuing several new lower-tier anti-air interceptors to expand its capabilities against Group 3 drones, as well as other types of uncrewed threats and cruise missiles.

If nothing else, the newly unveiled Coyote Block 2C+RM reflects continued high demand, broadly speaking, for new interceptors, and more of them, to address ever-more capable longer-range kamikaze drones.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post New Coyote Anti-Drone Interceptor Swaps Jet Engine For Rocket Power appeared first on TWZ.

As General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) and American Rheinmetall display their wares at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual symposium this week, the contractors have delivered their XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV) prototypes to the Army for testing and soldier evaluation at two locations to meet a slightly altered test program. 

The XM30 program is the U.S. Army’s latest effort to replace its fleet of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. As TWZ noted in a recent article, the Army had planned to test a number of the eight prototypes that each competitor is required to provide during a regular rotation at the sprawling National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin in California next spring. 

According to both GDLS and American Rheinmetall, each will now deliver seven prototypes to the Army’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas. There they will undergo a soldier touchpoint and field evaluations, which could wrap up in the February-March 2027 timeframe. No rotation to Fort Irwin is now envisaged. 

TWZ spoke with executives from both XM30 competitors and reached out to the Army ahead of AUSA. Geoffrey Norman, GDLS’ director for U.S. Strategy & Growth, said that three of its prototypes are already at Fort Hood undergoing safety checks before being put in soldiers’ hands for evaluation. The company’s offering is called Wolf, which evolved from its Griffin III, which in turn was derived from the ASCOD 2 infantry fighting vehicle. 

American Rheinmetall, a U.S. subsidiary of Germany’s Rheinmetall, has put forward a version of the extended Lynx family for the XM30 competition. The company has delivered one of its prototypes to Fort Hood, according to the company’s senior vice president of programs, Jim Schirmer. Another one is at the Army’s Joint Forces Training Center at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, where the company is doing its own internal testing. Its remaining vehicles are being assembled in Slidell, Louisiana.

Both companies delivered their very first XM30 prototypes to Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland in late August, along with an additional hull and turret each for ballistics testing. Over the last month-plus, the Army has gained preliminary experience with the MICVs at Aberdeen.

Early Feedback 

GDLS’ Wolf has already put its 50mm cannon into action on the live-fire range at Aberdeen, according to Norman. It has also been put through some portion of automotive functional testing, and Norman says GDLS is getting “good feedback” on both. He adds that the Wolf’s 32-speed SAPA transmission and composite rubber track (CRT) have been well received, with favorable comparisons to the ride-quality/comfort of the Bradley. 

Schirmer says that the Lynx has also received positive early feedback, particularly during a late September demonstration for congressional staffers and Army VIPs at Aberdeen. Passengers praised its two-man crew station layout, the roominess of its six-man squad compartment and its air conditioning system. 

Schirmer reflected on the value of greater environmental comfort for squad members who sweltered inside the Bradleys used in Iraq. He recalled that, “When it was 125 degrees outside in Iraq with additional solar loading, inside the Bradley the temperature got to 138 degrees. It actually felt refreshing to step out into the Iraqi air.”

Both prototypes are larger than the 40-ton Bradley with correspondingly heavier combat weights in the 50-ton region. Both feature an XM913 50mm automatic cannon as their main weapon, a welcome increase in firepower compared to the 25mm M242 on the Bradley.

Schirmer acknowledged that American Rheinmetall has found some small bugs in its first Lynx prototype at Aberdeen. “We spent a fair amount of time swapping hardware and making adjustments to make sure it was ready [for the VIP event].”

Crew Efficiency and Room for Growth 

Both competitors have emphasized the greater efficiency and capacity to add weapons systems and sensors to their MICVs compared with the Bradley. Each has a two-man crew as opposed to the Bradley’s three-man complement. XM30 commander-gunners operate from below the turret as opposed to in it with the Bradley. The new configuration puts a premium on crew situational awareness and task management. 

Wolf and Lynx feature side-by-side crew stations for the vehicles’ commander and driver, an aviation-style layout conducive to enhanced crew coordination. Both firms have placed considerable emphasis on intuitive user interfaces with multiple displays and menus with specifically designed symbology and text, as well as ergonomically optimized controls. In addition to higher resolution and longer range gunsight displays, each prototype offers its crew and the squad it carries a 360-degree outside view provided by cameras placed around the vehicle. 

“Because we have a reduced crew from the Bradley [which has a commander and gunner in turret] there has to be greater efficiency in how those soldiers execute their tasks. The software and menu logic are very intuitive,” Norman affirms. 

Left and right crew positions are identical, so functions can be performed by either crew member. In the Wolf, the driver sits to the left in most cases with the commander on the right. GDLS has drawn lessons from soldier touchpoints with early prototypes of the M1E3 Abrams tank (for which it is the prime contractor), which Norman says shares its graphical user interface with Wolf. 

The Lynx crew compartment features three configurable displays, with a large center display with a common operating picture/map with visual feeds from airborne uncrewed aerial systems (UAS). “You can shoot the gun from the left or right, you can drive the vehicle from the left or right,” Schirmer confirms. 

A camera for the Lynx commander’s independent weapons station atop the vehicle with its own sight and machine gun can be pulled up for view by the crew, which can toggle between it and the main weapons sight. Lynx operators have the ability to turn off certain information presentations in their displays for better focus on a particular task.  

The effort to improve efficiency for smaller armored vehicle crews was highlighted last week as GLDS announced that it has partnered with Primordial Labs to bring artificial intelligence (AI) voice control to its combat vehicles, ranging from the M1 to the XM30. American Rheinmetall has likewise developed its own AI assistant for Lynx crews, Schirmer confirms. He characterizes it as a “third crewman” helping two soldiers do the work of a trio. 

The video below shows Primordial Labs’ voice control technology being used to operate a quadcopter-type drone.

Cooling has become an issue for the Bradley, which, like all armored vehicles, essentially encloses its powerplant and electronics in a box with no airflow. Heat from the drivetrain creates a detectable thermal signature, particularly with the Bradley’s right-front exhaust exit. 

Both Lynx and Wolf feature hybrid-electric drivetrains with silent-watch capability, which can temporarily reduce their thermal signatures. Each features rear-exhaust exits, alleviating front-quarter heat plumes. 

According to Schirmer, the Lynx cooling stack (which sits adjacent to its powerplant forward in the hull) offers increased cooling for the engine and battery packs while improving the interior environment for heat-sensitive electronics. It facilitates systems growth and greater power consumption.  

Wolf has its engine cooling in the rear of the vehicle behind the track. Norman says GDLS specifically engineered its placement so cooling paths to the rear of the hull don’t impinge on passenger space inside. All Wolf systems are designed with a 10 percent growth margin, he adds. 

The hybrid drive systems and electronics that both XM30s use will have to resist the increasing threat from adversary directed energy. Electronic attack in the form of tactical electromagnetic pulse, laser targeting of external sensors/apertures, and weaponized electromagnetic interference constitutes a growing threat to weapons systems and basic mobility. 

Both contractors expect the Army to stringently test their prototypes’ electromagnetic vulnerability. “I think they’ll nail our vehicles with the best [electromagnetic attack] that adversaries have and if they identify any weaknesses, we will correct those,” Norman says. He points to Aberdeen’s large, sophisticated anechoic chamber as a place where both MICVs will eventually spend considerable time. 

American Rheinmetall has its own electromagnetic interference (EMI) requirements for vehicle sensors and communications, according to Schirmer. The Army also has an in-depth understanding of the threats and explicit EMI requirements, he says. “We’re pretty comfortable that our system meets those, but actual EMI testing will take place later in the test program.”

Expanded capacity for exportable power is another growth area for XM30. The prototypes’ hybrid powerplants feature large battery packs that can offer exportable power to potentially help the Army with its serious battlefield circulation of electricity (BCoE) problem. The ever-increasing array of soldier-worn electronic devices, electrically-powered small drones and sensors has created an electricity supply deficit as well as battery weight and availability issues. 

Wolf produces “a lot more power than it needs,” Norman asserts. As a result, upgrades to its alternators, starter-generators and high-voltage batteries won’t be needed in the foreseeable future. The exportable power emphasis is on the passengers, he explains. 

Wolf’s internal power distribution provides significant charging power to the squad compartment in the back, where each member can charge devices and get access to data. The charge-ports they use are cyber-hardened to prevent plug-in exploits. 

External exportable power is surprisingly not a priority for the MICVs, according to the contractors. Wolf can offload power via a standard NATO power port (as can Lynx) and other interfaces, Norman says, but “we’re not seeing XM30s in use-cases where they’re used to power command posts or other things. The emphasis from the Army has really been about having margin on the vehicle for future [system] requirements – directed energy, counter-UAS systems or fill-in-the-blank.” 

Counter UAS and Fill-in-the-Blank

A September report from the Congressional Research Service cited a potential XM30 oversight issue for Congress, contending that it is not clear if the MICV will have an organic counter-UAS capability. Given the obvious threat of aerial drones to armor as seen in Ukraine, the apparent lack of a requirement for integrated CUAS appears glaring. 

We reached out to the Army’s PAE Maneuver Ground and PM XM30 regarding CUAS for XM30 but received no response as of this writing. Both American Rheinmetall and GDLS believe the Army will undertake its own search and competitive testing to identify a CUAS system for XM30 that it will require the vendors to integrate at some future point.  

GDLS’ Norman calls CUAS “fundamental” to the viability of armored vehicles on the modern battlefield. He thinks the Army’s approach of making sure CUAS infrastructure (power/data/physical hookups) is in place on XM30 while evaluating potential systems on its own for rapid integration is wise. He adds that GDLS is working with “expert partners” in the CUAS space to be ready to add the capability. 

Intriguingly, American Rheinmetall’s Schirmer says that Lynx already has some counter-UAS capability, which he declined to disclose. 

Both XM30s have the ability to launch loitering munitions – Wolf will employ Aerovironment’s Switchblade 300 and Lynx will carry a version of Raytheon’s Coyote Block 3 – but their makers currently have no specific plans for other integrations, though each says it can adapt multiple systems. 

TWZ previously noted that the Army envisions XM30s acting as controllers for unmanned ground vehicles. GLDS’ Wolf has an in-house interface to control UGVs (and UAVs) from inside the vehicle, which was demonstrated to the Army over a year ago, according to Norman. Its open software architecture allows for integrating a different control suite if the Army desires. 

American Rheinmetall has “not attempted to control an unmanned ground vehicle yet, but the architecture is so similar it would really be just a software modification to get there,” Schirmer says. The company would likely use a mix of its own and UGV provider software.

The Lynx itself can be remotely operated via a tablet that a dismounted crew can employ. While outside the vehicle, soldiers can also remotely use the tablet to see what the vehicle is seeing or to pull up maps for planning, Schirmer explains. American Rheinmetall has yet to finalize and demonstrate the capability, but it appears an appropriate feature for a design that stretches back to the Army’s Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program. 

Recent Army experimentation with small vehicle-toted UGVs on Bradley suggests a capability that could migrate to XM30. Wolf can accommodate “marsupial UGVs” like the Swambotics AI Fire Ants fitted on a 1st Cavalry Division M2A4 Bradley, but Norman points out that small UGV carriage is not part of the requirements for the first iteration of XM30. 

A U.S. Army 1st Cavalry Division M2A4 Bradley IFV was spotted carrying five Swarmbotics AI FireAnt anti-armor UGVs on its side storage racks. Weighing around 27 kg, FireAnt is a low-cost attritable robotic system designed for AI-enabled swarm operations, including ISR,… https://t.co/dbikmUtOey pic.twitter.com/WYIRlLJd9A

— 笑脸男人 (@lfx160219) August 26, 2026

American Rheinmetall has not specifically planned for carrying UGVs on its MICV, but Schirmer asserts that if a Bradley can carry them, Lynx certainly can. Whether it may be able to recharge them during transit is a question that will depend on future Army desires, he says. 

Fit for Purpose 

Given threats from increasingly capable drones and guided anti-tank missiles, questions as to whether XM30 or other armored vehicles remain relevant on the modern battlefield have persisted for several years. 

Such concerns arguably drive the discussion of value-added capabilities for XM30 – from advanced sensors and networking/communications to the ability to deploy and control UGVs/UAVs and the potential BCoE benefits of the platforms. 

GDLS’ Norman refers to Wolf as “software with a vehicle around it”, noting that GLDS is “continually dropping new software” into its XM30 on a weekly basis to add capability.

However, American Rheinmetall’s Schirmer reminded us that the traditional armored transport mission is still the overarching role of XM30. 

“The purpose of [Lynx] is really to carry infantrymen around the battlefield…to move them faster than they can walk on foot, to protect them in transit from threats – drones, anti-tank guided missiles, from artillery fire – and to [provide] fires support.” 

The tension around XM30 survivability versus cost is reflected in the Army’s loose commitment to the new MICV program. Despite having muted fielding of an XM30 by 2029, Brig. Gen. Troy Denomy, Program Acquisition Executive of Maneuver Ground, told Breaking Defense that if no clear winner emerged from the upcoming test and evaluation, “then it may be worth not selecting at that point.” 

The ambiguity tees up the question of where a 50-ton armored vehicle fits into the potential Pacific fight that the U.S. military is focusing on. It’s a difficult question for the Army and for the XM30 contractors. 

American Rheinmetall’s Schirmer took a stab at answering. He points out that there are large islands and other landmasses in the Pacific (like the Korean Peninsula) where a MICV could be employed. However, he acknowledges that it is less likely to be used in an island campaign. 

“It still has a role, though it’s less obvious what that would look like than in Europe or the Middle East.”

With testing and evaluations set to ramp up at Aberdeen Proving Ground and Fort Hood, we may soon learn which XM30 prototype is the Army’s obvious choice.  

Contact the editor: Tyler@twz.com

The post Test Plans Change, Small Distinctions Emerge Between XM30 Bradley Replacement Prototypes  appeared first on TWZ.

Anduril has unveiled Steelfin, a family of surface-to-air interceptor missiles designed to share a common architecture and manufacturing process while being configured for different air and missile defense missions. The company says this approach will enable high-volume production at significantly lower cost than existing weapons, though it has not disclosed prices or detailed performance specifications.

The announcement comes as the U.S. military seeks to expand air defense inventories against an increasingly diverse range of threats, from inexpensive drones to cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and advanced maneuvering weapons, including hypersonic ones. Recent experiences from Ukraine and the Middle East make it abundantly clear that the challenge is not simply developing interceptors capable of defeating those targets but producing enough of them to sustain operations without exhausting stocks of more expensive weapons.

Using high-end interceptors against comparatively inexpensive threats can rapidly consume limited inventories, as it has in the Middle East, especially, even when engagements are necessary to protect personnel and critical infrastructure. A broader range of defensive weapons, matched to different threats and engagement requirements, could help ease that burden.

Anduril’s answer is a family of missiles built around a common two-stage design. The first stage consists of a booster, while the second is a terminal interceptor intended to share a baseline airframe, avionics, software, flight control system, and interfaces across variants. Different boosters and terminal-stage components would allow the company to tailor individual configurations to specific missions without developing an entirely new missile for each requirement. Both hit-to-kill and blast-fragmentation terminal-stage interceptors will be offered, Anduril says.

