Ukraine continues to struggle with throttling of the speeds at which weapons using the vital satellite communications services provided by the SpaceX Starlink system can operate, and one weapons manufacturer tells us it is rethinking whether to rely on it in the future. As we have previously reported, heavy use of Starlink on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine, including as a means of guiding one-way attackers in the air and at sea, has underscored potential risks of exclusive reliance on Elon Musk’s orbital communications networks in critical tactical tasks.
At issue are complaints by Ukrainian officials that “in various sectors of the front, the equipment ceases to function at speeds of 130–161 kilometers per hour.”
A limit on how fast Starlink terminals on vehicles can travel before the feed is cut off in certain areas impacts a slew of weapons and campaigns, especially strikes on Russian logistics behind enemy lines and in the sea of Asov, as well as the control of defensive interceptor drones critical for taking down Russian long-range one-way attack drones, like the notorious Shahed-136.
The following video shows one such Shahed interception.
Spectacular footage of a Ukrainian interceptor striking a Russian Shahed kamikaze drone, followed by its fall to the ground. pic.twitter.com/8DrJyS22Fn
The limiting of Starlink/Starshield occurred amid deteriorating relations between the Trump administration and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The latest chill between Washington and Kyiv was sparked by the American leader’s claims that Ukraine’s attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure have reduced the supply of diesel fuel to the U.S. and other nations more than the conflict in the Middle East. Trump was upset Ukraine kept hitting these targets despite his demanding they stop.
Q: Do you think Ukraine should stop attacks on Russian oil refineries? Have you told Zelenskyy that? TRUMP: We've talked about it, we have, and I think they're slowing it down, but they are causing a lot of problems. The lack of refineries is the problem. pic.twitter.com/ffpFnRqFlk
Exacerbating this issue, Trump on Oct. 9 announced via his Truth Social platform that he had made a deal to purchase diesel from Russia, pivoting away from a years-old Western policy that placed massive economic pressure on Moscow.
Trump: "I have just concluded a highly successful discussion with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, wherein it was agreed that Russia will immediately supply over 300,000 Tons of Diesel Fuel to the American and Global Marketplace, another 500,000 Tons during the month of… pic.twitter.com/zH0I6HA941
Who gave the order to limit the speeds at which Ukrainian weapons using the Starlink/Starshield system operate is unclear.
“The order to limit a satellite system used by Ukraine for battlefield communications and drone operations came from inside the White House,” Reuters reported last week, citing two U.S. officials and a Western official briefed on the matter. “The officials said leaders at the Defense Department received a message that the SpaceX Starshield service for the Ukrainian military needed to be slowed.”
“No such request was ever made by the president,” a U.S. official told us on Monday.
“There has been no change to Department of War policy regarding intelligence sharing or any capabilities we are enabling Europeans to provide to Ukraine,” a senior Pentagon official responded to our questions about whether the Pentagon imposed the limits and, if so, why.
When we pushed for a more specific response to the Starlink/Starshield concerns, the Pentagon declined comment. However, Tuesday afternoon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon did not order any changes and that Ukraine violated Starlink’s terms of services.
We reached out to SpaceX as well, but the company did not immediately respond. Last week, SpaceX’s founder and CEO, Elon Musk, said that “any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately” Trump. Musk had previously refused Ukrainian requests to use Starlink against targets inside Russia.
The prohibition against using Starlink inside Russia has drastically limited Ukraine’s ability to strike dynamic targets like mobile ballistic missile launchers and hunt for drone launch sites. However, Ukraine has not had to rely on Starlink in its campaign against oil infrastructure or other fixed targets deep inside Russia which upset Trump in the first place.
Tuesday morning, Zelensky spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and again brought up Starlink/Starshield in addition to other major concerns.
“…the situation with Starlink/Starshield… needs to be restored,” Zelensky urged.
I spoke with Marco Rubio @SecRubio, and it was a substantive conversation – focused on the issues that matter. I am grateful for his readiness to help and his clear position. First, ballistic missile interceptors, which are needed to protect lives. Second, early warning of…
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) October 20, 2026
Rubio denied that any assistance was being withheld from Ukraine. Noting that Starlink “is a private company,” the secretary told reporters that Trump is “frustrated…because he doesn’t like to be blamed for things that aren’t true, including accusations that somehow he had ordered intelligence sharing to be cut off. And that’s not true; he’s said that repeatedly.”
SECRETARY RUBIO: There's nothing being deliberately denied to Ukraine. It's simply a balance between our obligations to other partners, and frankly, our own standards and requirements for our own facilities as well. pic.twitter.com/x9NWbIufBa
This most recent flap isn’t the first time SpaceX and Musk have faced particularly significant criticism over limiting some Ukrainian use of the network. Actions SpaceX took earlier this year to block unregistered Starlink terminals also had major consequences for Russian forces, which were sent scrambling to find alternatives to fill the massive resulting communications gap.
Given the tenuous nature of Ukraine’s ability to use Starlink/Starshield, the Wild Hornets company is reevaluating whether to use the SpaceX system in future endeavors even though, so far, it has experienced few problems with it. Wild Hornets is a major Ukrainian combat drone maker. Among other weapons, it makes the Sting interceptors, designed to defend against Russian Shahed kamikaze drones.
The Starlink/Starshield issue isn’t affecting current operations, a Wild Hornets spokesman told us Tuesday morning. “Our own communications system provides the basic connection to our interceptors,” he said. “Plus, our technology for remote control of the interceptors can use various sources of internet connectivity. True, the military often uses Starlink for this, but in our case, the terminal doesn’t need to be moved at high speeds (it simply provides a connection between the command center and the ground station to which the interceptor is connected—it’s somewhat similar to cell towers).”
Concerns about the reduction in speeds at which Starlink terminals can operate has Wild Hornets thinking about ditching a future project, the spokesman told us.
“But we understand that there are other types of interceptors,” added the spokesman. “For example, some drones carry a terminal on board and need to fly at high speed with it. In such cases, Starlink’s limitations make their operation impossible. From this point of view, it also makes us rethink some of the projects we’re currently working on. For example, launching interceptors from aerial platforms.”
“We’re keeping an eye on the situation,” the spokesman continued. “For our current operations (connections with ground stations), we can use any source of stable internet connectivity. Therefore, various solutions are possible in different locations. However, for these needs, everything is operating normally with Starlink at the moment. As for our plans with new projects, we don’t have a clear decision yet, but we will be testing alternatives.”
The spokesman declined to provide further details about what “alternatives” could look like.
There are a number of ways the lack of Starlink for extended-range drone operations could be mitigated to a degree, but the persistent, reliable, high-bandwidth and compact capability SpaceX provides has no direct alternative at this time. The use of drones that work as line-of-sight relays, which can be daisy chained together electronically with other airborne relays, with a connection spanning dozens or even hundreds of miles to a ground entry point is possible. You can read about this concept here. The use of swarms of balloons to create an active network over a battlespace and using Starlink on those slower moving platforms to relay line-of-sight connections to multiple drones below is another possibility. You can read more about this concept here. But we must stress again, nothing can fully replace Starlink/Starshield and its seamless beyond line-of-sight communications architecture at this time.
“I believe, in any case, depending on a single solution is very risky,” the Wild Hornets spokesman proffered. “Especially if you don’t have full control over it. Especially when it comes to something as critical on the battlefield as communications. That’s exactly why our ecosystem is built around our own communications technology and basically is open to various solutions when it comes to internet connectivity.”
The No. 1 interceptor: STING by Wild Hornets has destroyed over 15,000 Shaheds and Gerberas in one year
Confirmed data shows that STING has topped the interceptor rankings for 12 consecutive months. In September this year, Ukraine’s Defense Forces downed around 1,600 Shaheds,… pic.twitter.com/4v1aeOxPiy
As far as military units are concerned, the commander of the Georgian Legion told us that his forces have been affected by issues with Starlink/Starshield even though the main concerns have been about the speeds at which weapons can travel and still have connectivity. The Georgian Legion is fighting in the heavily contested Kramatorsk region of eastern Ukraine.
“We use Starlink a lot because, in this war, reliable communication is essential,” Mamuka Mamulashvili told us. “It helps us stay connected when everything around us is changing. Of course, we’ve learned not to rely on just one system. There are alternatives, like mobile internet, fiber-optic connections, radio and other satellite systems such as OneWeb. But honestly, none of them can fully replace Starlink in Ukraine right now.”
“The problems were not limited to the speed restriction of approximately 160 km/h,” the Georgian Legion commander pointed out. “Starlink connectivity itself was also intermittent, repeatedly switching on and off. This caused communication disruptions across various drone systems, not just those operating at speeds exceeding 160 km/h. As a result, the impact was broader than the restriction on high-speed interceptor drones. Intermittent connectivity created problems for drone control and communications across multiple systems, affecting their reliability and the ability to carry out missions as intended.”
Drones operated by the Georgian Legion. (Georgian Legion Telegram screencap)
“We had serious communication problems,” Mamulashvili explained. “At one point, our drone operators were struggling to maintain a reliable connection with the drone systems, which disrupted coordination and made it difficult to carry out missions as planned. When you lose the connection between the operator and the drone, you can lose control of the situation in seconds. We managed to adapt, but it definitely affected our work.”
“We have to adapt and find solutions, as we always do,” the commander said. “This war teaches you one thing every day. You can’t depend on a single technology or expect someone else to solve all your problems. You have to be ready for anything and keep moving forward.”
Russian sources, meanwhile, are gloating over the speed limits placed on weapons using Starlink/Starshield, particularly how it is affecting Ukraine’s mid-range drone attacks that have crippled Russian logistics. As we explained in a previous report, Ukrainian units have relied on the SpaceX system to help extend the range of their drones to reach as far as 150 miles into Russian-occupied territory. The SpaceX system is not used to hit targets inside Russia proper.
The following video shows some of these mid-range attacks.
Russian rail logistics are now also the target of Midstrike drones, with lines to Crimea being particularly affected. pic.twitter.com/K1BFd0QVov
“Disabling or slowing down Starlink has significantly reduced the enemy’s ability to launch medium-range drone strikes along the ‘Novorossiya’ highway,” influential Russian milblogger Vladimir Romanov reported. The highway, also known as the R-280, is a key link between cities in occupied southern Ukraine and the occupied Crimean peninsula. The road has been a frequent target of Ukraine’s mid-range strike campaign.
“The success of these strikes depends on the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ access to American satellite communication,” Romanov noted. “For the past six months, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been attacking civilian transport – trucks, cars, and buses – exclusively through the use of ‘Starshield.’ This means that, for the past six months, American military satellite infrastructure has been used to carry out terrorist acts against Russian civilians, and so on. In other words, the United States is still directly involved in the war with Russia!”
America's gifts to Russia never end, with Russian military bloggers now confirming that Washington's operation to cut Ukraine's Starlink has halted Ukraine's ability to strike Russian logistics routes in Ukraine.
As for how widespread worries among Ukrainian weapons manufacturers are, the Wild Hornets spokesman suggested that his company is not alone. He said he has spoken with other companies relying much more heavily on Starlink/Starshield who have expressed concerns. He pointed to growing interest in the European Eutelsat satellite constellation as an example of companies seeking options, but noted that “of course, creating something like Starlink won’t be easy.”
It will be interesting to see if other Ukrainian weapons companies also consider scrapping plans to rely on Starlink in the future and what architectures will emerge at least as a backstop to it.
Basically, in the European scenario, hundreds or possibly thousands of balloons would be sent east. They would provide attritable real-time reconnaissance, strike, and decoy capabilities, while also acting as a force multiplier for other assets by providing a resilient active network over the battlefield — one that could help fill in the gaps if the space-based layer gets degraded.
“We would like to proliferate the stratosphere with high-altitude balloons, but I mean 200, 300 at a time,” Carpenter told us during last week’s Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) conference in Washington, D.C., which TWZ attended. The Army would utilize high-altitude balloons “not only as decoys, a lot of decoys, but also communications retrans[mission platforms], electronic sensing, as well as electronic attack, and then obviously air-launched effects to be able to drop them down and use kinetic means as well.”
A sensor-laden high-altitude balloon from Aerostar seen lifting off from Won Pat International Airport on Guam during an exercise in 2024. US Army
Air-launched effects (ALEs) is a collective term the U.S. military now commonly uses to discuss air-launched drones configured for a wide array of missions. The ALE umbrella encompasses designs that can be used for surveillance and reconnaissance, electronic warfare tasks, or signal relay, and can act as decoys. It also includes loitering munitions often referred to as kamikaze drones, capable of carrying kinetic attacks.
U.S. Army soldiers assigned to the Extended Range Sensing and Effects Company, 3d Multi-Domain Effects Battalion, 3d Multi-Domain Task Force, and industry partners attach an Icarus Apollo R stratospheric fixed wing aircraft to an Urban Sky high-altitude balloon during a multi-day Special User Demonstration at Orote Airfield on Naval Station Guam, June 24, 2026, for Valiant Shield 26. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Ondirae Hamil Abdullah-Robinson) Sgt. 1st Class Ondirae Abdullah-Robinson
In general, modern high-altitude balloons offer persistent deployment that can last for days, weeks or even months at a time. After navigating to an assigned operating area, some modern balloon systems can hold their position, in spite of prevailing winds, by modulating their altitudes to keep on station.
In addition, high-altitude balloons operate at heights providing excellent fields of view for radars, cameras, and other sensors in all directions and across very broad areas. From a perch of 60,000 feet or more, they also offer a way to peer into certain denied areas while still soaring in international airspace and keeping farther away from potential threats. During a conflict, the balloons could be deployed deep into enemy airspace as they are attritable.
Though some balloon systems can hold their general positions in many circumstances, Carpenter told us that seasonal weather changes will still play a role in deployment.
“The flight paths are different. We study that,” he noted. “We understand during what seasons where the best places are to launch those high-altitude systems, and then again to hold enemy cities and capabilities at risk at any time, so that we can defeat them at the time and place of our choosing.”
We asked Carpenter for more details about how he sees balloons being used by troops in Europe.
“I think everybody knows there’ll be a point where satellite communications are going to be degraded, if not eliminated,” he stated. “One of the things that we’re focusing on is in the stratosphere, so above 60,000 feet up to 80,000 feet, which is next to impossible to target unless you’re using one of your exquisite systems, fifth-gen fighters, SA-21 Bravo [S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile system], etc. to shoot that stuff down.”