“It is an open system, so the ability to fly it with different rocket motors, different seekers, to be able to swap these components out, to be able to reconfigure the system for a range of different threats is a feature that we built into this,” explained Christian Brose, who serves as the president and chief strategy officer at Anduril. He was speaking to members of the media, including TWZ, ahead of the official unveiling of Steelfin.

The company says the family is intended to cover missions ranging from point defense and lower-tier integrated air and missile defense to upper-tier ballistic missile defense. It also identifies cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missiles among the threats the broader family is designed to address. Overall, it is an extremely ambitious goal, and something that has not been attempted previously to this degree.

The announcement does not specify which variants would address individual threats or provide engagement envelopes and performance figures with which to assess those claims.

Brose did clarify that the different ranges that the various Steelfin variants will achieve will be based on the booster sizing. “Right now, we’re looking at integrating on 10-inch, 18-inch, and 21-inch boosters, but we’re also looking at quad pack and dual pack for the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System as well for different installations, which imply different range and altitudes.”

Anduril’s emphasis on commonality is also intended to address the industrial challenges associated with conventional interceptor production. Different missile programs traditionally require specialized tooling, manufacturing processes, suppliers, and facilities, limiting opportunities to shift production rapidly as operational requirements change.

Steelfin variants are intended to use shared production lines and equipment, with mission-specific boosters and terminal-stage components incorporated during final assembly. Anduril says this would allow manufacturing capacity to be redirected toward whichever variant is in greatest demand. The company is planning near-term production on the order of several thousand missiles annually, with capacity designed to expand or shift according to requirements.

That remains a production ambition, and Anduril has not provided a detailed production schedule or contracted quantities demonstrating how quickly it could reach that scale.

The company also says Steelfin is designed to be compatible with existing land- and sea-based launch infrastructure, including the M903A2 launcher used by newer PAC-3 series interceptors, the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System, and Typhon, as well as emerging containerized launchers. It cites compatibility with established fire-control systems, including AEGIS and the Army’s Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS).

When it comes to cost, Steve Milano, the lead for Air Dominance & Strike at Anduril, suggested that the “more exquisite version” of the Steelfin would sit somewhere above the PAC-3 MSE and below THAAD, but would accomplish “100 percent of the THAAD mission at a fraction of the cost.” In a different configuration, tailored for the PAC-3-type mission, Steelfin would accomplish 80 percent of that mission at less than 50 percent of the cost, Milano added.

While THAAD is aimed at taking out short, medium, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of flight, PAC-3 provides high-altitude, hit-to-kill air and missile defense against tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and aircraft.

Milano continued: “Looking at the lower end of the spectrum, as far as low-cost interceptors are concerned, I just saw an article on the [aircraft carrier USS Abraham] Lincoln coming back with all of the Shahed markings on the side, and I was contemplating the number of SM-2s that were fired against those assets. When I think of that cost exchange, the Steelfin enters into that market and provides greater than 80 percent of the capability of an SM-2 for a third of the cost.”

For reference, a single THAAD interceptor costs around $15.5 million. The unit price of each PAC-3 MSE interceptor now stands at approximately $5.3 million, according to the Army’s latest proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. Meanwhile, the price of a single SM-2 Block IIIC interceptor, the most advanced version of that missile currently in service, is around $2.5 million. 

Steelfin is entering a market in which the U.S. military is already pursuing several approaches to expanding its low-cost interceptor inventory.

In May, the U.S. Army sought industry proposals for a Patriot-compatible interceptor with a target unit cost below $1 million. The effort reflects the service’s desire for a less expensive weapon for appropriate engagements, preserving higher-end interceptors for targets that warrant their cost and capabilities. The Army’s solicitation also emphasizes component-level cost targets and competition among suppliers, including for rocket motors, seekers, and guidance systems.

Lockheed Martin has offered a separate industry response with its PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector (ACE), a lower-cost interceptor intended to operate within the Patriot ecosystem. Unveiled in July, the weapon is intended to cost less than half as much as the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE), according to the company. The MSE’s unit price is approximately $5.3 million in the Army’s fiscal 2027 budget request, putting the ACE’s implied price at around $2.5 million if Lockheed’s comparison holds.

Its projected price would still be well above the Army’s separate sub-$1 million target, reflecting the different objectives and requirements behind the two efforts.

The Navy, meanwhile, is pursuing a potentially broader shift toward modular interceptor architectures. Its Naval Modular Missile initiative envisions a family of surface-to-air weapons built around a common Terminal Stage Interceptor, with different boosters and canisters producing configurations for different missions and platforms. The plans include variants intended to fit multiple missiles within a Mk 41 launcher cell, as well as a version designed for launch from Virginia class submarines equipped with the Virginia Payload Module.

The Navy’s longer-term vision is to replace its existing Standard Missile family with modular variants, although the effort remains in development. The concept highlights potential operational benefits beyond manufacturing: smaller interceptors could increase the number of weapons carried aboard ships, while other configurations could preserve longer-range capabilities. The Navy has also outlined an ambition to reach production of 1,000 missiles annually within five years of a contract award.

Both the Navy’s modular missile initiative and Steelfin reflect a push toward common architectures that can support multiple interceptor configurations without requiring an entirely new missile for every mission. Steelfin’s stated scope is particularly broad, with Anduril pitching the family for missions spanning point defense through lower-tier air and missile defense to upper-tier ballistic missile defense. That would cover much of the air and missile defense spectrum, although it does not extend to exoatmospheric midcourse interception. Whether the family can deliver that breadth of capability at the promised cost and scale remains to be demonstrated.

Anduril says it has been developing Steelfin for several years with investment from multiple customers and has completed ballistic testing using representative air vehicles. Flight testing of Steelfin variants is planned for 2027.

Already, Anduril says it is working closely with “a number of different customers to get into the field.” Brose continued: “We feel like this is going to be a critical component of the U.S. and allied inventories to complement the range of exquisite capabilities that all of us are familiar with and know by name.”

Steelfin underscores what is now a broader trend toward lower-cost interceptors that can be manufactured at scale, and plugged into existing ecosystems, often with at least a degree of modularity to tackle new and emerging target sets. Steelfin adds to Anduril’s proposal to combine that modularity with a common production system designed to support thousands of weapons annually.

Anduril has yet to develop or produce a surface-to-air missile, although its Roadrunner system gives it experience in the related field of countering aerial threats, including loitering munitions. The company’s ambitions for Steelfin are significant, and modular architectures are certainly attractive. After all, a common baseline should simplify production, reduce costs, and allow interceptors to be tailored to different missions. In practice, however, realizing those benefits has historically proved difficult, and fraught with compromises. Whether Anduril can avoid those pitfalls while delivering the promised combination of capability, affordability, and production scale remains an open question. If it can, Steelfin could put the company in a strong position in the future surface-to-air missile market.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Anduril Unveils Steelfin Family Of Modular Surface-To-Air Missiles appeared first on TWZ.

Welcome to Bunker Talk. This is a weekend open discussion post for the best commenting crew on the net, in which we can chat about all the stuff that went on this week that we didn’t cover. We can also talk about the stuff we did or whatever else grabs your interest. In other words, it’s an off-topic thread.

This week’s caption reads:

Illustration shows a visit to the Commandobunker of Kemmel, in Heuvelland, Friday 18 March 2022. After World War II, in the middle of the cold war, several countries including Belgium, France and Great-Britain, decide to build a bunker to coordinate west Europe aerian defence. BELGA PHOTO KURT DESPLENTER (Photo by KURT DESPLENTER / BELGA MAG / Belga via AFP) (Photo by KURT DESPLENTER/BELGA MAG/AFP via Getty Images)

PRIME DIRECTIVES:

• If you want to talk politics, do so respectfully and know that there’s always somebody that isn’t going to agree with you. 
• If you have political differences, hash it out respectfully, stick to the facts, and no childish name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. If you can’t handle yourself in that manner, then please, discuss virtually anything else.
• No drive-by garbage political memes. No conspiracy theory rants. Links to crackpot sites will be axed, too. Trolling and shitposting will not be tolerated. No obsessive behavior about other users. Just don’t interact with folks you don’t like. 
• Do not be a sucker and feed trolls! That’s as much on you as on them. Use the mute button if you don’t like what you see.  
• So unless you have something of quality to say, know how to treat people with respect, understand that everyone isn’t going to subscribe to your exact same worldview, and have come to terms with the reality that there is no perfect solution when it comes to moderation of a community like this, it’s probably best to just move on. 
• Finally, as always, report offenders, please. This doesn’t mean reporting people who don’t share your political views, but we really need your help in this regard.

The post Bunker Talk: Let’s Talk About All The Things We Did And Didn’t Cover This Week appeared first on TWZ.

The South Korean government has released images from its first successful test of a domestically developed hypersonic boost-glide vehicle. This includes shots of the vehicle impacting the water at the end of its flight. A weapon of this kind would give South Korea a significant new way to hold targets in North Korea at risk amid an ever-deepening arms race on the Peninsula.

South Korea’s Presidential Office, more commonly referred to as the Cheong Wa Dae or the Blue House, announced the test in a Korean-language press release yesterday. The Blue House initially released a video of President Lee Jae Myung and others observing the test from a conference room at the Anheung Proving Ground, which is located in South Chungcheong Province on the country’s western coast. South Korea’s Agency for Defense Development (ADD) manages testing at Anheung. A series of still images from the test itself was subsequently posted on the Blue House’s website.

Included in the still image gallery are shots showing the launch of the missile, a formal name for which has not yet been disclosed, from a wheeled transport-erector-launcher on a platform sitting just off the coast. The low resolution of the pictures makes it hard to tell whether the missile and/or the TEL are of an existing South Korean design or are based on one. We will come back to this later on.

As mentioned, there are also pictures of the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle hitting the water. At first glance, the vehicle looks to have a broadly conical design with stabilizing fins at the base. However, at least one of the fins looks to be truncated. Closer inspection of the available images shows further indicators that might point to it actually having a more wedge-shaped design with a distinct top and bottom, though it is still not definitely clear given the low resolution. Conical boost-glide vehicles are generally understood to be easier to design, relatively speaking, than wedge-shaped ones. Historically, hypersonic boost-glide vehicles of any kind have proven to be technically complex and challenging to turn into viable operational weapons, even by countries with extensive past experience with their development.

“This test launch was conducted to verify, for the first time, the vehicle’s core technologies in a hypersonic flight environment: the performance of ultra-high-temperature heat-resistant materials, guidance and control capabilities, and the ability to perform irregular flight maneuvers at low altitudes,” the Blue House said in its release yesterday, per a machine translation of the Korean text. “The HGV [hypersonic boost-glide vehicle] successfully separated after ascending to the target altitude and executed its planned flight path within the hypersonic environment without any issues.”

With all this in mind, the fact that the vehicle just remained intact through to impact is noteworthy. At the time of writing, South Korean authorities do not appear to have disclosed more specific details about the test, including how far the boost-glide vehicle traveled before hitting the water or what peak speed it reached. Important questions also remain about how the vehicle is guided during the mid-course and terminal phases of flight, challenges that do not appear to have been addressed by this particular test.

In general, unpowered hypersonic boost-glide vehicles need to be brought first to an optimal altitude and speed. This is typically achieved using a sufficiently sized rocket booster, with existing ballistic missile designs often serving as a starting point.

Once released from the booster, a boost-glide vehicle flies along a relatively shallow flight path within the Earth’s atmosphere. The vehicle is able to maneuver along the way, sometimes erratically, while traveling at hypersonic speeds, generally defined as anything about Mach 5.

All of this sets hypersonic weapons of this kind apart from traditional ballistic missiles, even ones with advanced maneuverability capabilities, which all follow a broadly arcing trajectory to their targets. The combination of speed, flight trajectory, and maneuverability offered by hypersonic boost-glide vehicles creates distinct challenges for opponents. They are hard to spot and track, let alone attempt to intercept, and there is less time for defenders to react overall. This ability to penetrate enemy air defenses and cover ground rapidly makes these weapons particularly attractive for strikes on very high-value and time-sensitive targets.

“The HGV [hypersonic boost-glide vehicle] is a ‘key strategic asset capable of changing the game on the battlefield,’ as its unpredictable flight trajectory and overwhelming speed allow it to launch surprise strikes against key strategic targets during contingencies,” the Blue House’s release explicitly noted, again according to a machine translation.

With all this in mind, South Korea does have an entire family of domestically-produced ground-launched ballistic missiles that could be suitable starting places for launching an unpowered hypersonic boost-glide vehicle. President Lee was notably shown a TEL for the country’s newest Hyunmoo-5 ballistic missile at Anheung yesterday, though no explicit connection has been drawn between that weapon and the hypersonic test. The Hyunmoo-5 is itself still a relatively new development, having only entered service around the end of last year.

When it comes to new South Korean arms developments, the Hyunmoo-5, which entered service around the end of last year, has been and continues to be a major point of discussion by itself. It is officially categorized as a short-range design, despite how big it is (35 tons gross weight), which is said to be due largely to the equally substantial size of its warhead (17,000 pounds). Past reports have raised the possibility that it could be capable of flying out to intermediate ranges if the warhead weight were reduced. Short-range ballistic missiles are defined as ones with ranges between 190 and 620 miles (300 and 1,000 kilometers), while intermediate-range ballistic missiles can hit targets out to between 1,864 and 3,418 miles (3,000 to 5,500 kilometers). Medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM) fall in between these two categories.

With its massive unitary warhead, the Hyunmoo-5 already gives South Korea an important new way to hold deeply buried and otherwise hardened targets in North Korea at risk. This fits in directly with the country’s broader Korea Massive Punishment and Retaliation (KMPR) policy, as TWZ has previously written:

“While the Hyunmoo-5 has been widely reported as a future pillar of the KMPR, its specific ability to penetrate deeply buried bunkers, such as those used by the North Korean leadership, the same functions mean that it can also fulfill elements of the ‘kill chain.’ In this way, it could be used as part of a pre-emptive strike, to try and knock out North Korea’s launch capability by targeting its hardened command-and-control facilities and missile storage areas.”

By virtue of the very high speeds they reach in the terminal phase of flight, hypersonic boost-glide vehicles also offer bunker-busting benefits on top of the other aforementioned advantages they bring to the table.

In addition, the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle test reflects a broader arms race that has been expanding in scale and scope for years now. South Korea is also developing an air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile, seen in the composite image below, as well as new air- and sea-launched ballistic missiles, the latter of which will be loaded on new surface warships and submarines.

Though there are always questions about the actual maturity and viability of the designs, North Korea continues to churn out its own new missile developments. This includes two separate test launches of purported new hypersonic designs just in recent weeks. Tit-for-tat missile launches are not entirely uncommon on the peninsula, but there are limits to how quickly a test like the one South Korea conducted yesterday involving an emerging technology can reasonably be staged.

Friction between the North and South has been at a particular high point, in general, following an incident on September 21, in which three South Korean troops were injured along the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), as well as the United Nations Command (UNC) on the Peninsula, have said a North Korean landmine placed in violation of the Armistice Agreement was to blame. South Korean authorities have demanded an apology and raised the prospect of some form of action in response, though President Lee has more recently sought to downplay the situation. The government in North Korea has denied the accusations and threatened an “immediate and powerful counteraction” should South Korea seek to retaliate.

An operational hypersonic boost-glide vehicle capability would also expand South Korea’s capacity to challenge opponents regionally beyond North Korea. Though the regime in Pyongyang represents the most proximate national security threat to the country, China and Russia have also been growing points of concern for South Korean authorities in recent years.

“We must secure our national security through our own strength,” President Lee said after yesterday’s hypersonic test, per the Blue House’s release. “The government must not rest on today’s success but must further advance the technology so that the hypersonic glide vehicle can establish itself as a robust strategic asset safeguarding our future security.”

South Korea’s very public test of its new hypersonic boost-glide vehicle underscores the country’s still-expanding efforts to broaden its options for striking even the best-defended targets in North Korea, as well as projecting power elsewhere regionally. At the same time, it remains to be seen when the South Koreans may field a real operational capability in this regard.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post First Look At Hypersonic Boost-Glide Vehicle Just Tested By South Korea appeared first on TWZ.

The U.S. Navy is preparing to sign a contract with Lockheed Martin to integrate the stealthy AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) onto the Air Force’s B-52 Stratofortress bombers, according to an October 7 government notice. The effort would add another long-range maritime strike option to the U.S. bomber force as the military looks to counter increasingly capable adversary naval forces, especially in the Indo-Pacific theater.

The planned contract comes months after the Air Force revealed that the stealthy B-2 bomber can also launch LRASM, a capability that had not previously been publicly disclosed. You can read more about that here.

The latest Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) notice says the command intends to enter into sole-source negotiations with Lockheed Martin and subsequently award a cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order covering LRASM integration on the B-52. The work would include missile software updates, associated testing, repairs to test assets, and failure review boards.

The notice does not provide a schedule for completing the integration or fielding the capability.

The B-52 is already capable of carrying large numbers of air-launched cruise missiles, including the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) family. LRASM is derived from that family, sharing a similar general form factor while incorporating features specifically designed to find and attack ships in contested maritime environments.

The B-52 can carry up to 20 JASSMs, and the weapons have the same dimensions, but the government notice does not specify how many LRASMs the bomber would ultimately carry.

This is not the first time the B-52’s LRASM integration has been in the works.

As long ago as November 2019, Naval News reported that $10 million in Fiscal Year 2019 funding had been allocated to study integrating the missile onto the bomber, with Lockheed Martin and the Navy and Air Force expected to work on the effort. At the time, officials said the fielding timeline and the bomber’s eventual missile capacity had yet to be determined.

The U.S. Air Force’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget proposal further outlines plans to integrate the latest variants of LRASM and JASSM onto the B-52, including versions not yet cleared for use on the bomber. According to the document, the effort, which is intended to enable the deployment of next-generation stealthy cruise missiles against targets protected by sophisticated integrated air defense systems, will focus on engineering and manufacturing development, software updates, and weapons integration. Planned work in FY2027 includes incorporating the missiles’ operational flight programs into the B-52’s baseline bomber software, validating safe weapon separation from both wing-mounted stations and the internal carriage launcher, updating armament interfaces, and completing system-safety testing.

LRASM is designed to attack high-value surface vessels at long distances while reducing the exposure of the aircraft launching it. Its guidance combines GPS-assisted inertial navigation with onboard sensors and autonomous target-recognition capabilities intended to help it operate in heavily defended environments. Its imaging infrared seeker supports terminal target acquisition without relying on active radar emissions in that phase of flight. The missile operates with a high degree of autonomy, enabled by an integrated route-planning capability linked to its onboard electronic support measures (ESM) system. LRASM also has a datalink that allows it to get threat updates while in flight. It can also work cooperatively with other LRASMs during coordinated strikes. 

The missile’s precise operational range is not publicly disclosed. However, the baseline LRASM is reported to be able to strike targets at between 200 and 300 miles, in line with the AGM-158A JASSM. The forthcoming C-3 version is expected to have the same reach as the JASSM-ER, which is reported to be around 600 miles.

For the B-52, the addition of LRASM would provide a dedicated anti-ship weapon alongside its established land-attack arsenal. A bomber operating at a considerable distance from a hostile fleet could launch multiple missiles toward maritime targets, complicating an adversary’s air-defense and interception problem. The aircraft’s payload capacity could also allow it to contribute substantial missile volume to a coordinated strike.

The B-52 was previously adapted to carry AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, although the weapon is not listed among the bomber’s current publicly documented armament. Compared to the Harpoon, however, LRASM represents a quantum leap in capability, offering drastically greater range, a stealthy design, and the ability to react to threats and adapt in real time. Combined, these traits make for a far more survivable and lethal anti-ship capability.

The B-52 also has a demonstrated naval mine-laying capability through the Quickstrike family of aerial mines. This includes carrying 2,000-pound Quickstrike-ER mines fitted with GPS-aided, winged guidance kits, allowing them to glide to designated points in the water from more than 40 miles away. The system enables the bomber to seed minefields with greater precision while remaining farther from potentially defended waters, threatening enemy shipping routes, port access, and naval movements.

The B-52 effort comes against the backdrop of the Air Force’s newly acknowledged use of LRASM on the B-2, which adds a different dimension to the service’s anti-ship capabilities.

LRASM was also previously integrated on the B-1B, meaning that all three of the Air Force’s strategic bombers will eventually be able to employ it.

The renewed focus on bomber-launched anti-ship weapons reflects the challenges posed by modern naval forces, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. China’s expanding surface fleet, increasingly sophisticated air defenses, and layered anti-access/area-denial capabilities have made the ability to attack ships from a distance an important consideration for U.S. military planning.

LRASM is designed to help address those challenges by combining long-range flight with reduced observability and autonomous terminal targeting. Its onboard sensors and navigation capabilities are intended to help it identify and engage appropriate targets in environments where communications and external targeting support may be limited or contested.

Bomber integration also offers a way to increase the number of potential launch platforms without relying exclusively on tactical aircraft or surface combatants. A B-52 carrying a substantial missile load could contribute to a coordinated attack alongside B-1s, stealth bombers, naval aircraft, and other forces.

The B-52’s payload capacity would make it particularly useful for delivering larger quantities of weapons from outside the most heavily defended areas.

The planned B-52 integration also fits into a broader effort to expand LRASM’s availability across the U.S. military. Publicly discussed integration efforts have included the F-15E, F-15EX, F-16C/D, certain variants of the F-35, and the Navy’s P-8A Poseidon, in addition to established launch platforms, namely the Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters and the B-1.

Meanwhile, the B-52 fleet is currently preparing for a slew of major upgrades. These include a critical radar overhaul alongside new engines, enhanced communications systems, and other improvements. The scope of these changes is significant enough that the aircraft will be redesignated from B-52H to B-52J. The bombers are also slated to further expand their weapons capabilities, including through the addition of the Long-Range Stand Off (LRSO) nuclear cruise missile. The upgraded B-52Js are expected to remain in service through at least 2050.

Even in its current configuration, the B-52 is particularly well suited to carrying the LRASM, given its substantial payload capacity and ability to launch weapons from standoff distances beyond the reach of enemy air defenses. Its upgraded networking capabilities will greatly enhance its effectiveness by allowing it to operate as part of a broader kill web, drawing on data from multiple platforms and sensors to support targeting over vast distances. In more dynamic operational environments, the bomber’s new radar can generate its own targeting information in real time. The B-2, B-1, and the B-52 all offer distinct levels of penetration and weapons-delivery capability, with the forthcoming B-21 able to push deeper into contested airspace; it will certainly employ LRASM too.

The integration of LRASM onto the B-52 could prove critical to generating the volume of sorties needed to counter China’s expanding naval fleet. With its substantial payload capacity and ability to launch missiles from standoff distances, the B-52 could deliver significant anti-ship firepower across the vast distances of the Indo-Pacific. These missions would likely involve very long-range sorties, making the bomber’s payload capacity, endurance and networking capabilities particularly valuable in sustaining operations against Chinese naval forces.

If the LRASM integration proceeds as planned, the result would be another addition to the U.S. military’s long-range anti-ship arsenal, giving the Air Force’s venerable B-52 a more explicit role in the growing emphasis on striking hostile fleets at a distance.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post B-52 To Get Stealthy AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles appeared first on TWZ.

Just over two years after the U.S. Air Force retired the last of its KC-10A Extender aerial refueling tankers, four of those aircraft may be bound for a new career in North Africa for a mysterious end user.

The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) put out a contracting notice yesterday “solely for information and planning purposes” with the express intent “to identify potential industry sources that possess the capability, expertise, and facilities to execute the regeneration, one-time flight clearance, depot-level return to service, worldwide ferry delivery, in-country Contractor Logistics Support (CLS), and operational/maintenance training for up to four (4) KC-10 Extender aircraft.”

The KC-10s could be “transferred via Excess Defense Articles (EDA) to a partner nation in North Africa,” the notice adds, without naming the country in question.

The Air Force operated KC-10s between 1981 and 2024. TWZ has reached out to the U.S. Air Force, as well as the U.S. State Department, for more information. The State Department directed us to contact the Pentagon.

The EDA program allows for materiel deemed extraneous to U.S. military needs to be transferred to allies and partners either at a reduced cost or as a grant. The foreign nation in question has to pay for those assets to be delivered, as well as refurbishment, if applicable.

It is important to note here that the Extender, as designed, is capable of refueling receivers using either the boom or the probe-and-drogue method. Tankers equipped for the probe-and-drogue method are, by far, more common internationally. We will come back to this later on.

While we don’t know what the North African country might be in line now to receive the quartet of KC-10s, Egypt and Morocco would seem to be the most likely candidates based on their current and planned aircraft inventories. They are also both major U.S. allies.

The Egyptian Air Force currently does not operate any dedicated aerial refueling tankers. The country is in the process of acquiring two new C-130J-30 Hercules aircraft for use as airlifters, as well as tankers, using the probe-and-drogue method. It does already fly C-130s, but none explicitly configured for aerial refueling duties. Egypt also has a very diverse array of fighters that includes U.S.-made F-16 Vipers that can only be refueled in mid-air via boom.

Morocco’s Air Force also flies F-16s and is in the process of acquiring more. The first new-production Block 72 F-16D for the Moroccan Air Force just flew for the first time earlier this week. Morocco does have an organic aerial refueling capability now, but in the form of C-130s equipped to dispense fuel via probe-and-drogue.

As mentioned, the KC-10 was designed to connect with receivers via probe-and-drogue, as well as boom, and could be used to refuel other tactical jets in Egyptian or Moroccan service. As an aside, fighters belonging to both regularly receive foreign tanker support during exercises, as already seen earlier in this story. Just last month, Chinese YY-20 tankers (also sometimes referred to as Y-20Us) notably did just this in an exercise in Egypt.

Footage released by Egypt’s official authorities from the “Eagles of Civilization 2026” joint air exercise shows Egyptian **MiG-29M/M2s and Rafale fighters receiving aerial refueling from a Chinese Y-20 tanker aircraft. pic.twitter.com/pvxkpsDHxG

— 笑脸男人 (@lfx160219) September 7, 2026

Whichever country may be in line to receive the four KC-10s, there is a question about the current state of those aircraft. Earlier in this story, we talked about the Extender’s capabilities as designed.

McDonnell Douglas (since absorbed into Boeing) delivered a total of 60 KC-10s to the U.S. Air Force between 1979 and 1987. The Extender was derived from the three-engine DC-10 airliner, the last of which was produced in 1989. The Air Force lost one of its KC-10s in an accident in 1987.

Of the remaining 59 KC-10s, 10 were put up for auction in a non-flyable state last year. For reasons that remain unclear, a single engine had been removed from under one of the wings of each of those aircraft. These Extenders were also among the first to be retired, and their booms had been stripped to be used as spares for the examples that remained in service until 2024. Private aerial refueling contractor Omega Air looks to have subsequently won those auctions. Omega also operates two ex-Dutch KDC-10 tankers, which are broadly similar to the KC-10, as well as another DC-10 converted into a probe-and-drogue-only tanker. The company has several Boeing 707-based tankers, as well.

The condition of the remaining 49 Extenders is unclear. Congress included a provision in the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2026 Fiscal Year that required the Air Force to preserve remaining retired KC-10s, but only stipulated they be maintained “in the same storage condition” they were in as of September 30, 2025. The bill, which was signed into law in December 2025, also made clear that the Air Force could still “dispose” of the aircraft in accordance with existing property management statutes.

Regenerating military aircraft, especially larger ones, back to service can be costly, complex, and time-consuming, even when they are kept in storage in a highly maintained state. In this particular case, acquiring KC-10s via the EDA program, with a very low up-front purchase price, could still be attractive to the right buyer, especially compared to the cost of acquiring new-production tankers.

For a country like Egypt or Morocco that has never operated a boom-equipped tanker, second-hand Extenders could be a valuable entry point to future aerial refueling capabilities, as well. In general, organic aerial refueling capability is an important force multiplier for any air arm.

There is a possibility that KC-10s could be regenerated not as tankers, but as cargo aircraft, though this seems less likely to be the case. Cargo carrying was also an important duty for the Extenders while in U.S. Air Force service, and they still could operate in this role even when returned to service as tankers.

Though the aging KC-10s were getting increasingly more difficult to operate and maintain, the Air Force’s decision to retire them was still controversial. The Extender was a highly flexible tanker that could carry more fuel than the KC-46s that supplanted them. Clearly, there are others still interested in operating them.

It should be stressed that the AFLCMC contracting notice does not present the transfer of the four KC-10s as a done deal. At the same time, it has revealed that one of America’s partners in North Africa could breathe new life into four of these retired tankers.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Retired KC-10 Extender Tankers Could Get A Second Life With North African Mystery Operator appeared first on TWZ.

Standing on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, Secretary Pete Hegseth looked up at the flattop’s superstructure and got a good indication of many of the targets the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group (CSG) destroyed during its six-month fight with Iran. In a photograph shared by the Pentagon’s image distribution site, Hegseth is seen examining a wall of so-called kill marks stenciled onto the superstructure.

By our count from the image and a video taken during Hegseth’s visit, both of which you can see below, there are 103 one-way attack (OWA) drone kill marks and 34 ship kill marks. These represent the number of each the CSG took out. It is unclear whether there are other kill marks we can’t see.

Though they resemble Shahed-136s, which are the most notorious of Iranian OWA drones, these silhouettes would represent all types shot down, and Iran has many. The same holds true for the ships. The photograph shows stencils of frigates or corvettes but these would be a generic symbol for surface craft kills.

To the sailors of the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN—

WELCOME HOME pic.twitter.com/AoQymN2yfZ

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) October 7, 2026

On board to welcome the ship and its crew as it headed back to its home port of San Diego after a tumultuous and historic deployment, Hegseth extolled the strike group’s accomplishments. Reading from the Presidential Unit Citation awarded to the strike group for its work during Epic Fury, Hegseth noted that it shot down 77 one-way unmanned attack drones and sank 64 Iranian vessels between the start of Epic Fury on Feb. 28 until it departed the region on Aug. 22.