Many of the balloons would be equipped with Link 16, a NATO-standard tactical datalink communication system central to U.S. and allied military operations, the general said. Link 16 allows coalition forces to seamlessly transmit and exchange real-time situational awareness data. You can read more about how Link 16 works, and its increasing dependence of space, in our story here.
A graphic the Army previously released showing a notional “operational view” for how its planned the Multi-Domain Sensing System (MDSS) system of systems, including crewed ISR aircraft, might be employed in conjunction with other assets. (U.S. Army)
As for using balloons as ALE delivery platforms, Carpenter told us there are “different technologies, different altitudes that we’d have to deliver those from” at “different ranges, different levels of yield or lethality. But for us, it’s really just a single arrow in a quiver full of arrows, utilizing space capabilities, cyber capabilities, or surface-to-surface capabilities. In this case, you’re talking just another air-to-surface capability with your air-launched effects off balloons.”
Carpenter said that when it comes to balloon-launched ALEs, he is looking at “everything from shorter range, lower yield, maybe targeting an adversary ballistic missile radar, to longer range, higher yield capabilities that you might use to maybe take out a ballistic missile system.”
In such cases, the balloons would carry drones deep into enemy territory, where they would be launched opportunistically to strike the targets Carpenter suggested. The size of the target, and how well it is protected, would determine what kinds of drones the balloons would launch, as well as their proximity to the target.
Russian air defense systems like these S-400 launchers could be targeted by balloon-launched weapons, an Army general told us. (Sergei Malgavko / TASS)
Should a fight break out in Europe tonight, Carpenter said he is confident he can rely on the technology.
“Our operating concept is proven,” he stated, noting that “we’ve already tested those capabilities against most modern adversary systems that exist. We’ve already validated our operating concept in terms of getting to mass and scale that we would need in large-scale conflict.”
As we have previously reported, while high-altitude balloons have been used for decades, the modern concept of these systems was recently employed operationally by the U.S. in a combat theater.
The Army had planned to demonstrate the ability of balloons to operate in swarms with a high degree of autonomy in the Pacific region last year before those assets were redirected to the Middle East. When exactly that deployment occurred and how long it lasted are unclear.
“We were asked to pivot and do some experimentation in combination with operations, and we pivoted and supported operations in CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command],” Andrew Evans, Director of Strategy and Transformation with the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army, or G-2, told Breaking Defense, according to a story the outlet published last week. “They were effective for the mission that they were assigned,” he added. However, Evans was not able to disclose the exact location and operational scenarios in which they were used.
To achieve the effects he laid out, Carpenter told us that he will still need to surge capacity to Europe.
“The Army will make decisions on which vendors they’re going to go with,” he pointed out. “But the ability to field that at scale is just simply based on the resources provided. I’m talking about money to go ahead and bring them into theater.”
Pushed to provide details of how quickly he could have the desired number of balloons, Carpenter told us that “if the United States or NATO and its allies were on a wartime footing, it would be extremely rapid, but we would need to get them into theater before crisis turned to conflict. So we’d have to keep a close eye from an IC [intelligence community] perspective on indicators and warnings to make sure we have the right systems on the ground at point of need.”
U.S. Army soldiers from Multi-Domain Command–Europe deploy high-altitude balloons at Tehachapi Airfield, April 22, 2026. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Rajheem Dixon, Multi-Domain Command–Europe) Staff Sgt. Rajheem Dixon
The concept Carpenter laid out for how balloons will be used in a future European conflict is another example of the renaissance in lighter-than-air military technology and how the Pentagon is increasingly seeking to weaponize it on a grand scale.
These conversations took place during the recently wrapped Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) annual convention in Washington, D.C., which TWZ attended.
“A lot of the things that are happening right now in terms of long-range fires, integrated air and missile defense, and the lessons that we’re learning from them, we’re able to bring a lot of that to our potential challenges in the Pacific,” Gen. Ron Clark, commander of U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC), told us at a media roundtable. “Specifically, I am thinking through mobility and camouflage. So it’s one of those age-old Army forgotten sciences of how to hide in plain sight and how to camouflage ourselves from observation, because the ability to be able to see surface entities is almost ubiquitous.”
“Our ability to be able to use electronic warfare, to be able to use just good old-fashioned camouflage, and the ability to deceive our adversary is a must,” Clark added. You can read more about the U.S. military’s camouflage and deception efforts in our story here.
U.S. Army soldiers of Brigade Engineer Battalion camouflages a Humvee while conducting preparations during exercise Combined Resolve VII at the U.S. Army’s Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Hohenfels Germany. (U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Randy Wren) Spc. Randy Wren
A Russian heavy-duty truck painted with zebra-style stripes to confuse AI-assisted target seeking equipment. via X
As tough as things have been for Ukraine and for U.S. forces in the Middle East, the challenges will be even greater in the Pacific, Clark warned.
In Europe and the Middle East, “it’s not a near-peer adversary that we will be working against,” said Clark, referring respectively to Russia and Iran.
“Whereas in our theater, it absolutely is,” the USARPAC commander noted in a reference to China without naming the country. “So our ability to scale that and to think through the problem sets of how do we fight Type One, Type Two UAS? How do we think through ballistic missile defense holistically in the region? We spend a lot of time working with the joint force for solutions associated with that. How do we maneuver inside an archipelagic environment?”
DF-17 medium-range hypersonic ballistic missiles on display during the V-Day military parade in Beijing. (Photo by Sheng Jiapeng/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images) China News Service
For the Army, any fight in the Pacific will require soldiers to be able to hop islands and move through vast swaths of ocean, constantly hunted and frequently inside the Chinese weapons engagement zone. Clark said that the Army’s organic fleet of ships like landing craft, small tugs, and modular causeway systems operated by the service’s 8th Theater Sustainment Command will be vital for maneuver.
Two U.S. Army Landing Craft Utility (LCU) vessels. (U.S. Army) www.twz.com
“But we also have to be able to conduct tactical maneuver with forces on the ground that can provide long-range precision fires, as an example, and then move so that fires, radars, sensors are not easily targeted,” Clark added. “Because if they can see you, they can hit you. And if you know they have an opportunity to return fire, they will. So our lessons that we’re learning are, in some cases, are very, very relevant. In some cases, we can learn from some of the changing characteristics of war.”
Still, the wide-open plains and dense cities of Ukraine are quite different from the beaches and jungles of the Pacific, Clark reminded us.
A U.S. Army soldier assigned to the 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Mobile Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, observes a linear danger area during the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center Rotation (JPMRC) 26-01 at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, Nov. 6, 2025. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Duke Edwards) Sgt. Duke Edwards
“The way we generally fight does not equate specifically in the Ukraine piece to the maneuver that you would see out of U.S. forces if deployed in a conflict like that,” the USARPAC commander explained. “To be able to use operational maneuver and tactical maneuver in a way that it’s not just simply drone on drone or firing long range fires at one another at scale for an extended period of time. We find our way to work through that problem set and maneuver to positions of advantage and to prevail.”
Ukraine’s 115th Mechanized Brigade has released new footage showing a VB-140 Flamingo interceptor drone attacking a Russian Mi-28 attack helicopter in flight.
The drone approaches from above and flies directly into the helicopter’s spinning main rotor. It’s unclear whether… pic.twitter.com/GCb9FodXG3
When we pushed further on that point, Gen. Xavier T. Brunson, commander of United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command and United States Forces Korea, weighed in.
“To be able to move with sensors everywhere at all times causes us to achieve positions of advantage from distributed locations,” Brunson pointed out. “So the fight is: you look at maneuver. You might maneuver to a position of advantage, knowing that you’re going to change that again. The ability to utilize not only joint sensors but joint effectors, if you will, joint fires, to be able to use those things from different positions changes the shape of the operating environment.”
The bottom line, he added, is that “maneuver is always going to be maneuver. You’re going from A to B, but you might go from A to A1 to A2 to A3 to get to B, and that’s what I think we realize in this distributed fight that’s going on in Ukraine, and so we continue to watch to see what lessons might be coming back into” effect.
In part reacting to lessons learned from Ukraine and the Middle East, the Army is also changing how it trains, Clark stated. In South Korea, he said the service has to get out of the habit of concentrating so heavily on just two annual major training exercises.
“We recognize… that largely the two big exercises every year in Korea focus on large command posts,” Clark proffered. “We’ve got to move away from that. So what we intend to do is take advantage of the knowledge that we have of the threats that exist or that prevail in the Ukraine fight.”
A Republic of Korea Army 5th Engineer Brigade, K1A2 tank crosses a U.S. Army Improved Ribbon Bridge (IRB) during joint wet gap training as part of Freedom Shield 25 at Yeoncheon-gun, Republic of Korea, Mar. 20, 2025. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Daniela Lechuga Liggio) Sgt. Daniela Lechuga
Clark said these discussions are underway with his deputy commander, Republic of Korea Army Gen. Sungmin Kim.
“We talk about how we would operate in a distributed fashion. You know as well as I do, there’s a location that we go to to train every year in Korea, and we stay in that place,” Clark said in response to a question from another reporter. “What would it look like if we train from Jeju all the way up to Gyeonggi Province in the north? What would that look like, just with our headquarters alone?”
“So just imagine,” Clark postulated, “if we train across the entirety of the peninsula, and got ourselves in the shape where we would say [to North Korea], ‘You can’t utilize the things that you’ve learned in the fight and the battlefield in Ukraine on us, because we learned the same lessons and we’ve distributed ourselves in such a way that we don’t make ourselves the target. We won’t be moored in place,’ and that’s what I’m talking about when I talk about positional advantage. It might not be the same place to the continuum. It might not be the same place when you’re in crisis or conflict or competition. We might have to change that, and that’s what we’re learning.”
South Korea. (Google Earth)
Another lesson from Ukraine that Army leaders should be paying attention to, said another panelist, is how both sides are using aerial and ground drones to supply frontline forces and evacuate the wounded because human efforts have now become too deadly, thanks to drones.
“I think you also can’t talk about Ukraine without talking about autonomy,” said Tara Murphy Dougherty, CEO of a company called Air, which provides AI-based sustainment solutions to the Army.
“One of the advantages that you get from using simulation and automation, and really using models and compute in order to create convoy plans, as opposed to humans with Excel spreadsheets, is you are able to do many fewer actual convoys because you’re using all of your capabilities so much more effectively and efficiently,” Dougherty posited. “And while it’s an indirect example, I think it does tie to soldier protection because you’re putting fewer soldiers out there in vulnerable settings. I see that not as an end-goal outcome; we need convoys.”
Ultimately, however, the Army will have to advance what Ukraine and Russia are doing with the deployment of aerial drones and uncrewed ground vehicles for logistics by creating “convoys” of autonomous vehicles.
“I see the end goal outcome as having as many autonomous convoys as possible, and we’ve heard today already at this event some of those ideas,” the CEO added. “In the interim, until we get to more autonomy in medevac and more autonomy in convoys when it’s non-soldier material that’s going out to the battlefield, let’s try and put fewer out there while actually getting more material and capability into the force where it needs to be.”
A Hunter Wolf unmanned ground vehicle assigned to Charlie Battery, 3rd Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd Mobile Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). (U.S. Army photo by Master Sgt. Anthony Hewitt) Master Sgt. Anthony Hewitt
The Iranian missile and drone barrages on fixed U.S. bases across the Middle East have created some very costly lessons for American forces. As we noted earlier in this story, several troops were killed and critical air defense radars, aircraft and other important equipment were destroyed or damaged. U.S. installations across the region have also suffered damage.
In another media session, we pressed Army officials operating in South Korea about what they learned from watching the destruction caused by Iran and what they are doing to address it.
You can see a satellite image of damage to a U.S. radar site in Jordan below:
NEW: The radar for a THAAD system was struck and apparently destroyed in Jordan while two other THAAD radar systems may have been hit in the UAE, satellite images show – w/ @ThomasBordeaux7https://t.co/qiuWVQgyda
— Gianluca Mezzofiore (@GianlucaMezzo) March 5, 2026
“We certainly are watching what’s happening, and we are learning from what is happening in Operation Epic Fury,” Lt. Gen. Joseph “Joe” Hilbert, commanding general of Eighth Army, stationed in South Korea, told us. “We’re learning what’s happening in Ukraine, and we are working through changes in our own tactics and techniques and procedures to be able to react to those threats and to be able to defend against them.”
For more details, he turned the microphone over to Col. Rosanna “Ro” M. Clemente, commander of the 35th Air Defense Artillery Brigade in South Korea.
“Drawing from those lessons learned, a lot of it is trying to understand how our systems are being hunted by the adversary,” she told us. “So, strictly into all of our training plans, and as we conduct our own internal exercises, all of our air defenders are practicing something as simple as mobility and survivability jumps, which is being able to reposition and displace your systems to different alternative locations based on any type of threat warnings that we receive. They’re very, very well trained. I think all of our soldiers know how to move their systems extremely, extremely well. They move them quickly, and they are able to move them and reposition them into different locations across the peninsula that still maintains that ballistic missile defense coverage.”
U.S. Army Pvt. Nathaniel Mullins, assigned to the 35th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, analyzes a Sentinel A4 air and missile defense radar during a training exercise at Camp Humphreys, South Korea, April 22, 2026. The training highlighted Eighth Army’s continued modernization efforts by preparing soldiers to operate the new radar system. (U.S. Army photo by Cpl. Luciano Alcala) Sgt. Luciano Alcala
In addition, “we also have to rely on the other pillars of integrated air and missile defense, most specifically the passive defensive measures that we also have in place,” she added.
Those measures involve “a little bit more than just hardening – but a couple of other techniques that we’ve learned from the Russia-Ukraine war in terms of deception, how to move things around, create distractions, and make sure that we create different types of dilemmas for the adversary in terms of where our capabilities are and where are they positioned to protect its defended assets.”
While the U.S. military has a wide array of installations where it can test these systems, it’s still not enough. In addition to the massive increase in weapons development and the need for more realistic training, the changing nature of war is outstripping the capacity of existing facilities as future kill webs will extend thousands of miles, not hundreds. There are only so many places with enough space to try out these systems even to a limited degree without butting up against statutes and regulations while also avoiding interference with civilian air traffic and communications, all in an environment remote enough to avoid prying eyes. The need for more and bigger testing grounds is an issue TWZ has long raised.