The Lincoln CSG also conducted 3,693 combat sorties, delivered 1.37 million pounds of ordnance, launched 450 Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAMs), destroyed 21 anti-ship cruise missiles and defended against four fast-attack craft and explosive-carrying wooden sailing vessels.

Defense Secretary @PeteHegseth awards Presidential Unit Citation to USS Abraham Lincoln pic.twitter.com/DbS5YYu9oB

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 7, 2026

It is unclear at the moment why there are at least 26 more drone kill marks stenciled onto the Lincoln than the number of drones shot down listed in the unit citation and why there are 30 fewer ship kill marks than the tally noted in the citation. The Pentagon referred us to the Navy, and we are waiting for a response from the service.

There is a long tradition of kill marks being stenciled onto aircraft, vessels and other military equipment indicating the destruction of enemy equipment.

Kill marks on aircraft embarked aboard Lincoln indicate that the carrier strike group also destroyed several Iranian submarines and other weapons. These were not listed in the unit citation or in any kill marks stenciled onto the Lincoln that we could see.

An image provided to TWZ by aviation photographer Jeff Rojas, who goes by the handle @jro_photography on Instagram, shows a submarine kill mark on one of the F/A-18F Super Hornets of the U.S. Navy’s Strike Fighter Squadron 41 (VFA-41), the “Black Aces.” That is one of the aviation squadrons embarked on the Lincoln during Epic Fury.

Iranian naval vessels, including the country’s Russian-made Kilo class and other submarines, were top-priority targets during Epic Fury. The U.S. military has previously confirmed that air-launched AGM-114 Hellfire laser-guided missiles (likely fired from MQ-9 Reaper drones) and ground-launched Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missiles were employed against submarines, specifically.

In total, VFA-41 alone launched 421 missiles and bombs during its time supporting Operation Epic Fury. You can find the details in our story about the squadron here.

In addition, an image published by The Aviationist showed “an extraordinary array of target markings on a VMFA-314 F-35C, apparently representing an oil tanker, three submarines, a surface combatant, a Shahed-type drone, an artillery piece, and several ground-based launchers.”

Marine F-35C Also Sports Three Submarine Kill Markings After Operation Epic Fury

An exclusive image obtained by The Aviationist reveals an extraordinary array of target markings on a VMFA-314 F-35C, apparently representing an oil tanker, three submarines, a surface combatant, a…

— The Aviationist (@TheAviationist) October 5, 2026

It should also be noted that some of the drone kill marks seen on the Lincoln could have been the result of shootdowns by the carrier’s escorts. The Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers USS Frank E. Petersen Jr, USS Spruance and USS Michael Murphy all serve as critical air defense platforms for the carrier strike group. Those vessels were also the ones launching the TLAMs, as well as potential submarine involvement.

Late Thursday morning local time, Lincoln finally returned home. The carrier departed San Diego on Nov. 21, 2025, and an arrival closed out a total deployment of 321 days, by our count. That’s just shy of the 326-day record USS Gerald R. Ford set in May, representing the second-longest deployment in the modern carrier era.

USS Abraham Lincoln returns to San Diego https://t.co/0eEnTqJZdU

— Reuters (@Reuters) October 8, 2026

In addition to racking up successes against Iran, the marathon deployment drew scrutiny over the grueling conditions sailors and Marines experienced aboard. In August, crew families described supply shortages and difficult living arrangements, as TWZ reported at the time. The accounts led to widespread media coverage, which Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao called dishonest while also acknowledging that “a small number of mental health cases were treated with no loss of life, meal plans were adjusted when fresh resupply was unavailable, without a single meal being missed, calls home were limited when the operational threat was too high.” At least eight personnel across the strike group attempted suicide during the cruise, Cao wrote in a letter sent to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand that was obtained by CNN.

The kill mark stencils weren’t the only symbols of Lincoln’s deployment. On Wednesday, Hegseth used symbology to push back against concerns raised about the long journey.

“There were a few folks in the media who tried to turn the USS Abraham Lincoln into some sort of a symbol,” Hegseth said. “A symbol of dysfunction, or a symbol of low morale, or a symbol of a failed mission. And what I look out right here or when I talk to your leadership, and I haven’t had a chance to talk to a number of you, I know it’s the exact opposite.”

UPDATE: 5:59 PM Eastern –

After the Lincoln pulled into its home port, new images emerged. The following picture shows additional kill marks, including 10 of submarines.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post USS Abraham Lincoln Comes Home With Its Island Superstructure Covered In Kill Marks appeared first on TWZ.

The United States is stepping up its campaign to sell Portugal the F-35. Speaking in Lisbon today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States would make Portugal a “very competitive” offer to replace its F-16 fleet. The development adds a high-level political push to an increasingly intense competition over the Portuguese Air Force’s next fighter.

Portuguese Foreign Minister Paulo Rangel said after meeting Rubio that Lisbon is seriously considering the American proposal, while emphasizing that other options remain under consideration.

“The Portuguese state will always decide in ‌accordance ⁠with the national interest,” Rangel said at a news conference after the meeting. “There is one point that is also clear: we are seriously considering the F-35 proposal, just as we are considering ⁠others.”

Portugal currently operates 25 modernized F-16AM/BMs, including 21 single-seat F-16AMs and four two-seat F-16BMs, from Monte Real Air Base, or BA5. The Portuguese Air Force, known as the Força Aérea Portuguesa (FAP), has not yet formally launched a replacement competition, but the aging fleet is increasingly becoming the focus of attention in Lisbon.

Portugal acquired a total of 45 F-16A/B Block 15 aircraft through the Peace Atlantis I and II programs.

The first 20 aircraft were delivered beginning in 1994. These were new-build F-16A/B Block 15OCU aircraft, comprising 17 single-seat F-16As and three two-seat F-16Bs, and were used to equip Esquadra 201 “Falcões.”

A second batch followed in 1999, when Portugal received 25 former U.S. Air Force Block 15OCU aircraft. Twenty-one were F-16As and four were F-16Bs, with several intended as attrition replacements or spares. These aircraft had accumulated roughly 3,000 flight hours and underwent an extensive modernization program to bring them to the F-16AM/BM configuration. This means the aircraft are broadly comparable to the U.S. Air Force’s F-16C/D Block 50/52 fleet. 

Esquadra 301 “Jaguares” finally became operational with its upgraded aircraft in 2005, while Esquadra 201 did not receive its upgraded F-16s until 2011.

Since then, the Portuguese Vipers have continued to receive incremental improvements. Their configuration has progressed through several mission-software standards, while the aircraft have been equipped with night-vision goggles, Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), and advanced targeting and weapons capabilities.

Among the more important additions are Northrop Grumman Litening II targeting pods, and the ability to employ weapons including GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs, GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), and GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway II dual-mode weapons.

Twelve former Portuguese F-16s were transferred to Romania under a deal signed in 2013, with deliveries taking place in 2016 and 2017. Romania subsequently ordered five additional aircraft in 2019.

Structurally, the Portuguese F-16s could potentially remain in service into the mid-2040s. But maintaining their relevance against increasingly sophisticated air forces would require continued investment in avionics, sensors, communications, and self-protection systems.

The F-16AM/BM fleet continues to rely on the old AN/APG-66(V)2 pulse-Doppler radar. Replacing it with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar such as Northrop Grumman’s APG-83 would substantially improve detection and tracking performance, but would come at considerable cost.

Portugal faces a choice between continuing to invest in increasingly tired fourth-generation airframes or moving directly into the fifth generation.

Since the end of the Cold War, Portugal has become much more engaged in out-of-area operations and missions in support of NATO.

In the process, the Portuguese F-16 fleet has accumulated an impressive operational record.

The fighters have repeatedly deployed on NATO air-policing missions, including rotations to the Baltic States, Iceland, Romania, and Poland.

The F-35A would give Portugal a fifth-generation fighter built around low observability, sensor fusion, advanced electronic warfare, and networked operations.

The aircraft would also fit naturally into a NATO environment in which an increasing number of European air forces are adopting the F-35.

More than 900 F-35s are already in service or on order across Europe, according to previous comments by U.S. Ambassador to Portugal John Arrigo. Washington has repeatedly argued that joining that community would provide Portugal with a substantial interoperability advantage.

However, European competition includes the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and Saab Gripen E, with Airbus preparing an especially aggressive campaign for the Typhoon.

Airbus has said it intends to submit an unsolicited Eurofighter proposal to Portugal in late October or early November. That package is expected to encompass not just the aircraft, but financing, industrial participation and broader military cooperation.

Selecting the American stealth fighter deepens Lisbon’s military relationship with Washington at a time when European governments are wrestling with fundamental questions about their dependence on U.S. military capabilities.

Across the continent, uncertainty over Washington’s stance on NATO is encouraging European allies to examine ways of reducing their reliance on American military technology, even as those same countries continue to increase defense spending and purchase U.S. equipment.

If Washington can combine the F-35’s capability advantages with an attractive acquisition and sustainment package, Portugal could find itself facing a difficult choice between the strategic benefits of joining Europe’s growing F-35 fleet and the industrial and political advantages of selecting a European fighter.

The final decision on the replacement of the F-16 will also determine what combat jet spearheads the Portuguese Air Force for the next several decades.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post U.S. Makes F-35 Push As Portugal Weighs F-16 Replacement appeared first on TWZ.

Shield AI says it is on track to roll out the first prototypes of its X-BAT jet-powered stealth ‘fighter’ drone by the end of this month. Flight testing of this uncrewed aircraft, which is designed to take off and land vertically from a tail-sitting position, is still scheduled to kick off before the end of the year. X-BAT’s core concept was already highly ambitious, but an extremely aggressive timeline to reach some degree of operational capability through the U.S. Navy’s Runway Independent Maritime Expeditionary Strike (RIMES) program has now been disclosed.

TWZ got an update on X-BAT, which we were first to report on in-depth last year, in an interview yesterday with Shield AI’s Armor Harris, Senior Vice President and General Manager of the company’s aircraft division. This came ahead of today’s announcement that the company has received an additional $150 million in funding from the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment through its Defense Exportability Features program via the Navy. This is on top of the $50 million investment the Navy, in cooperation with the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit, made in X-BAT’s development earlier this year as part of the RIMES effort. Shield AI has committed an equivalent amount of internal funding, for a combined total of $400 million.

“In broad strokes, the last year has been a bunch of collaborative risk reduction with the Navy. So, wind tunnel testing, engine testing, thermal testing, all kinds of stuff to basically take the major risks in the program, [and] burn them down, so we can move confidently into the production design,” Shield AI’s Harris told us. “The last culmination of the risk reduction is the flight testing of the two full-scale prototypes. The first one of those will be done at the end of October.”

“That’s a full-scale vehicle,” he continued. “It’s got the outer mold line, it’s got the F110 engine, the full propulsion path, everything in it.”

To date, Shield AI has only shown models of the X-BAT publicly. A new one displayed at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space 2026 exposition in April revealed major changes to the core design. This included a complete reworking of the planform from a ‘cranked kite’ type arrangement to one with a distinctly different arrowhead-shaped profile featuring a straight leading edge with a more dramatic sweep.

The video below includes clips showing the original X-BAT design and the current one.

The aforementioned “propulsion path,” testing of which has already been conducted on the ground, primarily consists of the General Electric F110 paired with an Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle (AVEN). The nozzle was originally developed in the 1990s for an experimental thrust-vectoring F-16 fighter. Shield AI is using the original AVEN, which had been in storage for decades, to support development of X-BAT. The nozzle will provide pitch and yaw control, with roll control for the drone coming from bleed air routed through thrusters in the drone’s wings.

No runway, no problem.

Shield AI and @GE_Aerospace just cleared a critical path to vertical flight, completing engine light-off testing of the Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle (AVEN) for X-BAT.

Engineers from both companies integrated the AVEN into GE Aerospace's… pic.twitter.com/OxV3y3sRKB

— Shield AI (@shieldaitech) July 20, 2026

Shield AI has previously said that the roughly fighter-sized X-BAT will have a maximum range of 2,000 nautical miles and a service ceiling of around 50,000 feet. The company has also said in the past it is targeting an effective combat radius roughly twice that of the F-35, or around 1,340 nautical miles, but also that it could be closer to 1,000 nautical miles. Space has been made within the X-BAT design for a potential in-flight refueling capability, but there is no active work yet to integrate that feature.

In terms of payload, X-BAT’s design includes internal weapons bays roughly the same size as those on the F-35, as well as two external hardpoints under the wings. Those hardpoints are plumbed, meaning that range-extending drop tanks, or even buddy refueling stores to allow the drone to act as a tanker, could be carried. Baked-in modularity and open-architecture mission systems are intended to make it easier to fit various sensors, data links, and other capabilities down the line.

“X-BAT’s really designed to be a multi-role capability, and, if you look out at the 10-20 year time horizon, it’s hard to predict what the future fight is going to look like,” Shield AI’s Harris noted. “We fundamentally believe that multi-role capabilities are critically important. And, so, X-BAT, the reason why it’s sized to where it is is [sic] to be able to carry serious strike weapons internally and externally, in addition to being able to do air-to-air [combat], electronic warfare, and other mission sets.

“You could think of it as like X-35 versus F-35,” he also said yesterday when asked about any expectations now for further changes between the initial pair of prototypes and the final production design.

Lockheed Martin’s X-35 demonstrators are, in very broad strokes, similar to, but distinct from any of the resulting variants of the Joint Strike Fighter. Shield AI has notably already talked in the past about integrating more low-observable (stealthy) attributes to the exhaust end of the design down the line.

“Then we’ll get into flight testing around the end of this year,” Harris added. “We’ll be doing vertical takeoff and landing testing with that [the initial prototypes] to actually prove out and develop the VTOL [vertical takeoff and landing] technology for X-BAT.”

Shield AI’s X-Forge 2 facility at the Newton City-County Airport in Kansas is set to be the main flight testing hub for X-BAT, as well as the focal point for sustainment of the drones. A production facility, X-Forge 3, is also being built in Des Moines, Washington. The company’s original site, X-Forge 1, is in Frisco, Texas.

In terms of the actual flight test campaign, “you remember the X-BAT system has the air vehicle and the launch and recovery vehicle, which is the trailer that it launches and lands from,” Harris said. “Basically, the way the testing works is, we start with the vehicle horizontal, sitting on that launch and recovery vehicle, running the engine. Then we bring it up vertical, run the engine vertically, run the vehicle vertically.”

“Then we have one of the biggest cranes in the world that’s getting set up at our test site in Kansas right now, and we hang the vehicle suspended from that crane and do a bunch of testing while it’s hanging from the crane in free flight,” he continued. “Then we take the crane away, and then we do the actual untethered flights.”

Shield AI’s goal is to fly a fully missionized X-BAT in 2028 and start series production the following year.

On top of that, “the way that the [RIMES] program has been structured is getting to an early operational capability in 2029 is the end goal,” Shield AI’s Harris said.

When asked if this meant that RIMES is aiming “to eventually arrive at not just a demonstration of capability, but a real operationalized capability,” he said that was “correct.”

We will come back to this more later on, but suffice it to say up front, the prospect of X-BAT reaching an operational level of maturity within three years is extraordinarily ambitious, to say the least.

In the meantime, Shield AI has already been testing the mechanisms to “latch and unlatch” X-BAT to the launch and recovery system using an unpowered “battleship” test article, according to Harris. The design of the launch and recovery system has also evolved, and it is now self-propelled, at least to a degree, rather than just being a towed trailer.

“The launch and recovery vehicle is actually critical to the operation of the X-BAT weapon system because it enables survivability on the ground. So when you’re operating in a land-based environment, it enables basically shoot-and-scoot tactics,” Harris also noted. “Enemy transporter-erector-launchers [for missiles] are like pretty hard to find because they’re constantly moving around. Just like X-BAT, when it’s mated onto the launch and recovery vehicle, [it] is always moving around, makes it hard to track, hard to find, hard to destroy.”

The plan now is to “build the one-to-one launch and recovery vehicles to air vehicles. So the air vehicle is always on the trailer. It never comes off of it,” he continued. “Even maintenance to the air vehicle is done while it’s sitting on that launch and recovery vehicle.”

“In fact, we’re actually planning on building more than one-to-one of the launch and recovery vehicles, so that way you can preposition them around different islands, different places in the theater, and have multiple places the aircraft can lily pad from,” he added. “But you’re never putting multiple aircraft onto one launcher and launching them or something like that.”

“When you typically operate a jet, there’s a whole bunch of ground carts and stuff that you bring, like the ground power cart, the ground cooling cart, the air start cart, etc,” Harris further elaborated. “So we’ve moved a lot of those systems onto [the] launch and recovery vehicles, so you don’t have all these separate carts, which is pretty critical when you’re trying to do expeditionary operations.”

“The model for land-based operations is kind of a hub-and-spoke type model. So the squadrons are based at air bases. All the fuel and the weapons are generally based at the air bases, as well. But then you can distribute the aircraft all over the airfield,” he continued. “So, you think about what the enemy’s doing, they’re targeting the runways, they’re targeting the tarmacs, but you can disperse the aircraft around the perimeter of the airfield. You can launch them from the golf course. You can launch them from empty space in the taxiway, etc.”

Harris said that another “spoke” could be X-BATs operating from forward arming and refueling points (FARP). All of this is part of larger concepts of operations for the drone that Shield has been envisioning, and that are not at all limited to deployments at locations on land. Harris noted during the interview that the self-propelled nature of the current launch and recovery system would also help with moving the drones around on virtually any ship with sufficient deck space. This is where the RIMES program, which is separate and distinct from the U.S. Navy’s carrier-based Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drone ambitions, really comes in.

“I’ll say the fundamental value proposition of RIMES is that if you have a carrier-based CCA, you’re fundamentally constrained by the square footage of the deck of the aircraft carrier,” Harris explained. “So if you are taking an F-18 or an F-35 off, you better be replacing it with better capability per square foot of deck space than the thing that you’re taking off.”

“So, F/A-XX [the Navy’s sixth-generation carrier-based fighter, now to be built by Boeing] is a huge leap in capability, right? Which is why that program makes a lot of sense,” he continued. “The challenge with CCA is: Does it really make sense to take a manned aircraft off of an aircraft carrier and replace it with an unmanned aircraft?”

Shield AI’s argument here is that X-BAT disrupts this core equation by opening the door to a CCA-like capability, or even something more capable, that can be employed in a ship-based mode without sacrificing any crewed aircraft capacity on an aircraft carrier. Shield AI envisions dozens of X-BATs being employed from amphibious assault ships, as well as other kinds of amphibious warfare ships, including expeditionary sea base type vessels, as seen at the top of this story.

“So when you think about the number of carrier air wings that the Navy has to deploy, deploying X-BAT across all these other ships basically significantly increases the number of carrier air wings,” Harris said.

As already mentioned, the current structure of the RIMES includes a target for an early operational capability in 2029, according to Harris. “We have a program defined to get there, and there’s basically milestone-based payments along the way, so as Shield performs and hits milestones, then the Navy kicks in additional funding,” he added.

“I don’t want to get ahead of the Navy, and give you a specific number, but like hundreds to low thousands,” he also said when asked if there was even a very rough planning figure for the eventual size of the RIMES drone fleet.

Many questions remain about X-BAT, which still has to demonstrate the viability of its vertical takeoff and landing capability, which underpins everything else. As we noted in our original in-depth report on this design, the core concept here is not new, and there have been many unsuccessful attempts to operationalize it in the past. There has been skepticism that Shield AI’s effort will succeed where others have failed. The company is of the view that groundwork has now been more firmly laid, including through its own work with its much smaller internal combustion-engine-powered V-BAT tail-sitting VTOL drone, to truly realize a design of this kind.

The performance and capabilities that Shield AI expects from X-BAT once it is flying at all are also ambitious. A high degree of autonomy is also part of the full planned package, which will leverage the company’s already extensive work in this domain with its Hivemind software.

There are also questions about the Navy’s exact plans for RIMES, as well as its broader future drone fleets. Just this year, the service has issued several contracting notices pointing to rapidly evolving views about future carrier-based strike drones and other uncrewed aircraft. New requirements that Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) released in August ostensibly for future CCA-type drones notably pointed more toward something that sounded very much like an advanced uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV), as you can read more about here.

Whether the 2029 operational timeframe the Navy is said to be aiming for under RIMES is firm, or even realistic in any way, remains to be seen. The actual definition of what constitutes an “early operational capability” could be very flexible, as well. It is also worth noting here that Shield AI is not the only company currently conducting work under RIMES. Whether the Navy might be planning to acquire more than one design through this program is unclear. We have reached out to the service for more information.

Other services could be interested in any operational capability produced through the RIMES effort, too. TWZ regularly highlights how runway-independent drones would be particularly well-suited to the U.S. Marine Corps’ new expeditionary and distributed concepts of operations. That service is already in the process of acquiring MQ-58B Valkyrie drones from Kratos that will be able to operate from conventional runways. They will also be capable of runway-independent launches, though they will still have to land conventionally. The baseline Valkyrie design lands via parachute.

Aviation Week has reported separately today that Shield AI is looking to pitch the X-BAT to the U.S. Army as a successor to that service’s fleet of MQ-1C Gray Eagle armed drones.

In general, runway independence is of growing interest elsewhere across the U.S. military as threats to large, established bases continue to expand in scale and scope. The proliferation of various tiers of weaponized drones is a particularly significant factor in this, as TWZ just examined in detail this week in the context of the recent withdrawal of B-1 bombers from RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom. Ever more capable cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missiles are also part of the full threat picture.

The conflict with Iran has also underscored the limits of what can be gained survivability-wise by dispersing traditional fixed-wing aircraft, especially within an existing airbase. As highlighted earlier, X-BAT could be dispersed very differently to nearly anywhere within a facility that can handle the thrust from the F110 engine in hover.

As it stands now, we are set to get our first view of a full-sized X-BAT prototype within the next few weeks as Shield AI continues to gear up for the start of actual flight testing before the end of the year.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Navy Doubles Down On X-BAT VTOL ‘Fighter’ Drone Development appeared first on TWZ.

The testing plan for the U.S. Air Force’s sixth-generation F-47 fighter is continuing to take shape ahead of the type’s expected first flight in 2028. The Air Force Test Center (AFTC) aims to blend developmental and operational test elements, and leverage new tools in the virtual realm, to help accelerate that work. All of this is in support of an aggressive program schedule that aims to see the first production F-47s enter operational service in the early 2030s.

Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark Massaro, head of the AFTC, was asked about how the groundwork is being laid for F-47 testing during a virtual talk the Air & Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies hosted yesterday. AFTC is located at Edwards Air Force Base in California, which is the Air Force’s main flight testing hub.

“So, I’ll leave timelines to the [F-47] program office and other folks to talk to, but what I will tell you are some of the things that we’re doing to accelerate our test capabilities to get critical capabilities out the door,” Massaro explained. “Integrated test is a key component.”

“So, how we mix together the DT [developmental test] and OT [operational test] elements, how we bring our operational test partners in earlier to define the requirements early on in the test planning process,” he continued. “We understand that the information that we can get early on in a program may have applicability to that final operational test requirement to establish whether it’s effective and suitable to the end user. So that’s a key component to accelerating test capabilities.”

There has always been overlap in development and operational test efforts for new U.S. military aircraft, but the Air Force has been taking steps to more deeply integrate these processes in recent years. The F-15EX Eagle II fighter, which reached initial operational capability in 2024, was the first ever Air Force aircraft to be fully tested and fielded through DT and OT efforts conducted in parallel, as you can read more about here. The service has more recently applied these concepts to the B-21 Raider program with test flights where developmental and operational test pilots have shared the cockpit.

“Another thing that we’ve learned over time too, if you think back to software testing and you think about agile software development, is having an iterative capability that you constantly iterate on,” Brig. Gen. Massaro also highlighted yesterday. “So, thinking about how we can structure our software, or our software testing, our capabilities testing.”

In this way, “we have those opportunities to inform decision makers on a regular cadence on what type of capability they may have at a certain timeline to be able to issue out to a warfighter on a time that might not be a normal milestone chart,” he continued. “We’re really working to incorporate into our test planning processes.”

“Another thing – and I kind of alluded to it a little bit earlier, too – is on the digital front, using our software tools, that super intelligence, graphic processing units, which have a significantly higher capability to process information, to really refine model iteration,” the AFTC head added. “Those models and flight test data [can be used] to update things like computational fluid dynamics when you’re doing tests like loads and high-alpha maneuvering to get information quicker from a flight test back into the program.”

Those “digital tools” can also be used “to accelerate how that information then goes back into a design choice or change if they need to make it,” he continued. “Coming up with those opportunities to use those tools in a test design and in a program” can then further help “to accelerate that final schedule delivery.”

Even very high-fidelity modeling in the digital realm is still not a substitute for real-world flight tests. However, Brig. Gen. Mark Massaro spoke more generally yesterday about how AFTC has been blending digital and live testing to maximize their respective benefits.

“We use models to develop our capabilities, and we need to anchor those models in truth, in physics, and an understanding of what happens in the real world,” the AFTC head stressed. “Outside of a cyber system, all of our capabilities touch the real world and touch physics, and we need to understand those dynamics. So, the models that we use to do design work, to do iterative type[s] of developmental work, and, in ways, operational work, too, need to be anchored in that real world truth.”

At the same time, “we can’t replicate what we need to go and test, and develop tactics and operationally test, in the real world on some of our ranges,” he also noted. “So, from a geographic perspective, just the width and the depth and the height of the ranges to the laydown of the systems that we have to see on the ranges to be able to execute against a threat, [and] the numbers that we might have to be testing.”

Blending real and virtualized elements can therefore be very valuable.

An “element that we’ve done in the developmental world for quite a while, that are [sic] part of this conversation, are plugging in, even though it’s a virtual environment, plugging in real world hardware into that virtual environment,” Massaro offered as one example. “So, you’re getting real-world software, the OFPs [operational flight program software], or you’re getting real-world sensing information coming into that virtual environment and feeding it there.”

Virtualized elements can also be added to real-world flight test events in various ways. The Air Force, among others, is also making use of these so-called live, virtual, constructive (LVC) concepts for training purposes for many of the same general reasons, including limited range capacity.

It is also worth noting here that the F-47 program is already benefiting from years of flight testing in secret using full-scale demonstrator aircraft. A substantial amount of simulation and modeling would also already have been done as a byproduct. A simulator likely already exists, as well, which could be used for risk reduction and fine-tuning of the F-47 design, as well as testing flight dynamics.

The Air Force has also leveraged its F-22 Raptor fleet to help in the development of relevant advanced capabilities. Back in 2023, the service announced that it was outright transforming its existing F-22 test force into one that would support the broader Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative. F-47 is part of the larger NGAD effort, as is the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drone program, along with work on new weapons, jet engines, and more.

Though much about the F-47 program remains highly classified, the Air Force has consistently said that the program continues to be on track. Prime contractor Boeing is now building the first flying example, and construction is already well underway to establish a full production line. As mentioned, the target date for a first flight is currently in 2028, ahead of operational fielding in the early 2030s. As an aside, Boeing has also now won the contract to develop the Navy’s sixth-generation carrier-based fighter, currently referred to as F/A-XX.

AFTC is doing its part now to be ready to support the flight testing that will be needed to keep the F-47 program on track in the coming years.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post How The Groundwork For F-47 Flight Testing Is Being Laid appeared first on TWZ.

As part of the largest U.K. Commando Force exercise in 15 years, British special operators conducted a submarine insertion off Scotland, making use of a German Navy Type 212A — a boat you can read about in detail here. The maneuvers are the first time since the war in Afghanistan that all of the Commando Force’s specialist elements have operated together. The submarine insertion, conducted at Cape Wrath on September 29, is part of Exercise Strike Warrior, a major NATO drill intended to rehearse allied crisis-response and warfighting operations across the North Atlantic and High North.

The U.K. Royal Navy-led Commando Force specializes in amphibious, littoral, and expeditionary operations. It brings together Royal Marines commandos with specialist elements including reconnaissance, intelligence, targeting, artillery, logistics, and medical capabilities. The force is increasingly focused on smaller, dispersed teams operating across contested littoral environments.

Including elements of the Commando Force, more than 2,000 personnel from the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Netherlands, Canada, and Norway are currently participating in Strike Warrior, with eight warships and 19 aircraft involved in activity spanning Scotland, the Western Isles, the North-West Approaches, Galloway, the Borders and the North Sea.

The submarine insertion underscores the type of maritime special operations the British Commando Force is now increasingly training to conduct. Personnel from 148 (Meiktila) Commando Forward Observation Battery, Royal Artillery, boarded the unnamed German attack submarine off Scotland before being infiltrated toward the coast. The sub provided intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support as the force approached the target area, after which the commandos conducted a discreet small-boat insertion using inflatable raiding craft.

Once ashore, the commandos moved onto the cliffs and established an extemporized observation post. From there, they confirmed the simulated target and coordinated live naval surface fires against a simulated enemy position. Here, firepower was provided by the Portuguese Karel Doorman class frigate Dom Francisco de Almeida, presumably using its Oto Melara 76mm deck gun. Following the engagement, the team was extracted. The complete sequence incorporated submarine infiltration, small-boat insertion, covert reconnaissance and targeting, live naval gunfire, and withdrawal into a single mission profile.

The German submarine involved is particularly well suited to this kind of mission. Conventional diesel-electric attack submarines (SSK) lack the nuclear-powered endurance and sustained high speed of an SSN, but those characteristics are not necessarily what a short-range clandestine insertion mission requires. Modern SSKs such as Germany’s Type 212A are designed around extremely low acoustic signatures and can remain submerged for extended periods using air-independent propulsion, making them difficult to detect while operating in relatively shallow and constrained waters.

That combination is hugely valuable for special operations. An SSK can approach a coastline covertly, conduct ISR, release a small team and its boats, and withdraw without exposing a large surface vessel or maintaining the high-speed transit capability associated with a nuclear submarine. Its comparatively small size can also be advantageous when operating closer to shore, where depth, seabed conditions and the presence of coastal sensors can constrain larger submarines. Conventionally powered boats are also far cheaper to procure and operate and have smaller crews.