In addition to the backdrop of the increase in a wide range of weapons testing, much of it aimed at China, Trump’s super range announcement was delivered as the Pentagon and services are specifically creating commands dedicated to autonomous weapons. On Tuesday, during the annual Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) conference in Washington, D.C., attended by TWZ, the acting Army Secretary unveiled one such new command, which we will discuss in greater detail later in this story.
“I’m pleased to inform you and announce that right here in Montana, the Department of War is going to establish a new ”super range” for testing advanced weapons and technologies, technologies including potential autonomous weapons, space, and electronic warfare technology, supersonics and hypersonics,” Trump said during a campaign rally in Kalispell. “Montana will help ensure the American military always reigns supreme.”
.@POTUS: "I'm pleased to inform you and announce that right here in Montana, the @DeptofWar is going to establish a new Super Range for testing advanced weapons and technologies, including potential autonomous weapons, space and electronic warfare technology, supersonics, and… pic.twitter.com/W4YqKfq8X4
Trump provided no additional details about where this new “super range” will be located, when it will come online, exactly which systems will be tested or how much it will cost.
Thursday morning, the office of U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy noted that he has been “a strong advocate for building an advanced training range in Montana, securing $10 million for a feasibility study in the FY27 National Defense Authorization Act that passed the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year.”
“The 21st-century battlefield is being redefined by new weapons and evolving technical frontiers that require a novel approach to how America will resource its warfighting capabilities,” the senator said in a statement. “Contested spectrum, electronic warfare, hypersonics, space capabilities and enhanced targeting require a new class of testing and evaluation facilities for our military. The U.S. faces a clear choice: adapt and expand our development infrastructure to the realities of modern warfare, or risk falling behind adversaries who iterate faster.”
The Montana Republican highlighted the value of his state’s huge swaths of undeveloped land for this effort.
“By combining our state’s vast landscapes, innovative spirit, and proud tradition of military service, we are the Last Best Place to ensure America’s fighting men and women have the technological edge they need to dominate the battlefield and win the wars of tomorrow,” he explained.
Montana (Google Earth)
Like Trump, Sheehy offered no specifics about exactly where in Montana the “super range” will be located, when it will come online or how much it will cost. We have reached out to the White House, Sheehy and the Pentagon for more details. The Pentagon deferred us to the White House, which referred us back to the Pentagon. We also contacted the office of U.S. Sen. Steve Daines and Gov. Greg Gianforte.
There are already a number of facilities in Montana conducting the kind of military weapons testing described by Trump. One that closely matches what would be needed from such a location is the Montana Spaceport & Test Range and the affiliated Limestone Hills Innovation & Test Campus. A public-private aerospace and defense initiative, it already conducts testing for next-generation space vehicles, hypersonic, supersonic and ballistic weapons, drones and counter-drone systems and electronic warfare equipment.
Another potential site could be an expansion of the Big Sky Autonomous Systems Range (BSASR). Located near Bozeman, it is “the Lobo Institute’s primary training and testing facility for U.S. and allied military, federal, and partner organizations.” Operated under the Lobo Tactical division, BSASR is “a 6,000-acre, fully fenced complex purpose-built for advanced unmanned aerial systems operations, full-spectrum live fire, mounted and dismounted mobility, and full mission profile exercises grounded in the latest tactics, techniques, and procedures from active conflict zones,” according to the Lobo Institute. “The range pairs realistic terrain with the regulatory, infrastructure, and instructor depth required to train against the operational realities of today’s and tomorrow’s battlefields — and it does so in a remote, controlled environment where units can push hard while keeping risk to acceptable levels.”
Training at the Big Sky Autonomous Systems Range in Montana. (BSASR)
We have reached out to both facilities for more details.
The new super range could also leverage existing range space on the ground and in the air. There is also the large Hays Military Operations Area (MOA) which could be expanded for this new test range effort. MOAs are blocks of airspace designated for military training. Malmstrom Air Force Base and its ICBM fields could also potentially be utilized. Overall, it’s possible a number of existing range areas could be interconnected, both digitally and via airspace corridors, to create a larger complex, as well.
The Pentagon has long realized the need to increase the areas where it can test out these systems, especially to evaluate them under combat-like conditions.
“The current open-air range space should be increased and better integrated to support system-of-systems assessments of air, land, and sea combat systems with capability for emerging long-range fires, hypersonic missiles, EMS warfare, unmanned systems, nuclear effects, and directed energy (DE) weapons,” the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) stated in a report last year. “The DoW needs to invest in and coordinate expanding and connecting the airspace available to the open-air ranges enabling testing and training of advanced capabilities.”
DOT&E
The current facilities are inadequate, DOT&E further explained.
“Threat systems and our own capabilities far exceed the current available air space on the open-air ranges,” according to the report. “The ranges need support and assistance to coordinate additional airspace and corridors with the FAA and industry. Expanding and connecting range air space is necessary to facilitate testing and training critical long-range capabilities that our warfighters need and to replicate the threats they will face.”
In addition, the report states that “to test missiles with longer ranges and gather data to support simulation validation, including for hypersonic missiles, the DoW should invest in long-range, overland missile flight test corridors with land-based impact areas and mobile hypersonic-specific range instrumentation to produce the required lethality data against threat-representative targets for terminal area assessments.”
Rendering of an X-51A Waverider hypersonic weapon. Powered by a Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne SJY61 scramjet engine, it is designed to ride on its own shockwaves and accelerate to about Mach 6. (U.S. Air Force)
The Defense Department had largely been conducting the testing of hypersonic weapons — those that can reach speeds of Mach 5 and above — at sea given the need for the long ranges for evaluation. Still, even that was limited. The Pentagon restricted the number and location of hypersonic tests it carried out each year because of the aging fleet of ships it used as its primary data collection assets to track the capabilities while in flight.
Retired Block 20 and Block 30 RQ-4 Global Hawks belonging to the U.S. Air Force, reconfigured as RangeHawks under the SkyRange hypersonic weapon testing infrastructure program, would help address some of those restrictions. You can read more about that in our story here.
However, if testing moves to an overland phase, the need for expanded air corridors could grow increasingly critical. Last year, the Pentagon’s Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) identified three candidate locations to perform those tests, one over Alaska, another at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and a third in Australia, Defense News reported at the time.
An interceptor launches from an Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) system operated by soldiers assigned to the 1st Battalion, 51st Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 7th Infantry Division (Multi-Domain Command Pacific), during a test at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, on July 28, 2026. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Michael Majors and White Sands Missile Range Public Affairs) Sgt. Michael Majors
The U.S. Air Force’s scramjet-powered Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) has finally reached the flight test phase, with at least one “release” having been carried out so far over a range in Australia. (Raytheon) Raytheon
The military is also looking to expand where it can test electronic warfare systems to help ease the bottleneck at White Sands and a few other locations. Such testing is limited due to U.S. restrictions on jamming, which can interfere with civilian systems.
Before he resigned after tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, former Army Secretary Dan Driscoll in June said the service had plans to set up at least two domestic ranges that mimic realistic conditions on Ukraine’s battlefields, where the electromagnetic spectrum is a highly contested domain. This spectrum would be even more heavily disputed in a fight with China.
“You can have a kind of electronic warfare and all of the contested environment created, and you can have drone manufacturers and counter-drone tool-builders engaging together,” Driscoll told reporters. “Then, we also want soldiers to be able to go there, so that they can strengthen their skills and work hand-in-hand with developers.”
A drone swarm returns from a mission during the XVIII Airborne Corps’ Scarlet Dragon 26-3 at Fort Bragg, N.C., Sept. 15, 2026. (U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Iliana Lopez) Pfc. Iliana Lopez
Driscoll said there are already places in the U.S. where the Army can test safely, and separately, the service is looking at a global range outside the U.S. to do “much more aggressive testing,” including with hypersonics. When asked, Driscoll declined to say where these ranges would be until planning is farther along.
“At least some of the current counter-drone training for soldiers, like one CBS News saw in April, does not include electronic jamming — in part because the U.S. restricts jamming domestically,” CBS reported.
In August, the Army opened premier test ranges for the use of private industry to conduct internal research and development. Additionally, the service co-hosted a Denied, Disrupted, Intermittent and Limited testing environment, at Camp Grayling in September, and there are three more scheduled for Fiscal Year 2027, an Army spokesperson told us.
(U.S. Army)
Trump’s news about the “super range” was delivered as the Pentagon and the services are working to ramp up the development and production of a range of autonomous systems.
Last month, as we noted earlier in this story, the Pentagon announced plans for a new functional combatant command, very broadly akin to U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) or U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM), but for operational activities involving autonomous and robotic capabilities. In addition, Hegseth also announced new initiatives to help further accelerate the fielding of uncrewed systems in the air, at sea, and on land, as well as to explore future warfighting challenges. All of this builds on previous and long-overdue efforts to prioritize the fielding of various tiers of drones, as well as artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies, across domains, but there are questions about how these new efforts will translate into tangible developments.
.@SECWAR “Today, at my direction—we are announcing the creation of Autonomous Warfare Command, or AutoWarCom:
A new 4-star combatant command—with service-like authorities—built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the Joint Force in the fastest peacetime shift in… pic.twitter.com/kYWBxy6Dij
On Tuesday, acting Army Secretary Adam Telle announced the creation of the service’s Futures and Autonomous Systems Command (FASCOM).
“This is our way to make sure that we take all of the great work that’s been happening with the resources that we have today, and we centralize it,” Telle said. “We’re pushing autonomy down into our units, but when it comes to having and making sure that the left hand in the Army knows what the right hand of the Army is doing, this happens at FASCOM; then FASCOM feeds up into AutoWarCom.”
Telle added that FASCOM “will work with the other services to create scale for purchasing power and share best practices on autonomy.”
“It is too soon to speculate about anything related to FASCOM,” the Army told us. “Specifics on structure, command, mission, etc. will be announced at a future dates [and] will require the kind of additional testing facilities that a new Montana super range could provide.”
The use of highly cooperative autonomous weapons platforms that can swarm and operate collectively over large areas will also tax existing ranges beyond their capacity.
Details about the new range proposed by Trump are scant, and it remains to be seen whether it will live up to the hype or even be built. As we noted earlier in this piece, a feasibility study, which hasn’t even been funded yet, is still needed before major work can begin. However, if and when it does come online, a new Montana test range will be welcomed by a military in need of additional places to test out its latest capabilities.
Sikorsky has unveiled a concept for a containerized deployment package for its Nomad 100 vertical takeoff and landing uncrewed aircraft system (VTOL UAS), combining four aircraft and their support equipment inside a single 20-foot shipping container. The company is pitching the Nomad 100 Fast Pack as a way to rapidly establish autonomous air capabilities at locations without runways or other conventional support infrastructure.
The concept was unveiled on October 12 at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual convention in Washington, D.C., where TWZ is in attendance. It comes as the U.S. military seeks to expand its inventory of uncrewed systems and distribute capabilities across more dispersed operating locations, particularly in preparation for a potential large-scale conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific.
Rendering of the Nomad 100 Fast Pack in action. Courtesy of Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin company Rendering courtesy of Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin company
“Military commanders are asking for capability that enables them to deploy worldwide into austere environments,” said Ramsey Bentley, director of Sikorsky Advanced Concepts, speaking at AUSA. They want greater situational awareness, the ability to conduct targeting and deliver effects at range, and the capacity to control multiple assets simultaneously, he added.
A rendering of soldiers preparing Nomads for launch in a typical Indo-Pacific operating environment. Sikorsky screencap
The Nomad 100 Fast Pack is built around a standard 20-foot ISO container housing four aircraft, mission-command equipment, communications, power systems, and sustainment supplies. The aim is to deliver a self-contained package that can be transported to a forward location, brought into operation, and moved again quickly. A promotional video shows the Fast Pack being transported into a combat theater by one of the company’s Black Hawk helicopters as a slung load.
Sikorsky says two Nomad 100s can be prepared for flight “out of the box” in less than 15 minutes and that the other two aircraft — stored on the upper shelf of the container — can be made available within four to six hours.
The package is designed to support runway-independent operations from locations including naval vessels, tactical vehicle staging areas, and improvised landing zones.
“We no longer require a ground control station,” explained Sikorsky Vice President and General Manager Rich Benton. “We no longer require a large group of soldiers or operators.”
Beyond the containerized package, Bentley said Nomad can be transported by truck or trailer, or potentially self-deploy in a smaller package. Sikorsky is also developing containerized deployment concepts for larger members of the Nomad family.
As we have discussed in the past, the Nomad 100 combines vertical takeoff and landing with the ability to transition to fixed-wing flight, bringing airplane-like range and endurance to a compact, runway-independent package that can operate from confined locations.
“What is very unique about this aircraft is it’s able to roll over on its wing and also fly like an airplane,” Bentley said. “So you’re getting the vertical takeoff and landing capability, along with the endurance, range, and speed of a fixed-wing aircraft.”
Sikorsky cites an endurance of 10 to 14 hours, depending on payload, a range exceeding 800 nautical miles, and a cruising speed of 70 miles per hour, with a dash speed of 90 miles per hour.
Its hybrid-electric drivetrain uses combustion engines to drive a generator that supplies power to the aircraft’s rotors and mission systems. Nomad is designed to operate on multiple fuels, including JP-8, JP-4, and Jet A.
“Ten gallons of fuel provides over 10 plus hours of operation, so it’s a very efficient system,” Bentley said. He added that the hybrid-electric design reduces maintenance requirements, emphasizing line-replaceable units over more extensive traditional aviation maintenance.
The aircraft can carry a 60-pound mission payload, including supplies such as medical equipment. Bentley said its modular center fuselage can be configured as a cargo bay or adapted for other mission equipment.
Sikorsky says the Fast Pack can support intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting (ISR-T), light attack, and contested logistics missions, depending on customer configuration.
On display at AUSA is a Nomad configured with a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor turret with laser designation capability and four small Northrop Grumman Hatchet glide munitions.
Other potential payloads include electro-optical and infrared sensors, synthetic aperture radar, launched effects, and electronic warfare systems for jamming.