An SSN offers major advantages for longer-range deployments: far greater endurance, sustained speed, and the ability to carry and support larger payloads over intercontinental distances. These payloads can include dry deck shelters and swimmer delivery vehicles, allowing divers easy exit and entrance while the boat is submerged and at a standoff distance from the coast.

But for a mission whose essential requirement is to quietly loiter near a coast, put a small team ashore and leave, an SSK remains a highly relevant platform. Conventional submarines are particularly valuable to the kind of distributed littoral operations NATO is rehearsing in northern European waters.

The U.K. Royal Navy’s four Upholder class were its last diesel-electric submarines. They were withdrawn in 1994–95 and subsequently transferred to Canada. The Royal Navy today operates an all-nuclear submarine fleet.

The Upholders were also particularly suited to inshore operations, reconnaissance, and other missions demanding extreme quietness and maneuverability.

With this in mind, TWZ has, in the past, examined whether the U.S. Navy should complement its all-nuclear submarine fleet with advanced conventional boats. Sweden’s Gotland demonstrated the value of these kinds of boats when it was leased to the U.S. Navy for adversary training and proved exceptionally difficult for American ASW forces to detect.

Returning to the Cape Wrath drill, the 148 Battery operations officer involved explained that “This level of complexity and coordination of live assets has not been achieved by 148 for nearly 30 years.”

“We wanted to demonstrate to our partners across the United Kingdom Commando Force, wider U.K. Defense and NATO SOF community the type of missions we are prepared to execute against future threats,” the officer added.

Multinational integration is central to the exercise. Strike Warrior is testing the ability of the British Commando Force to plug into a much larger allied force in which submarines, surface combatants, aircraft, drones, and small specialist teams can contribute to different parts of the same operation.

Earlier in Strike Warrior, 148 Battery also directed fires from the Dutch Karel Doorman class frigate HNLMS Van Amstel and Royal Canadian Navy Halifax class frigate HMCS St. John’s after establishing observation posts. Those ships were operating as part of Standing NATO Maritime Group One.

The exercise also provides a snapshot of how Britain’s commandos have evolved since their intensive employment in Afghanistan. The Royal Marines’ Future Commando Force concept emphasizes smaller, more dispersed formations capable of operating in contested littoral environments, with greater reliance on maritime mobility, uncrewed systems, long-range fires, and allied capabilities.

Strike Warrior combines those elements, with the exercise including amphibious landings, boarding operations, intelligence and surveillance missions, maritime security, and anti-submarine warfare, alongside drone missions involving strikes and combat resupply. Other elements have practiced establishing protected medical facilities.

The geography of Strike Warrior is equally significant. The exercise extends across Scotland and its surrounding waters, including the Western Isles and out into the North Sea, placing the Commando Force in the maritime environment connecting the highly strategic North Atlantic, Norwegian Sea, and northern European approaches.

That region has become increasingly important to NATO planning because of the difficulty of monitoring and controlling such a large maritime battlespace. Submarines, maritime patrol aircraft, surface combatants, drones, and long-range weapons all have roles to play, while the geography provides numerous opportunities for small forces to operate from the coast and islands.

The United Kingdom has been repeatedly using the region and the wider High North as a training ground for this type of activity. Earlier this year, British commandos conducted a submarine insertion during Exercise Cold Response in Norway using the German Navy’s Type 212A submarine U-35. That also involved submarine infiltration, small-boat deployment, establishment of an observation post, and the direction of allied naval fires.

Strike Warrior expands that concept considerably and across a much larger battlespace, providing an opportunity to test not simply individual capabilities but the ability to combine them during a sustained NATO exercise.

The exercise began September 28 and concludes October 9.

For the British Commando Force, the significance extends beyond the dramatic imagery of troops emerging from a German submarine at Cape Wrath. After years in which British commandos were heavily committed to land-based counterinsurgency operations, the exercise is intended to put them firmly back in a maritime and high-end warfighting context.

This is the kind of operation that the U.K. Commando Force is now preparing to conduct alongside NATO partners in the increasingly contested waters of the North Atlantic and High North.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post British Commandos Emerge From German Submarine During Major NATO Exercise appeared first on TWZ.

The UH-60 Black Hawk has been the rugged workhorse of U.S. Army aviation for nearly 50 years, with around 4,000 examples currently in service with 36 nations worldwide. Many of these helicopters, and new aircraft coming off the line, are set to fly as far out as 2070, and Sikorsky is curating a suite of upgrades to keep them valuable assets for the future fight. A new “digital backbone” is designed to underpin swift technological insertions such as launched effects, with related initiatives including the provision of more power to lug greater payloads, and the fully-autonomous U-Hawk cargo drone variant.

“As part of an overall “Black Hawk 2070” modernization effort we’re developing a number of complementary capabilities, including our U-Hawk uncrewed cargo variant, which we plan to fly later this year,” Jason Wrigley, Sikorsky’s director of business development for Black Hawk, told TWZ at the company’s Stratford plant in Connecticut.

“A new digital backbone for the Black Hawk is at an advanced design phase in our labs and it’s designed to provide interfaces throughout the aircraft that will provide power, data, a network, cooling and most importantly, open architecture interfaces that enable the easy integration of new equipment, such as sensors. We see this as a core building block for the next generation of Black Hawk, along with new engines and other airframe improvements designed to futureproof the platform.”

The new digital backbone is designed to work in concert with a modern, software-driven strategy that meets the Army’s Modular Open Systems Approach and the desire to add technologies cheaper, faster, and more easily. Wrigley says that as customers identify new capabilities and needs for their Black Hawks, the digital backbone will be sufficiently efficient to permit customization even on a mission-by-mission basis. Sikorsky is also introducing a new modular nose to the H-60, which is reconfigurable with sufficient volume to support even more sensors and electronics.

“There’s a big focus on open architecture and that ability to quickly plug-and-play,” says Wrigley. “The new modular nose will change the look of the Black Hawk up front to provide even more space for equipment that will work directly with the new digital architecture.”

The new modular nose will give the Black Hawk more than twice the internal volume of the original nose section and it’s designed to provide space for internal electronics and an integrated mount for external sensor pods. It is designed to provide sufficient space to accommodate electronics that enable roles such as search and rescue, drone control, and flying in degraded environments, and it will also house some of the equipment required as the Black Hawk’s autonomous capabilities expand.

Joshua Powers spent 22 years as an Army Aviation officer flying the Black Hawk, and he’s well qualified for his new role with Sikorsky handling business development for rapid capabilities insertions. “Army units know the Black Hawk inside out; how to fly it, maintain it, and use it to maximum effect. The upgrades we are developing will bring new capabilities faster, without time-consuming and complex changes to sustainment, training, and operations, plus we are adding more range, more payload, and more power to meet the demands of the Indo-Pacific region.”

“I find it amazing to pair new technology with a rugged platform like the Black Hawk. These new innovations are needed to meet the needs of the new complex battlefield. The fight I fought in Iraq is very different from the current operating environment and what future warriors are going to go up against, and what we’re asking them to do is very different from what came before.”

Bringing autonomous co-pilots to the Black Hawk

Autonomy is a central pillar of Sikorsky’s strategy for the future Black Hawk. The company’s MATRIX autonomy software is now being matured on a UH-60M variant, and while it’s not necessarily designed to completely replace pilots, MATRIX will assume some of their workload, making flying safer and simpler as mission sets grow increasingly complex and dangerous. “Pilots that are controlling collaborative drones, for example, need to be able to focus on the drone mission, and autonomy will help lighten their cognitive load,” explains Wrigley.

“The standard Black Hawk crew operates with two pilots. Adding our MATRIX autonomy system gives the operator options – a single pilot could fly without an unbearable workload and still fulfil a mission commander role, for example. The Army could then operate the Black Hawk with no pilots at all when that’s the appropriate option.”

Sikorsky’s MATRIX autonomy has been developed on the company’s UH-60A fly-by-wire Optionally Piloted Black Hawk, which has been tested by Sikorsky and Army aviators. MATRIX has accumulated more than 1,000 flight hours across 500 tests and demonstrations. It has already been integrated on over 20 different platforms, including on the Black Hawk for testing by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Army in multiple exercises.

“We delivered the first UH-60MX to the Army earlier this year,” says Wrigley. The delivery marked the first full authority fly-by-wire and optionally-piloted UH-60 in the Army fleet. “They are using it for testing and soldier feedback to develop tactics, techniques and procedures for the autonomous Black Hawk. We have since received a contract to deliver three more MX aircraft to the Army.” 

MATRIX autonomy kits have now been installed on all three U.S. Army Black Hawk models; the UH-60A, UH-60L and UH-60M. Sikorsky plans to incorporate autonomy options into all Black Hawks as they are built, plus the MATRIX system will be able to be retrofitted to existing examples.

Powers is well aware of the benefits autonomy will provide from complex combat operations to more mundane day-to-day missions. “Flying at night and seeing the tracer fire coming up at you, things like that, I honestly feel that’s not the big threat. It’s when you’re going to land and there’s just a big dust cloud. When you’re tired, you aren’t as focused. Having MATRIX, whether that’s with one, two, or no pilots, it’s about that reduced workload on the mission. Pilots won’t be as fatigued, plus they have the safety net of a fully autonomous aircraft that can, if needed, land in all of those difficult environments. It will give commanders more operational flexibility and the ability to mitigate risk in less-than-ideal conditions dictated by the enemy or weather.”

“The Black Hawk operation isn’t just about pilots, it’s also that integrated four-person crew. As a pilot, you’re relying on your senses and also on the guys in the back to watch out and tell you where you’re going. MATRIX is just going to help that team effort and put you in a better position to bring the crew back safely. It integrates all the systems and sensors and uses altitude, airspeed, radar altimeter, drift indications, and puts the fly-by-wire technology to where it can make rapid adjustments and changes based on what it’s seeing with the sensors.”

The volume of testing, the maturity, and the confidence in MATRIX helped Sikorsky to develop the S-70UAS, or U-Hawk, which was unveiled in 2025. The U-Hawk project essentially removes the cockpit and its associated equipment from a Black Hawk and replaces the front end with cargo doors to provide a huge internal space as a supply drone.

“We acquired a used UH-60L Black Hawk as the template for our initial U-Hawk. We added the clamshell doors and that was the actual aircraft that we showed at AUSA last year,” says Wrigley. “Since then we’ve been adding the fly-by-wire and integrating the MATRIX autonomy. It’s currently in our innovations hangar in Bridgeport, Connecticut, getting the final work done and it will make its first flight as a U-Hawk later this year.”

Sikorsky sees the U-Hawk as a natural evolution for the Black Hawk in contested logistics missions, when cargo needs to be moved but the threat is sufficiently high that it drives a need for uncrewed platforms to tackle the mission. 

“We’re spending a lot of time on the U-Hawk and its roles. As well as being an uncrewed cargo helicopter, it can also be a truck that can carry a large volume of launched effects,” explains Wrigley. “There are Black Hawk models on the market right now that are being divested, and we see those as being an ideal option for conversion to U-Hawk configuration to affordably introduce this capability to the market.”

Drone dispenser

The integration of small drones dubbed ‘launched effects’ into rotary-wing operations is a major initiative from the Army as a new means to collect intelligence for commanders on the battlefield, relay communications, jam and distract enemy emitters, and act as loitering munitions. These mini air-launched drones can be carried and fired from stub-wing-mounted launchers, with other concepts seeing larger volumes of them carried inside the cabin as a “mega-pack,” with Sikorsky seeing both as being highly-applicable to both the Black Hawk and the U-Hawk.

This is exactly the kind of capability that the digital backbone in the Black Hawk is intended to open the door to; installing plug-and-play drone command kits, which could enable the Black Hawk to act as a “drone mothership” to launch, task, and command swarms of multi-mission launched effects.

The Army tested its latest operational concepts for launched effects during the Project Convergence Capstone 6 demonstration event this summer. This annual exercise is designed to develop concepts and tactics as well as gather soldier feedback, as it works to transition new systems into service. The latest exercise built on previous launched effects testing on the Black Hawk, when a UH-60M deployed Anduril’s Altius-700 launched effects that then operated as an autonomous hunter-killer team to locate targets, share data on those targets, and then strike them, without the need for the Black Hawk to expose itself to threats.

“As a young Black Hawk pilot, the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior was the primary scout platform, but it was limited by range and its ability to be detected,” explains Joshua Powers. “Today, we launch small drones that can remain unseen and they can give us real-time feedback. Launched effects make our lift assets more capable.”

“We see the Black Hawk as the aircraft capable of carrying, deploying and then acting as an airborne mission command node for launched effects,” adds Jason Wrigley. “In the operational environment of the future, it’s really about the mass of those launched effects. This isn’t about carrying one or two of them, this is about carrying and controlling a large number of them.”

“We’ve tested them on the stub-wings, but we are also exploring what we call “quiver” – that large number of launched effects inside the cabin in that “mega-pack.” This creates additional opportunities for mass that we think is going to be really critical. We’ve done a lot of operational analysis in concert with the Army on what the right mix of launched effects might be to extend the standoff range of the aircraft to improve survivability – which is of course what it’s all about – but the right mix will ultimately come down to the mission. We have seen a lot of testing over the past few years, so we do believe this is a capability that can be introduced operationally soon on the Black Hawk.”

More power for more missions

To support the increased lift that might be needed for a missionized Black Hawk lugging large payloads, including an arsenal of launched effects, Sikorsky is well along in development of a new engine that is designed to create over 1,000 pounds of increased payload capacity and increased range for the Black Hawk. The T901 Improved Turbine Engine (ITE) from GE Aerospace provides 50 percent more horsepower over the existing T700 engines in the UH-60M.

“One of the key building blocks of the future of the Black Hawk are the twin ITEs as we look to expand the mission capability and the utility of this aircraft for decades to come,” explains Wrigley. Sikorsky began initial testing of the first UH-60M with ITE in January 2025. “We are actively in the test program right now at our test facility in West Palm Beach, Florida. The twin ITEs in each Black Hawk and that additional power translates into some pretty significant operational opportunities. Since our first flight with ITE in May 2025 we’ve flown the aircraft with the new engine for over 50 hours and up to 17,000 ft above sea level.”

Sikorsky is accompanying the addition of the new engines with a significant expansion of the fuel tank to increase capacity and range. This is being done without impinging on cabin volume and thus retaining the important ability to transport 11 combat troops, while increasing range by around 100 nautical miles. “The T901 also improves fuel efficiency and eases maintenance – so overall we are really improving the payload capacity of the aircraft. We’ll be getting to the milestone C production decision on ITE within the next couple of years, and at that point it will become a core element of the Black Hawk program going forward,” Wrigley explains.

Building Black Hawks

Touring the Black Hawk production line in Stratford, Connecticut, it’s a hive of activity. Many of the major components for each helicopter are manufactured here. The long final assembly line sees teams of workers busily constructing UH-60M and HH-60M medevac Black Hawks for both domestic and foreign military sales customers, along with new HH-60W Combat Rescue Helicopters for the U.S. Air Force and MH-60R Seahawks.