A launched effect is released from a Nomad drone in an earlier Sikorsky rendering. Sikorsky screencap
The combination of a small logistical footprint and long-range flight could be particularly useful for supporting expeditionary forces. The aircraft could deliver supplies without relying on a runway or crewed helicopter, while sensor-equipped variants could provide reconnaissance and target designation. Other configurations could carry weapons or deploy additional uncrewed systems.
The Fast Pack also relies on Sikorsky’s MATRIX autonomy technology to reduce operator workload. Rather than continuously piloting each aircraft, an operator can assign a mission through a tablet-based interface and let the aircraft execute it autonomously.
A drone operator uses a tablet to control a Nomad. Sikorsky screencap
“Now, Matrix autonomy is a very mature autonomy capability. We’ve had over 1,000 flight hours on Matrix,” Bentley said.
An operator selects a mission, designates a location on a map, and initiates the flight. MATRIX then manages engine start, preflight checks, launch, navigation, and mission execution.
“For the operator, very simply, he pulls up the display. He selects a mission, say reconnaissance, and then the operator would select a point on the map where he wants that reconnaissance to occur, and then he hits start,” Bentley explained. “The aircraft Matrix autonomy takes care of everything else along the flight.”
Bentley said the system can adapt to changing environmental and tactical conditions, using onboard sensors to navigate and avoid obstacles, including hazards around landing areas.
“Our whole approach here with the advanced Matrix autonomy is: How do we take the workload off the operator?” he said. “This is not remotely piloted, although you could do that. Our approach here is that this is fully autonomous.”
Communications are designed to be network-agnostic. Bentley identified Starlink or Starshield for beyond-line-of-sight connectivity in the current configuration, alongside tactical mobile ad-hoc networking (MANET) equipment for line-of-sight communications.
MATRIX is also used in other Sikorsky autonomy efforts, including the fully uncrewed U-Hawk drone, seen in the video below, and the company’s optionally piloted Black Hawk concept. A common tablet interface could help operators manage different autonomous aircraft without needing a separate control system for each.
Nomad 100 originated under DARPA’s EVADE program, which sought to develop a vertical-lift uncrewed aircraft capability. Bentley said two customers associated with the program had placed initial orders, with additional interest from domestic and international customers.
Sikorsky has a contract for three Nomad 100s under EVADE. The company announced in July that the first had been delivered to the customer, while a second was entering flight testing at the time of the interview. The U.S. Marine Corps is also buying two Nomad 100s, Bentley toldArmy Times.
Sikorsky is developing the larger Nomad 500, which will offer greater payload capacity, longer range, and increased power output. One Nomad 500 can fit in a 20-foot container, while three can be transported in a 40-foot container, according to Bentley. The largest member of the family, the Nomad 1000, requires a 40-foot container for a single aircraft.
A rendering shows how the Nomad family of VTOL drones can be scaled for a variety of sea- and land-based missions. Sikorsky
The Fast Pack concept reflects a broader effort to make autonomous aircraft easier to deploy and sustain as military forces disperse across larger operating areas. Its appeal lies not just in the Nomad 100’s combination of vertical takeoff and long-range flight, but in packaging multiple aircraft and their supporting equipment into a single, relocatable system. That could be especially valuable in the Indo-Pacific, where long distances, limited infrastructure, and the vulnerability of fixed operating bases pose major challenges.
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.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth visits U.S. Navy Sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) near San Diego, Calif., Oct. 7, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Madelyn Keech) Staff Sgt. Madelyn Keech
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.
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.
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.
A close-up look at the broken submarine and other kill marks on one of VFA-41’s Super Hornets. (Jeff Rojas) Jeffrey Rojas
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…
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 andUSS 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.
Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr. (DDG 121) transits the Arabian Sea, June 27, 2026. (U.S. Navy photo) U.S. Central Command Public Affa
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.
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 TWZreported 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.
Sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln look on as the ship docks at its homeport at Naval Air Station North Island on return from a historic 10-month deployment on Oct. 8, 2026 in Coronado, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images) Mario Tama
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.”
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman talks at the All-In Summit about new high- and fast-flying X-planes with the eye-catching aircraft silhouette in the background. All-In Summit/YouTube screencap
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.”
SR-71 Blackbird. (Courtesy photo via USAF)
“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.”
SR-71 tail number 844 during its service with NASA. (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.
Paul Crickmore’s latest book on the SR-71, Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions. The Missing Chapters. (Osprey Publishing)
“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.
(NASA)
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.”
Pratt & Whitney J58 engine. (National Air and Space Museum)
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.”
Lockheed’s ‘SR-72’ hypersonic plane concept. (Lockheed Martin Skunk Works)
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.
As part of its overall effort to boost America’s flagging shipbuilding capacity, the Trump administration on Tuesday announced that Anduril is building a new two-million-square-foot facility in Baltimore designed to help speed up the production of Virginia class nuclear-powered attack submarines. The plant, dubbed Arsenal-2, will eventually produce components like torpedo tubes and spherical air flasks, which will then be sent to the two shipyards that build nuclear submarines, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipbuilding. Anduril’s plan to build complex submarine components is a huge leap for a company with a shipbuilding portfolio consisting of a limited number of smaller craft.
The submarine component plant announcement was made as the Navy is struggling to keep up with its goal of producing two of these boats per year amid a wider issue of construction and delivery delays across the service. However, it will be years before the first Anduril-produced components are placed on a submarine, with no specific timelines for that effort yet established, an industry official told us. We will discuss that in greater detail later in this story.
A Virginia class submarine under construction. (HII) HII
“Today’s $6.6 billion investment represents the president’s commitment to restoring American maritime dominance by constructing new vessels in communities like Baltimore and across the country,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told a group of reporters, including from TWZ, at a Tuesday morning press conference.
Those funds include a $3.7 billion investment from Anduril to build and staff the new facility, and a contract worth up to $2.9 billion awarded to Anduril by the Navy to produce the components.
“The Virginia class submarine program is one of the most critical warfighting capabilities that our nation has that guarantees deterrence every single day,” Anduril President and Chief Strategy Officer Chris Brose stated. “It is also a program that has been challenged in terms of the ability to meet the Navy’s requirements. So we’re, as a nation, not necessarily where we need to be, and that’s not because of our shipyard workers.”
The Navy currently has 26 Virginia class boats, with two more expected to be commissioned next spring, a senior administration official told reporters on Tuesday. Another 31 vessels are still needed to meet the Navy’s overall plan to have 59 Virginia class boats.
The USS Idaho (SSN 799) pulls into Submarine Base New London in Groton, Connecticut, for the first time on Monday, Dec. 15, 2025. When commissioned, it became the 26th Virginia class attack submarine and fifth U.S. Navy ship to be named for the Gem State. (U.S. Navy Photo by John Narewski) John Narewski
However, while the Navy has been buying them at a rate of two per year from Fiscal Year 2011 through Fiscal Year 2024, “the actual Virginia class production rate has never reached 2.0 boats per year, and since 2022 has been limited by shipyard and supplier firm workforce and supply chain challenges to about 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year, resulting in a growing backlog of boats procured but not yet built,” according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published in January. “Key drivers of the drop in production include workforce challenges, first-time quality, material and supplier delays, and lead ship issues associated with the Virginia Payload Module [VPM] variant. The Navy is working closely with the shipbuilders to drive improvement throughout the Virginia enterprise.”
A briefing slide with details about the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) that will be added to the Block V Virginia class submarines. USN
Adding to the strain on production and delivery, Australia is set to get one new-build Virginia class boat and two from the U.S. Navy’s fleet under the 2021 trilateral AUKUS nuclear submarine acquisition deal with the United States and the United Kingdom.
In May, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle told Congress that the service would meet its two-boat-a-year delivery rate by 2032.
During Tuesday’s press conference, officials laid out claims that the new Anduril plant will address several of the issues that have slowed down the construction and delivery of these submarines.
“If you look at this in terms of capacity, the potential based on the area and what Anduril plans to do is to add about 9 million hours of labor a year at this facility,” stated a senior administration official, who, like others on Tuesday spoke on condition of anonymity. “That would be the equivalent of about a 15% increase, and so that would be directly translatable to Virginia class submarine production. So having those torpedo tubes earlier would let us move production of current Virginia submarines under construction faster.”
Adm. Frank Caldwell, Jr., director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, examines a torpedo tube aboard the Virginia class fast attack submarine USS Illinois (SSN 786) during Ice Exercise (ICEX) 2022. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Alfred Coffield/Released) Petty Officer 1st Class Alfred Coffield
In addition, Anduril plans to draw on a huge potential workforce to staff the plant.
“If you basically draw like a one-hour radius around the Baltimore County area, there are millions and millions of people who could potentially contribute and work at this shipyard, and that is a huge selling point for us,” an industry official suggested.
The greater Baltimore area. (Google Earth)
Beyond producing components like torpedo tubes, Anduril aspires to eventually build “full ship sections, bows, sterns, etc.” at Arsenal-2, the industry official added.
Anduril said Arsenal-2 will be “purpose-built” for the “high-volume, high-precision production of undersea naval capabilities.”
“The shipyard’s layout is optimized for production,” the company stated in a media release. “Reduced distances between fabrication, assembly, testing, and integration areas eliminate the staging bottlenecks that slow conventional yards.”
“A functional 1,200-foot graving dock and multimodal road and rail access support large-scale component movement,” Anduril added. “High-bay assembly halls, adjacent fabrication areas, and reconfigurable production lines allow the yard to shift rapidly as Navy requirements evolve.”
ArsenalOS, Anduril’s industrial software platform, “will provide the digital backbone for the yard and its production systems,” the company further pointed out. “It will connect fabrication workflows, outfitting sequences, material movement, inspection protocols, and documentation requirements in a single system, giving workers and managers real-time visibility into the state of production. Digital work instructions, embedded quality controls, modern sensing, and automation will support the expertise of welders, pipefitters, electricians, shipfitters, inspectors, and other skilled trades.”
Anduril claims the project “will create 3,100 direct jobs and support more than 11,000 indirect jobs. The site will drive $2 billion in annual economic output, including an estimated $312 million in wages each year.”
Before Arsenal-2 is up and running, Anduril said it plans to “manufacture critical Virginia class submarine components at a new 160,000-square-foot facility in Orange County, California, purpose-built to support key submarine construction processes and SUBSAFE-qualified production qualification [efforts].”
The Orange County facility will give Anduril “a two-year operational head start to develop and validate manufacturing methods, production workflows, and quality systems before Arsenal-2 comes online,” the company noted. “It will support prototyping and production of Virginia-class test assets and critical maritime components, including torpedo tubes, while allowing Anduril to recruit and train the early workforce on the systems and standards that will ultimately scale at Arsenal-2. Once Arsenal-2 comes online, the Orange County facility will continue supporting broader maritime manufacturing efforts across Anduril’s industrial network.”
As we noted earlier in this piece, it will be years before anything produced by Anduril winds up on a sub. In addition to recruiting and training a workforce to build the components and ensuring the production system can meet goals, the parts then have to be tested to ensure they are safe enough to place on boats.
The industry official told TWZ that there is no schedule yet for when that will happen.
“We are starting this work now,” the industry official said. “We’re going to be working quickly. There’s a lot we’re going to have to do to prove the ability to produce the initial components – the torpedo tubes. We’re going to have to work with our partners in industry and partners in government on the certification. So it’s really not possible to put a time stamp on it as much as I’d like to.”
“I think our goal, and I know this is shared by the administration, is to go as fast as possible while keeping the bar of safety as high as it needs to be, and try to get these systems certified so that they go into the production of boats… and solve the critical limiting factor currently in our supply chain, and help our industry partners produce more submarines.”
Arsenal-2 follows the development of Anduril’s Arsenal-1 plant in Ohio, first announced two years ago. That five-million-square-foot facility, once fully up and running, will be able to “produce tens of thousands of autonomous weapons systems addressing the urgent needs of the United States and our allies,” the company said at the time.
Anduril’s Arsenal-1 plant in Ohio. (Anduril)
Arsenal-1, however, remains a work in progress, with more construction work yet to be done. Still, Anduril’s first product from that plant, the U.S. Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) known as the YFQ-44A Fury, rolled off the assembly line there in July. That milestone met the company’s initial production schedule announced in January 2025, according to JobsOhio, the state’s business development arm.
A U.S. Air Force YFQ-44A Fury aircraft, assigned to the Collaborative Combat Aircraft Experimental Operation Unit, takes off for a mission flight during an Agile Combat Employment exercise at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, July 21, 2026. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Kristal Munguia) Staff Sgt. Kristal Munguia
Anduril, which also produces systems like the Ghost Shark extra-large autonomous undersea vehicle (in partnership with Australia), the Roadrunner reusable missile-like air vehicle, the Iris family of passive infrared sensors, and a wide range of other items, is playing a growing role in the Trump administration’s weapons development efforts.
Last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Anduril co-founder Palmer Luckey, who made a name for himself and his fortune in the virtual reality space with Meta, will help lead a new program dubbed Project Meridian. The goal, according to a Pentagon memo, is to “map the trajectory of future warfare, identify critical capability gaps, and propose actionable solutions in furtherance of the identified goals in the 2026 National Security Science and Technology Strategy.”
The Pentagon’s Chief Technology Officer, Emil Michael, has been directed to set up this project. SpaceX founder Elon Musk and Newt Gingrich are other key members.
A screen capture from last month’s livestream of Secretary Hegseth’s speech announcing new plans for autonomous warfare capabilities. From left to right, Palmer Luckey, Newt Gingrich, and Elon Musk. U.S. Military capture
“The inclusion of Musk and Luckey does raise ethical questions, as they both lead companies with major U.S. government contracts already, and which could be in line to see more opportunities based on Project Meridian’s findings. What guardrails might be put in place to prevent conflicts of interest is unclear.”
Regardless of any such concerns, today’s shipyard announcement is a clear indication that the Trump administration and the Pentagon see Anduril as a major player across its weapons manufacturing industrial base. It’s also a reminder of just how challenging it is to actually expand America’s ability to build fighting vessels.
The Saudi-backed Yemeni forces battling the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels claim they have regained a large swath of territory in a new counteroffensive launched on Monday. This includes the recapture of the Red Sea port city of Mokha and other key positions near the highly-strategic Bab al-Mandeb Strait (BAM). As we reported last month, the Houthis had taken these areas during an offensive of their own.