“We’re designing all of these upgrades with the intent that they will all be available off the production line in new build aircraft, as well as in kit form for upgrades to existing assets in the field,” notes Wrigley. “Here in Stratford in what we call the “back shop” we build all the rotor blades, gearboxes, and many other components that go into each aircraft. We are already thinking ahead and we’ve invested significantly into additive manufacturing, with 11 parts on the Black Hawk today that are additively manufactured. It’s a great place to start, but there’s a long way to go and we’re working on qualifying more challenging components and load-bearing parts.”

Cohesively, the digital backbone, larger fuel tank, new engines, and the new modular nose will all be introduced on the production floor in the coming years to pave the way for that increased payload capacity to carry fully-equipped combat troops, supplies, and all the new kit needed for the future fight and the Black Hawk’s role as a multi-mission forward battlefield node. The autonomous U-Hawk and the optionally piloted flexibility afforded by MATRIX – all of these pieces of the future Black Hawk are presently coming together under an overarching effort.

“The future Black Hawk will be that complement to the future long-range MV-75 Cheyenne II,” says Powers. “These won’t be a one-for-one replacement for every Black Hawk currently in the fleet – the MV-75 has a specific purpose and function that the Black Hawk isn’t designed to do. What the Black Hawk can do with these new upgrades is shape the battlefield and with its autonomy be out there flying missions into contested environments.”

“Those homeland missions are equally necessary. I recall talking about this in flight school when choosing an aircraft to fly, how it’s one thing to be deployed on combat missions, but it’s also about being back in the homeland on disaster relief when you need the Black Hawk to go out and save lives, those kinds of missions the Army National Guard does – it really underlines the importance and versatility of the Black Hawk.”

Over the past 50 years and looking ahead to the next 50, continuing the proven legacy of the Black Hawk will mean constant evolution to meet new missions and needs. Sikorsky’s task is for all of these new elements to meld into a future Black Hawk that’s ready to roll off this production line soon, that still also provides the same dependable, rugged capability for the Army at home or overseas, well into the future.

The post Sikorsky’s “Black Hawk 2070” Strategy Includes Drones, New Engines, And Flying The Pilotless U-Hawk This Year appeared first on TWZ.

Castelion has released what appears to be the first image of its relatively ‘cheap’ Blackbeard hypersonic missile being fired from a ground launcher, providing a new look at the containerized launch architecture now under development for the U.S. Army.

The photograph, posted by Castelion on X, shows a Blackbeard missile leaving a launcher mounted on a high-mobility truck chassis. While the missile itself is by now a familiar sight, the new image offers a first public glimpse of how Castelion intends to package and operate the ground-launched version of Blackbeard, known as Blackbeard GL.

Container-compatible Blackbeard. Built to move with the fight. pic.twitter.com/OzWbiChCPQ

— Castelion (@Castelion) October 8, 2026

The Army’s previously disclosed plans for the program call for an initial Blackbeard ground-launch demonstration using a modified Multiple Launch Rocket System Family of Munitions, or MFOM, pod, followed by the development of Blackbeard GL prototypes and a dedicated launcher pod. Ultimately, the service intends to conduct an MVP flight test using the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System’s (HIMARS) fire-control system.

Blackbeard for HIMARS. pic.twitter.com/uA9XgcGvsI

— Castelion (@Castelion) August 3, 2026

The Army’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget documentation indicates that this effort is moving toward increasingly representative hardware. Among the milestones listed for FY2027 is a live-fire launch of a “production representative” Blackbeard GL and launcher pod.

Castelion has already released extensive imagery of Blackbeard test vehicles, and the company formally unveiled the weapon’s current external configuration earlier this year. Those images showed a two-stage arrangement with a booster and an upper vehicle that has characteristics consistent with a hypersonic glide or maneuvering payload. Compared to the air-launched version, seen below, the ground-launch model lacks the cruciform tailfins at the rear of the lower stage, but otherwise appears similar.

The precise propulsion system and flight profile of the production weapon remain undisclosed. Little is known about its performance parameters, either. Castelion has previously hinted that the missile could strike targets at ranges of just under 500 miles, although its range would likely be reduced when launched from the ground, without the altitude and speed provided by an aircraft launch platform.

The launcher appears to use a relatively compact enclosed container, consistent with the Army’s stated interest in leveraging the existing MFOM ecosystem and, eventually, HIMARS. The photograph doesn’t establish how many Blackbeards could be carried by a single launcher, although, based on the dimensions, at least two and perhaps as many as four missiles appears a feasible load.

Exactly how closely the pictured launcher corresponds to the eventual production Blackbeard GL pod is also not yet clear. Castelion has previously stressed that its test hardware is deliberately designed to support rapid development cycles and should not necessarily be interpreted as representative of the final weapon system.

Castelion had previously shown Blackbeard-related test articles alongside palletized launch equipment, including launch hardware mounted on an Oshkosh MKR18 Logistics Vehicle System Replacement truck. The company has also said it was converting such a vehicle into a launcher for flight testing. That appears to be the vehicle shown in the new image, too.

The Army’s interest in Blackbeard GL is rooted in cost as much as performance.

The service has described the weapon as an affordable, mass-produced hypersonic precision-fire capability intended to engage time-sensitive moving and hardened targets. The stated objective has been to obtain roughly 80 percent of the capability of the Army’s planned Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Increment 4 while achieving a substantially lower cost per round.

Existing U.S. hypersonic weapons such as the Army’s Dark Eagle Long Range Hypersonic Weapon use large, highly specialized launch equipment. Blackbeard is instead being developed around the idea that a hypersonic weapon can be sufficiently compact, inexpensive, and manufacturable to be treated more like a conventional tactical munition.

A containerized launcher compatible with an existing mobile fires ecosystem would reinforce that concept. It could allow the Army to introduce a new hypersonic effect without creating an entirely separate launcher, crew, transport, and reload architecture.

The ground-launched version is only one part of Castelion’s broader Blackbeard effort.

The company is also working with the Navy to integrate the weapon onto the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. In April, Castelion received a $105 million Navy contract supporting integration and the transition toward an early operational capability, while a subsequent $23.4 million order covered 50 early-operational-capability pre-production missiles and associated storage and shipping containers.

The Navy has since moved into additional procurement, underscoring Castelion’s effort to establish Blackbeard as a weapon that can be produced in the quantities required. Blackbeard could also find its way onto Navy ships and submarines, as well as ground-based launchers, as we have discussed in the past.

As for the Army, the next major milestone will be the planned production-representative Blackbeard GL and launcher-pod live-fire testing.

“Once Castelion achieves testing and validation, the Department will award a two-year multi-year procurement contract for a minimum of 500 Blackbeard missiles annually, with options to extend for up to five years,” the Pentagon announced in May of this year. “To further encourage Castelion’s self-funded facility expansion, the Department is actively seeking the necessary authorizations and appropriations to purchase over 12,000 Blackbeard missiles over five years.”

This reflects a broader and accelerating U.S. military push for lower-cost precision weapons that can be manufactured relatively simply and at scale, increasingly with help from non-traditional defense contractors. The goal is to build large stockpiles affordably before a major contingency, particularly a potential large-scale conflict with China in the Pacific, while ensuring production can keep pace with demand during a prolonged war.

For now, Castelion has demonstrated what the Army’s Blackbeard launch system actually looks like when it fires, at least in its initial form.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Blackbeard Hypersonic Missile Shown Being Fired From Ground Launcher appeared first on TWZ.

Multiple reports now say that U.S. Air Force B-1 Lancers left the United Kingdom over the weekend due to the threat of an Iranian-directed near-field drone attack broadly akin to Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb that decimated Russian bombers. Though many specific details are still unconfirmed, this is an entirely plausible mode of attack that TWZ has been warning about for many years now.

Short- and long-range drone threats against parked aircraft have now morphed fully from theory to reality, as also demonstrated by losses in the course of the conflict with Iran, and even non-state actors are increasingly brandishing these capabilities. Despite the increasing dangers posed to planes out on open flightlines, the Pentagon continues to drag its feet on building hardened aircraft shelters and other fortified air base infrastructure.

Before the hasty and unexpected departure of the bombers on Sunday, B-1s had been deployed to RAF Fairford continuously since March, initially in support of Operation Epic Fury against Iran. A contingent of B-52s had also conducted strikes on Iran from Fairford, but left back in July. The base is a major operational hub for the U.S. military in the United Kingdom, and regularly hosts strategic aircraft, including bombers and U-2 spy planes.

Dan Rivers, U.S. correspondent for ITV News in the United Kingdom, was among the first to report on Monday that the B-1’s quick departure had been prompted by concerns about a potential Spiderweb-like drone attack ordered by Iran, citing an unnamed source. Other outlets have subsequently reported similar details, all sourced to anonymous U.S. and British officials.

Ukraine’s unprecedented Operation Spiderweb last year involved simultaneous covert near-field attacks using explosive-laden quadcopter-type drones on airbases across Russia. At least 10 Russian bombers, as well as a variety of other aircraft, all parked on open flightlines, were destroyed.

“They didn’t fly out by accident,” U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters during a gaggle at the White House on Monday when asked about why the B-1s had left Fairford. “There were some threats.”

“I can’t tell you that, but if they did, they’ll suffer greatly,” Trump added in response to a separate question about whether Iran might have managed to get weaponized drones into the United Kingdom.

“What you saw there was the Secretary of War [Pete Hegseth], out of an abundance of caution, trying to protect our guys,” U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance said during a separate press engagement on Monday. “We do feel, with some confidence, that the Iranians are – they’re trying to do what the Iranian state has done for 49 years, which is engage in acts of terrorism against the United States, and a lot of other people, as well. So, we are being extremely cautious.”

It’s also worth noting here that British authorities had arrested five men on suspicion of driving bomb-laden vans toward the base back on September 27. Those individuals were released on bail after no explosives were found in the vehicles. U.S. and British officials have also raised the possibility of an Iranian link to that incident.

“We’ve documented what happened [near Fairford] last week. I wouldn’t just directly tie that to the move that was made,” U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio also told members of the press on Monday. “The only reason why you guys are focused on how many planes are at Fairford is because of the threat that happened last week.”

“We have confidence in the security of all of our bases, because all of our bases are [sic] theoretically could be threatened at any moment,” he added.

Rubio’s comments notwithstanding, the remarks from Trump and Vance make clear that there was some recent threat intelligence that contributed to the decision to pull the bombers from Fairford. There are still many questions about the exact nature of the potential attacks, and how imminent, or not, the danger may have been.

Regardless, as mentioned, the prospect of a near-field drone attack on a base like Fairford carried out by actors in close proximity is extremely plausible, and the barrier to entry to such an operation is relatively low. Spiderweb may have thrust this reality into the public consciousness in dramatic fashion, but the danger well predates that operation, and even the start of Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

TWZ has been highlighting exactly these kinds of threats in the course of a decade or so now of regular reporting on drone incursions over U.S. and foreign military facilities and critical infrastructure, as well as American naval vessels operating offshore. Langley Air Force Base in Virginia and Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, some of America’s most strategic airbases domestically, are among the facilities that have had to grapple with this in the past. After the Langley incident, in particular, it had become clear to the larger public what we had been reporting for many years, that the United States does not control the airspace over even its most critical military installations.

This all extends overseas, as well. In November 2024, there was a rash of drone sightings over and around several airbases in the United Kingdom, including RAF Fairford. This has been an issue more broadly in Europe in recent years, as well. This was only further underscored by an attempted drone attack on a Ukrainian An-124 at an airport in Germany in August, which authorities in that country have blamed on Russia.

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

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

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

A drone attack on Fairford would also not necessarily have had to come from somewhere very close by. Longer-range one-way attack drones are steadily proliferating, and can be launched using a variety of methods from positions on the ground, as well as vessels at sea. TWZ explored the very real threat of sea-based drone attacks, including ones conducted covertly, and Iran’s specific ability to carry them out globally, following the leak of an FBI alert back in March.

The proliferation of lower-end one-way-attack drones has ‘democratized’ precision-guided attacks, even for non-state actors. The fielding of automated targeting capabilities, driven by developments in artificial intelligence and machine learning, is also becoming more and more widespread. That technology will soon enable these weapons to find and strike even moving targets on their own. Even without anyone at the controls and without the drone putting out any detectable radio emissions, very effective precision attacks can still be launched at static targets, like known parking areas for aircraft at airbases, just by using basic map coordinates or Google Earth. It’s also worth pointing out here that the definition of a stand-off attack is becoming increasingly blurry, with even quadcopter-type drones capable of flying miles away to conduct a kamikaze attack on a target based on a set of GPS coordinates.

Ukrainian Saker UAV with AI capabilities. The video shows the process of target recognition. It has reportedly already been put to use several times against Russian targets. pic.twitter.com/NVNJyxUjGP

— NOELREPORTS (@NOELreports) January 25, 2024

Overall, it is an indisputable fact that aircraft sitting exposed on a flightline are particularly vulnerable to drone attacks, as well as other threats. This is something U.S. military officials have acknowledged themselves. Fairford, where B-1s and other bombers have no option but to park out in the open in well-established areas that are plainly visible from outside the base’s immediate perimeter, is indicative of how American military aircraft are generally positioned on the ground abroad and at home.

As we wrote all the way back in 2017:

“Similar swarming strikes could be unleashed behind the front lines as well, with hugely expensive and low density/high demand combat aircraft being especially vulnerable to this sort of tactic—something General James Holmes alluded to inadvertently while speaking to the Air Force Association, stating:

‘Imagine a world where somebody flies a couple hundred of those and flies one down the intake of my F-22s with just a small weapon on it.’

Actually, it would be even easier to just strike the jets as they sit idle and vulnerable on the flight line. One swarm could see a whole squadron of tightly packed fighters destroyed without even having a chance to fight back.”

With all this in mind, a heated debate has emerged in the past few years in and around the U.S. military about the value of investing in new hardened aircraft shelters, as well as other fortified infrastructure.

To date, the U.S. Air Force, in particular, has put virtually all emphasis on surface-to-air missiles and other active defenses, as well as the dispersal of aircraft, over physical hardening. The conflict with Iran, in which a number of American military aircraft have been damaged or destroyed on the ground by drone and missile attacks, has underscored the limits of these strategies.

Second angle. pic.twitter.com/NUupdRkdm9

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) March 29, 2026

“I’m not a big fan of hardening infrastructure,” Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach said at a roundtable at the Air and Space Forces Association’s main annual symposium in 2023, offering a prime example of this viewpoint. “The reason is because of the advent of precision-guided weapons … you saw what we did to the Iraqi Air Force and their hardened aircraft shelters. They’re not so hard when you put a 2,000-pound bomb right through the roof.”

Wilsbach was commander of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) at the time. He subsequently became head of ACC and is now Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the service’s top officer.

“I think that I don’t want to spend a lot of money on hardening shelters. Unless you’re going to send something 100 feet or more underground, we can blow it up, and so can they,” Wilsbach said in an interview with Breaking Defense in July of this year when asked explicitly if his position changed. “So, the economics of building a shelter that is impervious to a strike doesn’t work.”

“I think the economics favor defending your airspace, defending your ground space with systems that can defeat the incoming rounds, versus building a shelter,” he added. “Some people would argue, well, you should do both. Well, that’s even more expensive. And the other thing is, the shelter doesn’t go anywhere.”

It is fair to point out that typical above-ground hardened aircraft shelters are not invulnerable, especially to attacks involving ballistic, cruise, and certain air-launched threats. There are also substantial cost and other factors to consider when it comes to any major military construction effort.

That being said, having more hardened infrastructure also imposes costs and complexities on opponents, who have to dedicate more advanced and costly munitions and other resources to ensure targets are neutralized. Shelters have the knock-on benefit of complicating the targeting process for an enemy by obscuring where aircraft are or are not positioned, to begin with. An opponent has to treat shelters like they are full even if they are empty.

When thinking about hardened aircraft shelters, stereotypical Cold War-era reinforced concrete structures typically come to mind. However, they do not all have to be built to a one-size-fits-all standard with the same degree of hardening across the board to be useful. Shorter-range drone attacks are typically carried out by platforms carrying small explosive charges or that are designed to drop small bomblets. Even longer-range one-way-attack drones generally have smaller warheads than traditional missiles, they also hit with less kinetic energy.

A structure that shields against smaller blasts and shrapnel, also including from cluster munitions that can be readily scattered across wide areas, is one that then has to be addressed by more capable weapons. This could even include mobile or otherwise temporary shelters that offer sufficient concealment and protection.

Eliminating, or at least substantially mitigating, the lowest rung of threats creates a dilemma for opponents, who then have to decide whether it is even worthwhile to attempt certain types of attacks. There is clear value in narrowing the available options for the enemy and pushing them toward having to expend higher-end, more expensive munitions, that are available in smaller quantities, and that traditional active defenses may be better optimized to handle. As an example, it may be more viable to shoot down a small barrage of incoming cruise missiles than a swarm of dozens of drones.

Active defenses, especially surface-to-air missile batteries and interceptors to go with them, have historically been very expensive. Lower-end counter-drone-focused interceptors and directed energy weapons are helping to bring these costs down in some regards. Even so, those capabilities come at a significant cost.

There are magazine and stockpile depth issues at play here, too. This is something that has also been brought front and center by the conflict with Iran, which has fueled already long-standing concerns about the sufficiency of stockpiles of air defense interceptors, other critical munitions, and the capacity to replenish them quickly. This is something the British government, among others, is also grappling with, as you can read more about in our separate reporting here.

Furthermore, losses of aircraft on the ground are not without their own costs, which are even more lopsided if an opponent can simply use lower-cost weaponized drones. U.S. bombers are particularly expensive and prized assets that are in short supply compared to the level of demand, as seen during the height of combat operations earlier this year against Iran. When it comes to B-1s, specifically, there are only 45 of them left in service today. A dozen of them being knocked out in one go would have major repercussions strategically. Losing even one would also be a propaganda coup for whoever might be responsible.

How many shelters can we build for the upgrade cost of one Zumwalt class DDG that will probably be parted out in 10 years anyway?

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) October 5, 2026

On top of all this, the U.S. military simply will not always have the luxury of being able to rapidly relocate aircraft in response to threats. Moving a dozen bombers on short notice takes massive resources. It is not just aircraft that have to be repositioned, but supporting personnel and assets, as well as weapons and fuel. Having to shift to alternate locations could easily have negative impacts on tempo and other aspects of operations, especially in the midst of actual conflict. RAF Fairford is one of only a few bases globally that can support bomber operations for a prolonged period.

More recently, there have been signs of changing mindsets on the matter of hardening across the U.S. military. In January, Joint Inter-Agency Task Force 401 (JIATF-401), a focal point for counter-drone efforts the Pentagon established last year, issued explicit guidance regarding the use of netting, cables, and other kinds of passive physical defenses around bases and other critical infrastructure. A contracting notice in March also called attention to plans for new hardened underground facilities at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

“There is value in some light protection against small, unmanned threats,” Gen. Wilsbach also told Breaking Defense in July. “Some of them — just nets that are up that keep a small, few-$100 drone from getting next to a $2 billion aircraft. That actually works, [and is] really cheap.”

“It’s not either or,” Wilsbach said in a separate interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine in July. “The net keeps the small UAS [uncrewed aerial system] from getting close to an aircraft that you’re trying to protect… That’s a very inexpensive way to give you some modicum of protection without killing your checkbook on really exquisite defensive systems.”

In spite of these institutional developments, action to implement such recommendations on a broad basis has continued to lag. There still does not appear to be any major department-wide push to build new hardened aircraft shelters or other fortified structures at facilities globally. The U.S. Air Force does have a certain number of hardened aircraft shelters at bases now, especially in the Pacific and Europe.

This is all despite a very visible trend in the construction of new aircraft shelters and other hardened infrastructure elsewhere around the globe, including in China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Even before Operation Spiderweb, Russia had already initiated a large-scale effort to build new hardened shelters at various bases, especially on the occupied Crimean Peninsula, in the face of expanding Ukrainian drone and missile attacks. This effort has now extended to building the huge hardened shelters for the country’s bomber force, something the country has never done before.

“It is inappropriate to discuss matters of intelligence, and we will not discuss specific force protection measures,” a U.S. Air Force spokesperson told TWZ yesterday when asked about the reports that Iranian drone threats prompted the recent removal of the B-1s from Fairford. “The Department will continue to assess the threat environment surrounding our installations and take appropriate actions to protect our people, our platforms and the bases where our forces operate from.”

We still do not know exactly how serious or imminent any recent threat to the B-1s at Fairford was that contributed to their hasty departure. Regardless, the reports of concerns about potential drone attacks remain very plausible. The reality here is that a dozen bombers were yanked from a forward operating location in Europe without an adversary ever having to fire a shot. This is a problem set that is only growing, especially as lessons and expertise on low-end weaponized drones from the war in Ukraine are spreading around the globe.

Erecting new aircraft shelters and other hardened infrastructure would not be a full solution to those threats by themselves. At the same time, they would be a valuable added layer of defense, and a passive one that would have a huge logistical footprint to operate once the initial investment is made. The lack of movement to better fortify American airbases globally is only becoming more and more glaring, and it remains to be seen if real action will not occur until lessons are learned in a most unfortunate way.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Glaring Lack Of Investment In Aircraft Shelters Highlighted By B-1B’s Sudden Retreat From U.K. Airbase appeared first on TWZ.

During his time as the lead propulsion engineer for SR-71 Blackbirds at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, Tim Conners looked into how to push the iconic recon plane to fly faster than it had ever flown before. The world record for any crewed jet-powered aircraft is officially Mach 3.3, or 2,193 mph. It was set by a Blackbird in 1976 “on a straight-line course over Edwards Air Force Base in California.” In a recent interview with TWZ, Conners said he investigated whether there were ways to get Blackbird to approach Mach 4, equivalent to roughly a whopping 2,660 mph at altitude. Fast forward to today, with the possibility that NASA could be returning the SR-71 in some configuration to its test fleet, as well as its potential missions, the question of just how fast could the airframe go has become far more relevant than just a hypothetical exercise.

Conners spoke to us about his knowledge of plans to restore SR-71 #844, which had mysteriously disappeared from NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center, as well as its potential uses, in a deep-dive interview here. Prior to the revelations about the missing Blackbird, speculation about NASA’s renewed interest in the type was sparked last month, when NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman showed the silhouette of an aircraft that immediately drew comparisons to SR-71 during a speech at the annual All-In Summit in Los Angeles, California. Isaacman pushed back on a direct link to the SR-71 but said his agency is working hard to get “back in the business of flying high and fast again.”

Given that, we wanted to know what limited the SR-71’s speed in its original configuration and how fast Conners thought it could go with modifications.

“The study that I did at Dryden was purely conceptual,” Conners explained of his work on the topic there in the early 1990s. “I asked questions of the Lockheed folks and the Pratt folks regarding limitations on speed. So stagnation temperature. What can we get to at altitude?”

The Blackbird, he said, “flew a trajectory that was usually operationally limited to 450 knots equivalent airspeed. If you look at the flight envelope, that defines the right edge of the envelope.”

“The engines, however, were optimized to fly at about 500 knots equivalent airspeed, 475 to 500, and for whatever reason, there was a mismatch between what the engines were designed to do and what the airframe was ultimately optimized for, which was flight at around 450 knots,” the engineer added. “And you end up with that limitation now, the equivalent airspeed curve hooks up and to the right as you go up in altitude, so it sweeps out Mach number, and as you sweep out Mach number, the stagnation temperature is going up on you.”

“So you do reach a point, even at 500 KEAS [knots equivalent airspeed], where you end up with a constant value up at altitude once you’re in the stratosphere,” Conners said. “The Blackbird was trimmed or limited at that speed on the right side of the envelope, and that equated to a certain stagnation temperature. That limitation was driven primarily by the material strength of the engine front frame, from what it was described to me, and that’s what drove the analysis we did at NASA.”

To even consider pushing the aircraft past the world record speed, Conners said something had to be done to mitigate the tremendous effects of the extreme heat on the air entering the engines.

“We weren’t looking at active cooling of the frame by pumping coolant through it,” Conners recalled. “What we looked at was spray cooling of the incoming airflow to lower the bulk temperature, so it would only be used when you were accelerating beyond about Mach 3.4. You would only very briefly do Mach excursions to a higher Mach number, and then come back. That was the conops for that system.”

“This is a way to [get to a higher Mach range] briefly,” the engineer postulated. “You could probably get to a higher Mach number. The problem is that if you clog or freeze the system, if it fails while you’re at higher speed, you have to decelerate in a hurry to protect the assets.”

Among other impediments to breaking the speed record, the Blackbird’s existing power plant was not up to the job, according to Conners.

“So that weak link was the J58,” he explained. “It had the performance, but not the material strength. If we’re looking at alternate engines designed to handle the higher Mach capability, then that could put the limiter on the airframe at that point, which we were told at NASA was somewhere like up near Mach 4 for brief excursions.”

Aviation expert Paul F. Crickmore, who’s written several books about the Blackbird, told us that the aircraft was designed around a sustained cruise speed of Mach 3.2, with the primary critical limitation being aforementioned compressor inlet temperature (CIT).

Above 427 degrees Celsius (about 800 degrees Fahrenheit), the engines would be damaged, Crickmore noted. But if outside air temperature was colder, the aircraft could go faster before hitting that limit (in practice, Mach 3.3).

Temperature was just one factor in limiting how fast the SR-71 could travel, Crickmore explained. The shock waves from traveling so fast would also tamp down the Blackbird’s ultimate speed potential.

“On the SR, you have to think three-dimensionally,” Crickmore explained. “But looking in just two dimensions, you would have an oblique shock wave on the nose, the first shock wave, and it would be at 90 degrees on either side. As the airplane got faster, that cone became more sharp until you got down to about 32 degrees. Now, at that speed, you’re at [Mach] 3.2. That oblique shock wave was still outside the envelope of the airplane – you don’t want to get that shockwave going anywhere near the flight controls. The faster you go, the narrower that cone, and the closer it gets to the wingtips, which is not good. This is the thing: People say, ‘Oh yeah, we can go maybe Mach 6.’ Well, right. But it’s not just about that. It’s about a lot of other things.”

The limiting factors imposed by the CIT value and the shockwave effect are also recalled by the late SR-71 pilot David Peters, recounted on the Habubrats SR-71 account on X.

“A little clarification on the speed. The issue is that I have been limited to less than Mach 3 on a few occasions because the outside air temperature was entirely above standard, and 427C came up at about [Mach] 2.95. On other occasions, like the Murmansk deal I got above 3.4 (3.49 on one occasion) and wasn’t close to 427C. The actual limiting airspeed is around 3.55; that is where the spike, being at full retraction loses the intercept on the shock wave and can no longer position it correctly in the inlet. Also, the overflow of the shock starts to go over the wing and interfere with the flight controls. So the limiting speed as configured would be about 3.55 so long as you don’t exceed 427C.”

For his part, Conners said that “shock effects at the inlet can be accommodated through rescheduling the inlet spike movement and perhaps making changes to the bypass schedules. None of that would necessarily be simple, and any changes would require careful envelope expansion. But it would not be impossible.”

Regardless of any other factors, Conners, the Blackbird engineer, remembered that his effort in boosting the jet’s speed never took off.

“It never got beyond me just sizing tank volume, considering different fluids that might work as a coolant, and then just gauging the relative appetite of NASA hierarchy for something like that,” Conners stated. “They weren’t interested in the risk. Nobody was asking for that Mach range.”

But that may be changing. It seems clear that one of the biggest challenges of getting the Blackbird back in the air will be its engines. They have sat for a long time, and getting them into a flyable condition could be the limiting issue. Beyond that, equipping the SR-71 with new engines also may represent the biggest opportunity for NASA getting a return on investment from its revived Blackbird.

In our interview, Conners told us that the feedback he heard about the remaining Blackbird J58 engines was “discouraging” because “the engines are indeed unserviceable.”

“I don’t believe that is based on an actual attempt to run them,” he explained. “It is based on inspection. Probably no surprise. They’ve sat idle, you know, for 27 years. That is what led to questions going back and forth regarding how the airframe would be powered. And that’s what led into, if you connect the dots, that’s where the airframe would be used as an engine test bed.”

Different engines “would have to be high-Mach bypass systems,” he noted. “We can speculate on which engine company might be developing those systems, but yeah, I don’t want to give it too much away because I don’t want us to lose the inside information that we got.”

Also, the flight regime approaching Mach 4 would likely be one of the areas NASA is most interested in. It’s here where a combined cycle engine capable of hypersonic flight, one that contains both turbojet and ramjet or scramjet functions, would ‘hand-off’ propulsion from the turbojet to the other that is optimized for extreme speed. This is the same concept behind Lockheed’s SR-72 concept. Having an aircraft, and especially one that is not mired in deep classification and hidden from view, that can actually test this transitional flight regime could be of extreme value in unlocking a future where hypersonic flight is more accessible.

“Yeah, that could very well be what we’re looking at here,” Conners told us when we asked whether Blackbird’s open classification level is a driving factor in using it as a test bed for this research. “I’ve had friends ask that question this week. We were talking about the SR-72. Where is that at? I don’t know. I know people who went to work on it years ago. I’ve never heard anything since. So it could be that that’s so deep black that there’s no way that platform could be used as a test asset. So I think it’s precisely what you said. The Blackbird’s no longer classified, and that it’s possible that the engines that might be used in Blackbird wouldn’t be classified either.”

So, reengining the SR-71 may solve two birds with one stone — providing a modern powerplant that won’t require the J58s to be revived and taking care of the inlet temperature issues discussed above that would allow the SR-71 airframe’s full potential to be exploited in testing. The fact that the jet can carry a massive payload on its back could allow it to provide critical testing of the handoff for dual cycle engine concepts.

This is just one use, of course. With the explosion in high-speed flight for defense purposes over the last decade, there are many other reasons to push a Blackbird to higher Mach numbers.

So with all this in mind, if we get the Blackbird back at all, maybe it will roll out with some major modifications that could indeed push it to new velocities.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Could NASA’s SR-71 Blackbird Be Modified To Reach Mach 4? appeared first on TWZ.