“On Monday, the Nation Shield Forces, the Giants Brigades, and the Tihama Resistance—supported by the Popular Resistance—seized control of the city of Al-Mokha in western Taiz Governorate following fierce battles against the terrorist Houthi militias backed by the Iranian regime,” the official Yemeni Saba news outlet reported. “The forces, aided by air support, succeeded in capturing Al-Mokha after clashes with the terrorist Houthi militias, which had controlled the city since early last September. The battles, which took place at various locations surrounding Al-Mokha, involved the use of diverse weaponry and resulted in casualties among the terrorist Houthi militias, the capture of several of their members, and the flight of others.”
Dubbed Operation Yemen Dawn, the counteroffensive aims to “restore state institutions, liberate the capital Sana’a, and end the Houthi terrorist militia coup,” Rashad al-Alimi, president of the internationally recognized government of Yemen, stated Monday on X.
“With God’s aid, the will of our people, the valor of our armed forces and all military formations, and the support of our brothers and friends, Yemen will march toward a new dawn of freedom, peace, and stability,” al-Alimi added.
على بركة الله، انطلقت عملية "فجر اليمن" لاستعادة مؤسسات الدولة، وتحرير العاصمة صنعاء، وإنهاء انقلاب الميليشيات الحوثية الإرهابية. بعون الله، وإرادة شعبنا وبسالة قواتنا المسلحة وكافة التشكيلات العسكرية، ودعم أشقائنا وأصدقائنا، سيمضي اليمن نحو فجر جديد من الحرية والسلام والاستقرار. pic.twitter.com/bP1h9EVdu2
The claims about the recapture of Mokha follow statements made earlier on Monday that the National Shield Forces and Giants Brigades, “liberated Dhubab [also spelled Dhobab] District and strategic positions around the Bab al-Mandab Strait in western Taiz Governorate on Monday following clashes with Iran-backed Houthi militias,” Saba claimed. “The clashes left a number of Houthi fighters dead or wounded, while others fled under pressure from the military operation. Several military vehicles and pieces of equipment were also destroyed or disabled. The forces are continuing clearance and security operations in the liberated areas and cutting Houthi supply routes.”
In addition, the Kingdom’s Maj. Gen. Turki al-Maliki, spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition, stated that “100 fighter jets were providing support to the forces of Yemen’s internationally recognized government fighting against the Houthis,” according to The Associated Press. “He said the coalition has secured ‘air protection’ of the strategic Bab el-Mandeb Strait and destroyed hundreds of Houthi targets as part of the ongoing campaign.”
After Yemeni officials announced the new counteroffensive on Sunday, al-Maliki vowed “full operational support” to the Yemeni government forces, until the Houthis are “eliminated,” the AP added.
On Monday, the Humanitarian Operations Coordination Center (HOCC), an organization closely aligned with the Houthis, confirmed increased Saudi airstrikes and threatened a response. HOCC warned “all airlines operating in Saudi airspace that it is unsafe, with the exception of the airspace over ‘Mecca and Medina,'” the official Houthi Telegram channel reported.
HOCC did not elaborate on that warning.
While TWZ cannot verify these claims, independent Yemen analyst Mohammed al-Basha said it appears that the anti-Houthi forces have gained ground on the Red Sea coast.
The founder of the widely quoted Basha Report stated on X that he had “high confidence” that Yemeni government forces recaptured Dhobab Airport, “cutting off the Houthi supply route between Mocha and Bab al-Mandab.” He added that “Southern Giants Forces are now heading towards the city of Dhobab, Al-Omari Camp, and Bab al-Mandab.”
بثقة عالية الساعة العاشرة صباح الاثنين ٥ أكتوبر استعادة مطار ذوباب وقطع طريق إمداد الحوثي بين المخا وباب المندب قوات العمالقة الجنوبية الان تتجه نحو مدينة ذوباب ومعسكر العمري وباب المندب https://t.co/6eHYJ3cnza
Videos have emerged showing what appears to be Saudi-backed forces running over Houthi fighters. The Houthis have called this a war crime.
Several videos emerging of Saudi-backed government forces driving over and shooting fleeing Houthi fighters caught off guard by their offensive in southwestern Yemen.
Amid the spike in fighting, the State Department issued a new warning to Americans in Saudi Arabia.
“Due to the ongoing security situation in Saudi Arabia and the potential for aerial drone or missile attacks on Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Mission strongly encourages all U.S. citizens to remain vigilant and follow the guidance of national alerts released by Saudi Arabia’s Civil Defense,” the department stated on X.
Saudi Arabia: Due to the ongoing security situation in Saudi Arabia and the potential for aerial drone or missile attacks on Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Mission strongly encourages all U.S. citizens to remain vigilant and follow the guidance of national alerts released by Saudi… pic.twitter.com/QzVaER1WZ8
Yemen Dawn was launched in the wake of large-scale Houthi advances. As we noted earlier in this story, the rebel group captured the port of Mokha and two key islands in the Red Sea, increasing its control over the Bab al-Mandab Strait (BAM). That moved the front lines to the key city of Taiz, which sits astride a major roadway linking it to the port city of Aden. The Houthis recently captured strategic hilltops near Taiz, advancing on the last road between the city and Aden, which serves as the interim capital of the Yemeni government.
The conflict between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis grew out of a civil war in Yemen that erupted in 2014. It expanded a year later when a Saudi-led coalition joined forces with the government ousted by the Houthis and raged on until the parties reached a tenuous ceasefire in 2022. The Saudis held off on getting involved in the recent Red Sea conflict which saw the U.S. and coalition warships duking it out with the Houthis, and eventually led to a U.S.-led air campaign over Yemen. Tensions, however, reignited after that conflict ended when the Houthis joined the U.S.-Iran conflict on the side of their major supporter.
Earlier this year, the Houthis imposed a blockade on the BAM and began striking Saudi ships in the southern part of the Red Sea as well as targeting critical energy terminals on that body of water and Saudi refineries. Iranian proxies have also struck the vital East-West pipeline that carries oil to the Red Sea to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has vastly curtailed shipping after the launch of Operation Epic Fury. That line has reportedly since reopened after being shut down following a long-range drone attack.
Bab al-Mandab Strait. (Google Earth)
On Monday, Turkey and Pakistan said they will undertake a “rapid deployment” of troops to Saudi Arabia under the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, a pact designed to assist the Kingdom’s fight against the Houthis, the Middle East Eye reported.
“The announcement on Monday came after representatives of the three countries held an emergency meeting in Riyadh where they condemned recent attacks on Saudi Arabia, in particular those targeting the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, without mentioning the Houthis by name,” the publication added.
Concern about maintaining the flow of energy resources from the region has spurred France and the U.K. to send additional forces to help the Saudis.
You can see Macron’s announcement in the following video.
Nous agissons pour protéger nos compatriotes des conséquences de la crise au Moyen-Orient. Objectifs : sécuriser les approvisionnements et faire baisser les prix à la pompe. pic.twitter.com/kvrgHcV4E4
The U.S. also appears to be increasing its assistance to Saudi Arabia. Though President Donald Trump turned down the Kingdom’s request to directly attack the Houthis, the U.S. is “providing aerial refueling for Saudi warplanes conducting defensive air patrols,” The New York Times reported on Sunday. That’s in addition to the previously known assistance to Riyadh provided by “more than 200 U.S. intelligence and military analysts working in Saudi command centers helping to analyze and select targets in support of its Yemeni allies,” the newspaper added.
The stark reality, especially facing European leaders like Macron, is that if Saudi oil infrastructure and transport nodes near the Red Sea are destroyed or the pipeline that feeds them is shut down for months, the last major oil lifeline from the region — and especially to Europe — will be closed off, sparking a deeper energy crisis.
Iran has already severely curtailed the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz since the U.S. and Israel attacked it on Feb. 28. The movement of oil has been further impeded by a U.S. blockade on Iranian ports. However, transits have been increasing as of late, thanks in large measure to U.S. military escorts that U.S. Central Command claims have allowed more than a billion barrels of crude to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
Still, the price of Brent crude continues to hover over $100 per barrel due to a combination of factors that still make this a very dangerous region. This includes the ongoing threats from the Houthis in the BAM and the aforementioned spike in fighting between the Houthis and Saudi-backed forces. In addition, there are continuing Iranian attacks on shipping, including one today and three over the weekend, the skyrocketing cost of insuring vessels and the possibility Gulf countries may be paying Iran to allow their oil through. Such payments, essentially a toll, are “potentially handing Tehran a significant portion of the value of the cargo,” Al Jazeera noted.
Asked about the Saudi-backed counteroffensive, Trump said “It will all work out very well.”
Question: What's your view on the Saudi and Yemeni counter attack against the Houthis?
Meanwhile, talks between the U.S. and Iran to end hostilities between the countries remain at an impasse, though the two sides have not directly attacked each other in weeks. The U.S. rejected Iran’s conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and Tehran says it is preparing a reply to the U.S. counterproposal, CBS News reported Monday morning.
For his part, Trump continues to waver, suggesting the U.S. could “leave tomorrow” or resume striking Iran.
It is far too early to tell whether the new Saudi-backed counteroffensive in Yemen will have any lasting effect on the battlefield. The coalition arrayed against the Houthis isn’t known to be highly robust and the quality of its forces have been in question. Still, it has been clear that the Saudis and their allies had to act strongly, and this would be exactly that.
U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers that had been deployed to RAF Fairford in the U.K. since operation Epic Fury have returned to their home stations, a U.S. defense official confirmed to TWZ. The hasty movement was reportedly sparked by new Iranian threats against the base, although the Pentagon doesn’t confirm that assertion.
The sudden withdrawal came a week after a major incident was declared near Fairford following the arrest of five men on suspicion of driving bomb-laden vans toward it. They were later released on bail after no explosives were found. However, Counter-Terrorism police are continuing the investigation and said they were considering whether a foreign state had been involved. On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the incident might have had an Iranian link.
A U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer heavy bomber takes off from runway 27 to depart for home at RAF Fairford on Oct. 4, 2026 in Fairford, United Kingdom. (Photo by David Bown/Getty Images) DAVIDBOWN
Bomber strikes launched from Fairford, which included ones executed by both B-1s and B-52s, were a central aspect of major U.S. combat operations against Iran earlier this year. In addition, the installation is a major hub for U.S. military aircraft in the United Kingdom. It is a regular host of strategic assets, including bombers and U-2 spy planes. It also acts as a pit stop for other aircraft, including fighters, that are being ferried to and from the United States.
The U.S. withdrew all 12 B-1s “after commanders received new threats about an Iran-backed plot against the installation,” The New York Times reported, citing two U.S. officials.
U.S. Air Force B-1 bombers depart RAF Fairford for home bases on Oct. 4, 2026. (Photo by David Bown/Getty Images) DAVIDBOWN
“The withdrawal was highly unusual: Such moves are rarely made so quickly from an allied air base in a peacetime country thousands of miles from a combat zone,” the publication added. “The need to move the bombers out of the base, R.A.F. Fairford, was deemed so urgent that some of the planes and their flight crews left while aerial refueling aircraft were still being scrambled to support their flights to the United States. At least three of the planes had landed at their home base in South Dakota by Sunday.”
U.S. officials declined to tell the Times the specific nature of the new information that prompted the Lancer withdrawal, some of which had just arrived in the past week as part of a normal rotation of forces to maintain the B-1 forward presence in Europe.
“One U.S. official said the new information was part of the same threat warnings that surfaced three weeks ago, but specific details and a sense of urgency spiked in the past 24 hours, alarming commanders,” the publication noted.
As we previously reported, Tehran directly threatened RAF Fairford in July over its use as a base to launch attacks against Iran.
“The American aggressor army, which used to launch cruise missiles from its vessels in the Indian Ocean in its aggression after the official resumption of the war, with the end of the missile reserves of the aforementioned vessels, yesterday switched to using B1 planes flying from Fairford Air Base, England,” Tasnim News Agency, a quasi-state outlet in Iran with ties to the country’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed on Telegram on July 23. “As the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated, any base that is used to invade Iran’s territory is our legitimate goal.”
the enemy must pay the price for its breach of promises, and this time we will not allow America to use deceptive ceasefires to replenish its oil and ammunition stockpiles and then resume attacks once again.
Local aircraft spotters and aviation photographers began to notice the aircraft departing in large numbers earlier on Sunday.
The aircraft left in several waves, according to the DefenceGeek X account, run by the senior editor of the U.K. Defence Journal.
IN FULL: US Bomber Force Withdrawal from RAF Fairford #IranWar
OK so now we know the full scale of this withdrawal, here's the details – 10 of the 12 B-1B "Lancer" bombers remaining at the base (including the aircraft that only arrived 6 days ago on a rotation) are heading… pic.twitter.com/LSBHuomAcz
B-1 MAYAN42 departing for home just now it was with MAYAN41 86-0111 which only recently arrived at RAF Fairford suggesting not a rotation. That's 10 today now. pic.twitter.com/sfvDjmgdgK
The defense official who confirmed the withdrawal said the aircraft movements won’t affect overall readiness.
“The Airmen that operate America’s bomber force, including B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s, remain ready to deliver precision global strike capabilities – including through operations that launch and recover from the continental United States – anywhere, anytime,” the official added.
When we asked the Pentagon about the retrograde movement of bombers from the U.K., they did not confirm the security issue that prompted it, stating:
“U.S. Air Force bombers routinely operate around the world to support global force readiness and operational requirements. While operational security precluded us from confirming the movement of our assets and forces in real-time, we can acknowledge now that all U.S. bombers that were deployed to RAF Fairford have re-deployed to their home stations in the United States. The Airmen that operate America’s bomber force, including B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s, remain ready to deliver precision global strike capabilities – including through operations that launch and recover from the continental United States – anywhere, anytime.”
Regardless, this is the first time in months that RAF Fairford has not hosted U.S. bombers.
When it comes to the future of Tail 844, the SR-71 Blackbird that mysteriously disappeared from NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center, few people have more insights than Tim Conners. When he worked at NASA in the 1990s, Conners was the lead propulsion engineer for the agency’s Blackbird program. He worked extensively on 844 and has an intimate knowledge of what made the iconic aircraft tick. Now, he brings an insider perspective on NASA’s secretive work to get the Blackbird back in the air and speculates on what it would take to do so, as well as the famed jet’s possible flight test role for the agency after 27 years of dormancy.
In an exclusive interview with TWZ, Conners, now technical director for advanced weapons systems at Tiberius Aerospace, gave us his take on NASA’s Blackbird revelations and insights into what NASA is working on and how far along they are in the process.
Some of the questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity.
Tim Conners
Q: Tell me about your background with the SR-71 program. How did it begin? How long did it last? And what did you do?
A: So that basically fell in my lap when I was an engineer at NASA’s Dryden [Flight Research Center] back in the early ’90s when NASA took delivery of three of the airframes when the Air Force was retiring the fleet. So NASA got two A models and a trainer. Obviously, tail number 844, which is NASA’s designation, is the one that’s getting all of the attention right now. But those came to Dryden in the early ’90s.
By luck of the draw, I was in the propulsion group. We were short-staffed for a number of reasons, and they needed an engineer on Blackbird. And I had been with NASA for about three or four years at that point, and I got tapped to prepare the NASA side of the mission for the upcoming research flights. So I had a few years to get familiar. That was a part-time job, by the way. I also owned the F-15 fleet at NASA as a propulsion engineer, and that was occupying a lot of my time, but it did give me an adequate amount of time to get familiar with the way that the airplane operated, at least from the propulsion standpoint. And then we began doing research missions in ’96. I left NASA in ’98, but I was able to support the program through two years of flight testing and all the years of preparation for those two years.
Q: Tell me more about your role with the Blackbirds.
A: I was lead propulsion engineer on the NASA side. So what NASA would do is they would assign disciplinary leads across from their industry and government counterparts. So Dryden’s disciplinary leads, their job was basically to make sure that any experimental packages were integrated safely with the airframe, and that we could execute the proposed test missions safely and successfully. I owned propulsion and I also owned performance. So if you recall the Lockheed Linear Aerospike rocket engine activity, that package weighed 20,000 to 25,000 pounds and was mounted externally on the back of the SR-71. That was a drag issue, obviously. So part of my role was to make sure that we could actually accelerate through the transonic drag rise with that package and get out to the target test conditions.
SR-71 tail number 844 during its service with NASA. This picture was taken on October 31, 1997, during a flight in support of the NASA/Rocketdyne/Lockheed Martin Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE). NASA
Q: There is a tremendous amount of interest in seeing the Blackbird fly again. The biggest question seems to be why? What kinds of experiments or research would an SR-71 provide that couldn’t be done more effectively with a modern aircraft, rocket or unmanned vehicle? Can you walk us through some of the reasons NASA would like to see it in the skies again?
A: Yeah, that’s a question that everybody’s been asking. Why? I’m speculating, although I do have a good feel for where this is going. So bear with me.
They probably are not going to do this for — or trying to do this — for aerodynamic reasons. You can do CFD [computational fluid dynamics]-based modeling in this speed regime all day long and very accurately in this day and age. It does not take a lot of time or money to do that. What you cannot do is an accurate representation of a new type of engine integrated into a high-speed airframe. You can do the conceptual modeling of it. Of course, it’s difficult to get the final installed answer, especially if it involves an engine that operates at long duration. That is where I think they’re going with this. I believe that they’re developing basically a high-speed engine test bed. That would make the most sense to me.
Q: That’s something you couldn’t do with a more modern aircraft or rocket or unmanned vehicle?
A: That’s a good question. But you know, probably two-thirds of that battle is just developing the airframe. It does depend on the size of the engine that you’re after.
Obviously, if this were a Williams engine or that size class, you could get by with probably a bespoke drone to do your testing. That wouldn’t be that expensive. If your goal is to test something that’s man-rated or very large, like a J58-size engine, what better way to do it than use an airframe that’s already proven to fly at that speed?
SR-71 Blackbird. (Courtesy photo via USAF)
Q: Were you asked to join a team at NASA tasked with getting a jet back in the air? Who else was asked, and what kind of team were they building?
A: I did not receive an offer. There was a tongue-in-cheek text that I got earlier in the year that said, ‘Hey, Conners, how would you like to help get the Blackbirds flying again?’ And that was from somebody who was positioned with inside information. That is where I first heard of this. This was back in spring, but nobody formally reached out to me.
I believe that the only one that’s been tagged so far, as far as a retiree, was Mike Relja. Mike was a crew chief on the Blackbird, and that makes sense that they would potentially want to pull on him. But there was no formal offer, and I tell you what: If somebody approached me to work it, I don’t think I could turn them down.
Q: Do you know where the idea for this project came from and who is in charge?
A: I don’t have an answer. I’d love to know as well.
Q: What can you tell me about this effort? What are the latest developments in this project that you know of?
A: So what I’m hearing is that they’re looking at doing power-on testing fairly soon. That’s pretty big. So of course that’s not engine power on. That’s external power applied to the airframe, seeing which systems still live, which ones don’t, and then moving from there. So that would be an expected first step.
It’s an encouraging step. That means NASA would have gotten beyond cracking open all the bays, inspecting the interior, making sure that the thing at least passes visual inspection for airworthiness from that standpoint.
Q: Have they actually gotten any systems working?
A: No, they’ve done the visual inspection, actually, putting electrons on the airframe. [To get systems working] would be the next step, but it is forthcoming, from what I understand.
(NASA) Courtesy Photo
Q: What is the timeline?
A: That’s supposed to happen within the next couple weeks.
Q: Really? Where is this work taking place?
A: That I do not know for sure. Although I assume it’s happening at [NASA’s] Armstrong [Flight Research Center].
Q: So what is going to happen?
A: That’s a good question. Let me tell you about what I heard more recently, and then you can begin to connect the dots. JP-7. People ask about the fuel. I think it’s pretty well known that NASA had a huge amount of JP-7 stockpiled that they received from the Air Force back in the early ’90s. So much that it was in a dedicated tank, like one of the giant jet fuel tanks at Edwards Air Force Base. You know, the tanks up on the ridge.
From what I understand, that supply unfortunately was discarded about 20 years ago, and JP-7 is a unique fuel. Obviously, low volatility. When I poked at what might be the way forward there, it didn’t sound like that was a showstopper. I got the impression that there’s been dialogue underway with refineries for a replacement or a surrogate that would work. So I went from being deflated, hearing that the fuel was gone, to being encouraged that potentially there was a surrogate workaround.
A statically mounted Pratt & Whitney J58 engine with full afterburner on disposing the last of the SR-71 JP-7 fuel prior to the program’s termination. (NASA)
But that led to the question regarding the engines themselves, so the feedback there was more discouraging in that it looks like the engines are indeed unserviceable. I don’t believe that is based on an actual attempt to run them. 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 where, if you connect the dots, that’s where the airframe would be used as an engine test bed.
So different engines, they would have to be high-Mach bypass systems. 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.
Q: Are they working on a completely different engine to power Blackbird?
A: I don’t know that for sure. I think if the J58s are not an option for powering the Blackbird, you either button it back up and walk away from it, or you go bring in engines that are already under development that we’re not privy to at this point in time. But there’s no other option. So what are we going to use? It’s not like we can slap in F100s or F110s. They’re not going to cut it.
Q: Obviously, restoring an aircraft sitting out in the elements for years into one able to withstand the rigors of Mach 3 flight is one hell of an undertaking. In your mind, what are the biggest hurdles to this endeavor?
A: Number one would be the engines for sure. Number two would be anything that’s made of elastomerics. Plastics, wiring. Covering connectors. All that stuff degrades and oxidizes with time. You can imagine what frayed wiring and broken wiring insulation – what kind of havoc that would create. What Blackbird has going for it is that all those casings and connectors were built for the rigor of sustained Mach 3.2 flight for an hour, an hour plus, so they are not going to deteriorate quickly. The question is: Have they deteriorated in 27 years? So, if the answer is not a significant amount, then we’ve probably addressed one of the biggest questions – other than the engines – regarding reviving the airplane.
Q: Do you think NASA is going to attempt to just fly Tail 844 largely in its original configuration, or will they deeply modify it or build something new based on it?
A: Completely unknown. They definitely have the ability to modify the airframe, right? They did it before in the ’90s to carry the Linear Aerospike package. That was a huge undertaking on the airframe itself. They did it successfully. Armstrong still has a pretty deep bench in that area, so if they wanted to take on modifying the titanium structure, I think they could do it.
View of the Linear Aerospike SR Experiment (LASRE) pod on NASA SR-71, tail number 844. (Photo by Heritage Space/Heritage Images via Getty Images) NASA
But it’s a good question. Again, that would probably point to aerodynamic studies, and if it were me and my dollar as a taxpayer, I would lean on computational studies to get those answers. That’s what I tend to do in my day job is forego testing in lieu of computational when it involves external aero, but it’s when you do the integrated propulsion in this speed regime, that’s really when you need test data from the actual operating conditions.
Q: As opposed to digital modeling?
A: Yes. For instance, say the aerodynamic databases for Blackbird are gone, which they might be. I know there are simple aerodynamic models that still exist, but like a true high-fidelity model that would go into a piloted simulator, that could probably be regenerated fairly quickly. Probably on the order of months computationally in this day and age. So I think simulation capability could be stood up in fairly short order. That, of course, will be foundational for the pilot training task.
Q: We’ll talk more about pilot training later, but first I want to ask about modernization. If NASA were to inject modernized features into the SR-71, what would you like to see? And what makes the most sense in terms of material science, avionics, propulsion and so on?
A: I’m not a materials expert. I think it would be really interesting to see how the airframe could be optimized using adaptive flight control capabilities. So, if the flight control system could be digitized, I think that would lead to some very interesting in-flight experiments. I doubt that that would be. I could be wrong, but if the goal is to get the airframe back up as a propulsion test bed, you don’t need to cut out the hydromechanical flight control system and replace it with a digital one.
A left-side view of an SR-71 aircraft from the 9th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing landing. The aircraft is silhouetted against the sunset. (U.S. Air Force) U.S. AIR FORCE
That all said, what I would like to see is what we talked about a few minutes ago, and that’s basically modern high-speed engine technology. So what could be done? The J58s were low operating pressure ratio systems. What could be done with a modern, digitally controlled, multistream, high-Mach engine, I think, would be truly trailblazing.
One of the reasons why there’s interest in this speed regime, it was neglected for a number of years. The focus was on hypersonics. If you proposed anything going back, say, 15 years in the Mach 3.5 speed regime, it was ignored. The glitz and glamor was on hypersonics. Hypersonics is great tactically for certain scenarios, but the weaknesses of hypersonics are now becoming apparent.
And as far as countermeasures, hypersonics still has a place. Don’t get me wrong, but every system cannot be hypersonic from an affordability standpoint. So, now you’ve seen it over the last, say, five years. A lot of systems are coming back on the scene that operate in the Mach 2 to Mach 4 regime, and there’s a reason they’re all fitting in there, right? You stay below the speed limit that requires more exotic metallics. You stay in the titanium regime. You can fly, of course, up to [Mach] 3.5 with brief excursions up to about [Mach] 4, so that is tactically relevant against a lot of military targets and defensive systems. So here it is. You know we now have a potential flying test bed that can carry engines in the J58 size class.
Q: How much could a project like this cost, and is it really economically feasible? How long do you think it could take?
A: I’ve been thinking that over, and I think it depends on who does it. I don’t want to disparage my former government brethren. I had great respect for the folks at NASA when I worked with them, but one of the reasons why I left the agency is because it was becoming so risk-averse. That was adding bloat to everything. And what we used to do quickly, we no longer could do quickly or cheaply at what was Dryden Flight Research Center, so that is what concerns me.
If NASA could operate with the agility that it had, if Dryden/Armstrong could operate with the agility it had 30 years ago, they could do this work in probably a few years. I would say again, it would depend on what exactly they need to do to the airframe. If it’s to resurrect the airframe and bolt in new engines using existing interface hardpoints, that would go much, much more quickly than doing extensive airframe modifications.
Q: Given that 844 has been sitting idle since 1999, what would be the very first thing you would want to inspect or test before even considering putting it back in the air?
A: Exactly what I’m hearing the rumor is that they’re doing this. What is the condition of all the components in the airplane that are flowing electrons? Because if the entire airframe is shorted out, you know how it is.
If you have a car where you’ve hooked up the battery cables backwards – I had a car once where somebody jumped in and did that. It ruined the car because I was chasing shorts constantly, constantly breaking down in the months that followed because the wiring was compromised, melted, bubbled all over the vehicle. And then it would get wet. You get shorts. That, I believe, is what one of the objectives of power-on testing is. To make sure continuity still exists, reliable continuity throughout the airframe. So that’s exactly the first step.
I would say the second would be hydraulics. That vehicle is hydromechanical. So what is the state of the actuators and whatnot?
Q: And you said that work is taking place now?
A: It’s certainly being inspected. That was one of the reasons why they pulled it off of the display pad at Armstrong. But that work has been going on for a couple of months, and it certainly seems that there was at least reason to be encouraged and to go forward with this next step. Otherwise, they would have just towed it back to the parking spot.
The SR-71 Blackbird, Tail 844, when it was on display at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center (Google Earth)
Q: And the next step is testing the systems?
A: That is correct.
Q: We touched on this a little before, but how realistic is it to get an SR-71’s J58 engines operational again after nearly three decades of inactivity? What would worry you most about those engines? How many are left?
A: Well, that’s a good point. As far as [engines] that are readily available, there are several that are at the [Air Force Flight Test (AFFT) Museum at Edwards AFB]. I believe they’ve been stored outside. But if you consider all the museums around the world with Blackbirds on display, almost all of them have installed J58s, and there’s usually one sitting alongside the airframe on display, so there are plenty of engines. Whether or not they’re serviceable, that of course is the question.
But probably the biggest problem with an engine – well, there are several with a gas turbine that sits unmoved for decades – it’s going to be that you’re going to flatten the bearings. Probably not visible to the eye, but rotating turbo machinery doesn’t like flats on the bearings. So for obvious vibration reasons, you got that. And you’ve got the seals. Seals are going to crack. Trapped fuel is going to turn to gunk and clog up lines. That engine was all hydromechanical, of course, or no digital controls on that because of the heat involved. So fuel hydraulics played a big role in that engine.
There is likely a lot of goo in those lines. I believe that’s why they’ve essentially been written off as unserviceable. I was discouraged because one of the questions I asked that I didn’t get an answer to was: Did anybody try to run the engines or pull them apart? But I don’t even know if the instructions exist to unstack a J58 at this point. I’m sure it could be figured out with the right people, but you know how it is. Pulling something apart is a lot easier than putting it back together.
Q: So there’s no manual for that anymore?
A: I don’t know if there’s a manual specific to that. Like I told Steve [Trimble] at Aviation Week, there certainly are operating manuals. You’ve probably seen the pilot’s manual for the SR-71A. It’s a beauty. There are a lot of copies online. You can get PDFs of those. They are very well-written, huge manuals. I know prints exist for the airplane. Those were in the keeping of the Edwards Museum. I believe those have been handed back over to NASA. So, it’s not like there’s a complete dearth of information.
SR-71 Blackbird 844 basks in the evening moonlight at Edwards Air Force Base, California. (Air Force photo by Todd Schannuth) Todd Schannuth
When I was at NASA, I was the person who received everything that Pratt & Whitney had left on the J58s when the Air Force decommissioned the program, and that information was in two or three smallish boxes and consisted of hard copy code printout or printout of numerical data, along with some magnetic reels of code. It was not much. And I was told at the time the only reason I received that information was somebody missed it when the Air Force gave the destruct notice. It was under somebody’s desk, so it was not much in the way of knowledge transfer, unfortunately.
Q: What did you do with all that?
A: I left it behind in 1998 when I left NASA.
Q: What happened to it?
A: I have no idea. Hopefully, somebody scanned it. But again, that was J58 info, right? So if they’re going with a new engine, they’ll have the full digital models for those new systems. And I do believe that recreating the aerodynamic database, including inlet performance, that kind of data can all be regenerated fairly quickly with computational tools.
Q: We touched on this a little bit before, but how difficult would it be to reproduce the JP-7 fuel that powered the Blackbird? It would need designated tankers too, correct?
A: So that was one of the questions I asked is whether or not that formulation exists still. The answer I got back was that essentially a refinery should be able to recreate a suitable surrogate. If you think about it, JP-7 was unique in that it had a very low volatility characteristic.
What I’ve learned about Jet A from some of the ramjet work that I’ve been doing is that it has a ridiculously low volatility too, of course, by design. So I don’t know that JP-7 is that far apart from the chemical characteristics of a Jet A-class fuel, JP-8-type fuel. JP-8 was a significant change from JP-4, so the Air Force was using JP-4 in their fleet, and then moved to JP-8 to be consistent in the ’90s with the Navy with their formulations. That’s a lower volatility fuel, and at NASA we had to recharacterize the flight performance of all of our jets with JP-8, but it worked fine.
We were concerned about operability – that we were going to have flameouts and engine relight and flight relay problems. Those did not materialize, so I don’t want to oversimplify it, but I am thinking that you might be able to take an existing Jet A and with the right additives knock down the volatility to a level that’s safe for flying in the Blackbird.
Airman 1st Class James Douds, a fuels specialist with the 386th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron, offloading JP-8 jet fuel. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Jonathan Hehnly) Senior Master Sgt. Jonathan Hehnly
Q: What would need to happen to have aerial refueling jets be able to handle fuel for the Blackbird?
A: There were dedicated JP-7 tankers for the Blackbird. I don’t know if they can take an existing system and flush it. It would depend on the formulation, right? JP-7 was notorious for its unseemly characteristics. It was toxic.
I had a shirt that got dripped on when I was standing under the wing of the Blackbird once, and I had to throw it out. I could not get the stink out of that shirt from the JP-7. It was a weird fuel. So if you can get one that’s more aligned with the fuels used in the service, then I don’t believe that’s going to be a showstopper as far as tanker support, but you do know tanker support is going to be required for that airplane.
Q: You said the JP-7 fuel stank. What did it smell like?
A: I just remember it turning my stomach. Like I kept smelling something as the day went on, and I reached over and saw a stain on my shoulder. I don’t recall what happened the rest of the day, but I just remember being repulsed by the odor and then not being able to get it out when I washed the shirt.
Q: Beyond the fuel, the SR-71 depended on a huge ecosystem of specialized equipment, fluids, personnel and procedures. Which parts of that infrastructure would be hardest to recreate today?
A: That was something that Mike Relja pointed out when he talked to Steve Trimble. That’s a good one. You probably heard that the J58s were started with a start cart that was basically a bank of Buick 12-cylinder engines, all next to each other. It’s a beautiful-sounding system, but very unique. But what is starting, you know, other than you’re either doing a power takeoff via shaft, or you’re using compressed air. It depends on what the engine demands. So I think the start cart development would be fairly straightforward.
But there is a lot of specialized equipment, like Mike pointed out, the wings when they’re split up, they are held in place by a specific scaffolding. The way the engines were craned out of the wing required special equipment. Pulling the inlet spike off that required a special cradle. Those are not insurmountable, but you don’t want to wait till the last minute to realize you need unique equipment. So it’s all got to be taken into consideration.
This engine starter cart was developed specifically for the SR-71 family of aircraft. It used two Buick V-8 racing car engines, linked together through a common gear box, to deliver power to the starter drive shaft of the aircraft engine. More than 600 hp from the two V-8 engines was required to “spool up” the J58 to about 3,200 rpm for starting. (U.S. Air Force photo)
Q: Could existing SR-71s in museums realistically be used as sources of spare parts for 844, or would cannibalizing those aircraft create more problems than it solves? Were those airframes left structurally intact?
A: I believe that was the agreement with the Blackbirds. If a museum were to put one on display, there was a certain expectation regarding care and maintenance. Not so much maintenance, but care and preservation. If you think about it, many of them are under [a] roof in climate-controlled facilities. I know several of them that are preserved like that, including one here in Tucson. That, of course, is the best place for preserving anything with elastomerics and plastic. So I think it’s encouraging that so many of them have been so well cared for. Again, it’s going to come down to which components, regardless of whether or not they’re indoor or outdoor, which components are going to fail first, and I believe that’s the exercise NASA is looking at.
Then you’ve got to start beating down, chasing supply chain sources for some of this, and you know the nightmare that’s out there with supply chain and aerospace. So it’s not going to be an easy task. I don’t want to act like it is. I don’t think it’s insurmountable though.
Q: So these aircraft can be used as sources of spare parts?
A: Sure, absolutely.
Q: Is anyone with a Blackbird already contributing parts?
A: I know that the Edwards Air Museum is contributing what they can as far as spares and prints. I don’t know who else, although I believe the second NASA SR-71A went to the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum in Oregon. I would expect them to be in the loop.
(TWZ reached out to the Evergreen to find out what, if anything, it is contributing to this effort.)
An extremely well preserved Blackbird on display inside at the North American Aerospace Museum in Oregon (formally the Evergreen Airventure Museum). (NAAM) Stephanie Tassone
Q: How difficult will it be for modern test pilots to fly Tail 844, or whatever aircraft is created from this project? What would actually be the hardest part of training a pilot to fly the aircraft today? Do you think they will convert it into an unmanned configuration?
A: Well, that would be a difficult airplane to convert to unmanned, unless it went with a digital backbone, and like I said, I think that would be an enormous undertaking. It’s not unheard of. NASA, along with McDonnell Douglas, converted a couple of F-15s to all-digital backbones before the F-15E program began. It can be done. It’s just expensive. It’s not easy.
But the piloting task starts with a good simulator, right? The piloting task is absolutely a big deal. I saw it firsthand at Dryden. That said, it took a couple years, probably two. I would say that’s about right for the Dryden pilots, who are pretty good at what they do, to learn to fly the Blackbird safely, and that was with the use of the two-seat trainer, which we’re not going to have this time.
So I think the key to this happening is getting a digital sim together very quickly, and it wouldn’t surprise me if NASA has begun this process already. Getting that together, plus getting the former pilots who are still with us in the seat to make sure that it aligns with what they recall as far as the unique features of the airplane.
I have 100 hours of stick time on the Air Force Blackbird simulator. I’m not a pilot, but I used to pre-fly the maneuvers for the pilots and NASA on the high-drag missions, so I’m familiar with the way the airplane flies up and away, and it is a bear to fly. It is not easy. So training is not insurmountable. Like I said, it takes a good, high-fidelity sim. NASA is expert at building those kinds of simulators, modular simulators quickly. In this day and age, we should be able to put a high-fidelity sim together fairly quickly for training.
If you recall, the cockpit is an analog nightmare on a Blackbird. Breakers everywhere. Dials everywhere. I doubt that somebody suggested that we go with an all-digital cockpit. That would be so much work to do. But if we go for it with just a pure analog cockpit that we used previously, that’s going to require a lot of familiarity. I do believe that the training systems might still exist for that. It would just be for that airplane. It would just be getting them all cobbled back together.
Q: What made the Blackbird so difficult to fly?
A: It’s a low-G airframe, so you got to baby it. It’s easy to get an angle of attack out of range. And then with those chined surfaces, it’s easy to get a pitch-up with the airplane. That’s how I always managed to wreck it in the sim. I would let alpha get away from me.
Q: Do you know if any of the pilots have been recalled for this effort to get this thing flying again?
A: No, I don’t know.
Q: It has been close to 70 years since the A-12 Oxcart first flew. There had to have been other high-speed aircraft that at least came and went in the classified test environment. Considering all the work in hypersonics today, it isn’t hard to believe new platforms exist. Why would the SR-71 still have relevance here, and why not use one of those aircraft instead, if they exist? If they do, is it because the SR-71 is declassified?
A: Yeah, that could very well be what we’re looking at here. 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.
A rendering of the proposed SR-72. Lockheed Martin
Q: Would any of those engines be applicable for this SR-71 reboot?
A: Certainly.
Q: Do you know if they exist anywhere?
A: No. But from what was leaked or hinted at regarding the size of the vehicle, it would seem that whatever was the power plant for that aircraft, it would be about the right size.
Q: What do you think generally about the renaissance of sorts in high-speed aerospace capabilities in recent years?
A: I worked on HAWC [Hypersonic Airbreathing Weapon Concept] at Raytheon, which became HACM [Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile]. One of the systems that I helped design was the inlet isolator used on HACM, which is not operational yet, but it will be. But it’s an air breather by Raytheon. That gave me a lot of exposure to the level of exquisite technology that’s required to field a system like that.
It is expensive. It’s difficult. Supply chain is a challenge. There’s a reason why they cost what they do per unit. So you see the push to develop lower-cost hypersonic systems like Castelion’s Blackbeard [lower-cost hypersonic missile]. It’s not an air breather. So I think it’s an easier problem than what we dealt with at Raytheon with an air breather. But nevertheless, it’s impressive that they’ve gotten a price point down to what they’ve gotten, so you see that happening in hypersonics.
You’re kind of stuck in the same block of speed, but the price is dropping. And then meanwhile, you’ve got this massive group of munitions that are setting up camp in a Mach 2 to Mach 4 speed regime for reasons I mentioned. Those are running much cheaper per shot and per effect, which is why that’s happening. So that you give up something on survivability by pulling down into that speed range, but the price point allows you to volley at such a level that you overwhelm the defensive systems.
To date, this is the only picture the US Air Force has released showing an actual air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile test article related to the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) program and/or the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s preceding Hypersonic Airbreathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) effort. (USAF)
Q: If an SR-71 took to the skies again, would it not be one of the highest-profile aviation moments in a generation? It would certainly capture the imagination of many young and old. What do you think about the social aspect of all this?
A: I have yet to find anybody who isn’t excited by the prospect. Certainly, everybody within aviation thinks it’s cool. Some of my family who don’t know much about airplanes – they all think it’s cool. Everybody thinks it’s just super. That said, everybody also wonders why we’re doing it. But what’s funny is everybody still says, ‘Let’s do it anyway because it’s such an iconic airplane, beautiful airplane, an inspiration.’ Hopefully, there would be a good reason to spend the money. But I think even if it’s a bad reason, everybody wants it to take to the skies again.
Q: If you were a betting man, Tim, what would you say are the odds of this thing flying again?
Taking a break from fighting Russians in the Kostiantynivka sector of the eastern Donetsk region, the commander of a Ukrainian uncrewed ground vehicle (UGV) unit spoke with us about innovations in the use of these systems. One was the first deployment of a UGV specifically designed for amphibious operations to deliver supplies to frontline troops in areas impeded by water obstacles. Large areas of the front line are bisected by rivers and wetlands, and the country has many other small waterways and marsh areas. As we have frequently reported, the use of UGVs by both Ukraine and Russia has exploded as the ubiquity of aerial attack drones makes it far too dangerous for human battlefield movements.
In an exclusive interview with TWZ, the commander of the 93rd Separate Mechanized Brigade’s “Alter Ego” UGV unit, who goes by the call sign “Electric,” offered us unique insights into the challenges of developing amphibious UGVs and how they were deployed.
In the first of two parts, Electric talks about why Alter Ego developed amphibious UGVs – including modifying a Triton variant for this – and how the unit made them work. The second part features his insights into using heavy ‘bomber drones’ to drop UGVs behind enemy lines for kamikaze raids. In addition, a representative of Brave1, Ukraine’s weapons technology accelerator, spoke about developing these systems at scale.
Some of the questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity.
Q: How did the need for amphibious UGVs for logistics operations first come up?
A: We had this idea for a long time, but recently one of the units of the Armed Forces asked for our help to solve this problem, so that the UGV could overcome water obstacles.
There was a crucial need for this kind of means at certain parts of the front, but the units that are located there didn’t have the capacity by themselves to solve this task. So our battalion was asked to solve this problem because we are one of the most experienced units in terms of UGVs.
A first-ever logistics mission on an amphibious UGV: the robot covered 40 kilometers across land and water.
Operators of the "Alter Ego" unit (93rd Brigade) deployed the robotic system across mixed terrain. Facing water obstacles, the UGV seamlessly switched to swimming mode to… pic.twitter.com/rH8waq04a4
Q: How long did it take to design and test the amphibious UGV, and what went into that process?
A: The whole process from development to battle deployment took less than three months.
Q: What did you have to do to make this work?
A: First of all, we looked at amphibious solutions that were on the market, not only in Ukraine, but in the world, and we took two separate approaches. One was taking one of the main UGVs that our unit is using on the ground, and we made it amphibious. And the other approach was that we took one of the solutions that was on the market that already had amphibious capabilities, and we solved several disadvantages that it had. And at the moment, we are using both.
Q: What did you have to do to make the UGV amphibious, and then what were some of the obstacles that had to be overcome to get this operational?
A: First of all, we have to explain that there are different solutions on the market that kind of work on the testing ground — like they can swim, they can drive on the ground, and in the vision of the manufacturer, they are working. But the fact is that these solutions are not ready for the reality on the front line, which is often very different from what is on the testing ground.
And the second point is that the unit has its own workshops where people work near the front line, and the experts, the engineers that work there, they have a very high level of competence to evaluate different solutions and select the one that has potential. And that’s what’s completely different between this unit and everyone else, like manufacturers and others who are working on these solutions, because they don’t understand what’s needed on the battlefield.
The Alter Ego unit’s uncrewed amphibious ground vehicle (UGV). (Brave1)
Q: So what did you have to change to make it work?
A: Regarding the amphibious one, basically the unit changed almost everything that that UGV had, starting from electronics, the software, the waterproofing, the communications – we basically changed everything. Regarding the one that we already used on the ground, we basically tried to retain what was allowing it to be an effective UGV on the ground, and we added waterproofing and specific mechanics, so that it can work in the water environment.
Q: You mentioned communications. What kind of communications did you add?
A: The communication means that was installed on the UGV by the manufacturer was not sufficient at all. Basically, it didn’t have enough quality for the battlefield situation. It was not working. But we already have our own communications that we were working on, and we have a lot of experience because we have been working for a long time in this UGV area. So we basically helped to install a sufficient level of communications on this UGV.
Q: So how does the amphibious UGV communicate with the controller? Does it use Starlink or some other satellite communications system for navigation?
A: This is satellite navigation, but not only. Satellite navigation is a part of this communication system.
Q: What are the other parts?
A: It’s better not to talk in detail about the other part of the communication system.
Triton amphibious UGV communications and camera systems. (Brave1)
Q: There were probably a lot of different missions that could have been used for this first amphibious UGV logistics delivery. Why was this particular mission chosen?
A: The Alter Ego unit has so much experience in terms of UGVs, and not just experience of using UGVs, but the experience of being the first in the world. We had one of the first evacuation missions, we had one of the first strike missions using UGVs, the paratrooper UGV, and now the amphibious UGV. So basically, we have the systems to make it work for the first time when nobody knows how to conduct this mission.
Q: No, I mean why did this particular mission get chosen to be the first one?
A: There are certain places on the front line where we have water obstacles that prevent logistics from being done by UGV. At the moment, UGVs are carrying hundreds of tons of logistics, probably the most compared to any other means on the front line, but before this, these water obstacles would prevent UGVs from providing logistics for those parts of the front, and that need can’t be fully satisfied by UAVs or other means. That’s why we did this mission with the amphibious UGV, and now our task here is to scale this technology and provide this logistics system for other similar parts of the front where there are water obstacles.
Kostiantynivka, Ukraine. (Google Earth)
Q: Tell me about where and when this mission took place and what it was like to watch it unfold.
A: So unfortunately, we can’t provide information about when and where this operation took place. But regarding how it went and what we felt, this was another big challenge, because this is something that wasn’t done before, and nobody thought this is real. So this was quite difficult, and to tell the truth, the mission didn’t succeed on the first try, actually, and it required a lot of effort in terms of planning, preparing, engineering, and basically it required 100% effort from everyone involved in that mission.
Q: How many times did it fail before, and what went wrong?
A: We had one failed attempt. The reason for failure was a certain technical problem. After that, we analyzed what went wrong, and we worked on solving those issues. Basically, it’s something that nobody had tried to do, it’s kind of hard to know what can go wrong before you actually try it. So the best way to find a solution like that is to try and then iterate on that attempt and make it better and better and better.
Also, I would like to add that although this was the first successful mission regarding an amphibious UGV, it’s not that there was no work on that before that. We were actively talking to and collecting the experience of everyone who was working on these kinds of missions before, and that was also a reason why this mission succeeded.
Q: How far did the amphibious UGV go for this mission?
A: So the UGV went 40 kilometers one way, and then it returned. So probably around 70 kilometers in total, and it carried food and other supplies.
Q: Did this UGV come under Russian fire on this mission?
A: Yes, and it survived.
Q: How does the UGV switch from water to land operations?
A: So the UGV has two separate control systems, one for water and one for land, and basically it switches to the one that is required at the moment. That’s how it can operate in both environments.
The Alter Ego unit’s uncrewed amphibious ground vehicle (UGV). (Brave1)
Q: Is that autonomous, or is that something that the controller at the base has to do as they watch the UGV on its mission?
A: At the moment, the operator fully controls the UGV manually. And basically, before, the operators of UGVs only knew how to move them on land, but now they also had to learn how to move them in the water. So not only was the technology itself developed, but we also had to prepare the operator and come up with tactics for this UGV.
Q: Did you use AI on this mission in any way, and if so, how?
A: We didn’t use AI.
Q: Have there been other missions using amphibious UGVs?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you say how many and what was delivered?
A: No.
Q: Is this designed only for logistics missions, or will it be used in the future for strike missions, either as a one-way attack system or as a platform for machine guns or other weapons?
A: We can use it in different ways in the future.
Q: Mud season is fast approaching, when much maneuvering becomes impossible or severely degraded because of how difficult it is to move in the thick, oozing slop. Will your amphibious UGVs work in the mud?
A: I think it can operate in the mud in the same way it operates in the water.
In the next segment of our interview, Electric talks about using bomber drones to deliver UGVs behind the lines, and a Brave1 representative talks about how the organization is working to develop these systems at scale for wider use.
The Geran-4 appeared last May, according to the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence Directorate (GUR). Unlike the Geran-3, which largely used a modified Shahed-136 airframe, the new drone has one purpose-built for higher-speed flight because “the structural strength [of the older model] was insufficient for high-speed flights, and even less so for maneuvering under high G-loads,” GUR noted.
A Geran 4 attempting to be intercepted by a Ukrainian drone. (Via X) (GUR)
The Geran-4’s new airframe features a blended air intake and overall “improved aerodynamic efficiency, a reinforced structure, and a turbojet engine with increased thrust,” GUR stated. “The wings are now permanently integrated into the center wing section. To reduce air resistance, the number of technological hatches on the fuselage has been minimized.”
In an overnight attack across Ukraine that lasted until Monday, “Russia launched 165 drones overnight, 79 of them jet-powered, the Air Force reported. Air defenses downed or suppressed 112, and hits were recorded at 14 locations.” You can see the aftermath of one of those attacks in the following video.
We’re under constant attackUnfortunately, just a few minutes ago, a jet-powered Shahed drone hit a residential building . #Odesa Burn in hell, ruzzianspic.twitter.com/EXTWM1yVIN
Recently,Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) got its hands on one of these weapons. Its report offers the best view yet of what makes these drones so dangerous.
The Geran-4 is “a new, faster version of the attack drone that is proving harder for Ukrainian air defenses to intercept,” the report states. “We were given a rare opportunity to literally take this surviving drone apart and find out what makes it so much faster, more maneuverable, and more accurate.”
“The first part we uncover is the turbojet engine. It is one of the Geran-4’s most significant upgrades, allowing the drone to fly at altitudes of up to eight kilometers,” the report explained. “That’s twice as high as the older propeller-powered drones. According to specialists, drones equipped with this type of engine have already flown from Russia-occupied Crimea to Lutsk in northwestern Ukraine, a distance of more than 700 kilometers.”
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
“This engine allows it to fly at speeds of up to 450 to 500 kilometers per hour over Ukrainian territory. Sometimes even faster,” RFE/RL proffered. “It flies fast and high, which is why it is still difficult to intercept.”
As the camera pans down over the engine, the reporters noted that while it is made in China, “we have investigated cases where these engines were assembled in Russia using Chinese components.”
The next component examined was the drone’s camera.
“It has several modes: daylight, night vision, and infrared,” the report stated. “The camera offers 10-times optical zoom and up to 32-times digital zoom, allowing the drone operator to view terrain from an altitude of eight kilometers.”
“If there is a relay station and it is connected to the network, an operator sitting in an automated workstation somewhere in Bryansk, Oryol, or Crimea can control the drone and guide it to its target,” RFE/RL stated.
“Once the drone is inside Ukraine, regular cellular SIM cards can help keep it connected,” the report continued. “We also found two GSM modems inside this drone. Using SIM cards, they can transmit the Geran-4’s location over mobile networks, allowing the operator to track it in real time.”
Back in 2024, we explained how Shaheds fitted with 4G modems and SIM cards from Ukrainian telecom firms, combined with a camera installed on the drone and the ability to use wireless networks, could be one of a number of avenues that would transform the Shahed into a relatively long-range reconnaissance and strike asset capable of beyond-line-of-sight real-time operations. This could help plug what at the time was a glaring gap in the Russian arsenal, although the stability of its connectivity is still unknown and providing man-in-the-loop guidances in real-time for strikes may be beyond the capabilities of this configuration, at least consistently.
Regardless, most of these drones do not have cameras or modems, they fly to a specific set of coordinates and dive on a target before detonating.
The following images offered a glimpse into that system.
Drone specialists who have investigated the remains of these weapons told the outlet that they had found SIM cards “from Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and even some European Union countries. And the deeper we go inside the drone, the more foreign-made components we find.”
The RFE/RL team also found a Chinese mesh modem the Russians use to help guide the drone.
“It’s responsible, among other things, for radio and video communications. Essentially, this device allows the drone operator to see the video feed from the Geran-4 almost in real time,” RFE/RL stated. “The modem has a range of up to 300 kilometers and can also act as a signal relay. That means several drones flying near each other can relay and strengthen the signal, making it possible to control them over much greater distances.”
The discovery of the Chinese mesh modem illustrates something we reported earlier this year: “For some time now, Russia has been working on a man-in-the-loop (MITL) control capability for the Shahed/Geran, a feature that was confirmed when they started to appear with cameras and cellular modems, something TWZ explored in detail at the time. These developments allow the drone to be connected to an operator. Standard Shaheds fly autonomous routes to pre-planned targets on autopilot with no man-in-the-loop control. They are ‘fire and forget’ weapons.“
“Meanwhile, the range at which MITL can be achieved has been steadily increased. At first, the drones were adapted to exploit patchy cellular networks to provide additional connectivity when available. More recently, Shaheds have been flying with antennas allowing for direct line-of-sight control close to the front lines. This allows them to hit targets dynamically like an FPV drone, while packing a much heavier punch and being able to loiter for long periods of time. You can read all about this development here. Now, the datalink range is being extended using airborne signal relays, possibly creating a mesh network with multiple line-of-sight links.”
درون”Geran-4“ توقف محرك الـMicro-turbojet قبل الانقضاض على الهدف، وتتَّخذ وضعية الانزلاق البطيء، ربّما لتوفير الوقود او لدقة افضل اثناء البحث بالعدسة البصرية. ايضاً يظهر بوضوح هوائيات الارسال Mesh Antennas اثنان مثبَّتان على الذَّيل، أحدهما موجّه الى الاعلى والاخر الى الاسفل. pic.twitter.com/cQIyHhvbmm
Finally, the Ukrainian journalists found something else we have long reported on. Like many other Russian weapons, the Geran-4 even contains components made in America.
“Despite international sanctions, a significant portion of its components are still coming from abroad, highlighting gaps in global export control enforcement,” RFE/RL showcased. “We just opened up the drone’s onboard computer, and these circuit boards contain components made by a U.S. company. The markings on this component are partly worn off, but you can still see the manufacturer, Texas Instruments.”
“According to the specialists, what is actually Russian-made here is mainly the drone’s body and its assembly. This particular drone was manufactured and assembled at Alabuga, a major Russian drone production site. According to Ukraine’s military intelligence, Russia is now producing around 3,000 Geran-4 and Geran-5 drones a month at Alabuga and other facilities across Russia.”
Satellite images of the site first emerged in 2023, which you can see below.
As if the Geran-4 drones were not challenging enough for Ukraine, Russian Geran-5 jet-powered drones are equipped with “a DSMAC (Digital Sensor Module for Autonomous Navigation) module for navigation using reference images of the Earth’s surface, similar to the X-101 missile,” the Ukrainian technology monitoring channel Polkovnyk GSh reported on Telegram. DSMAC allows for a weapon to navigate without any external help from global positioning satellites. The Tomahawk also uses this system. You can read all about it and how AI embedded in Shahed models will be the next leap in true autonomy far beyond the front lines, even for hunting and killing targets of opportunity, in our special feature linked here.
In addition, Russia has installed mesh repeaters on these weapons for radio signals so that video of the attacks can be “recorded (and immediately transmitted),” presidential adviser on defense technology Serhii Beskrestnov, known as Flash, said on Telegram.
The Russian military is now capable of acquiring real-time, high-quality BDA of its strikes with Geran-type OWA-UAVs/cruise missiles in downtown Kyiv.
In the footage below, we can see the moment of a Russian strike with Geran-5 cruise missile on the "Inkom" business center… pic.twitter.com/mPx4Kf9tmH
The Russian jet-powered drones were largely outrunning the drone interceptors Ukraine began using with great success against the piston-driven Shaheds. Those interceptors were not only saving lives, but they were also saving money because they cost a tiny fraction of far more expensive, higher-end munitions like the PAC-3 MSE fired by the Patriot system or the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile variants fired from the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) air defense launchers.
Seeking a more efficient and effective defense, Ukraine adapted by fielding higher-performing interceptor drones that are purpose-built to take on the jet-powered Russian munitions. Still, the engagement window for hitting the Russian drones is small, and these are more expensive to build. However, they will remain far less costly and faster to acquire than surface-to-air missiles.
In his speech earlier this week at the U.N. General Assembly, President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed that “our soldiers have already successfully tested four new jet-powered interceptor drones against Russian jet-powered Shaheds. So we are scaling up production.”
It is unclear exactly which interceptors the Ukrainian president was talking about; however, other types designed to take on Russian jet-powered Gerans have become public. One of them is the Sting S, a variant of the bullet-shaped Sting interceptor drone made by the Ukrainian Wild Hornets drone company.
On Sept. 19, the company posted a video on X claiming that “a crew from the 1020th Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment took down a Russian Geran-5 using the new STING S. This drone is faster and carries a larger explosive payload than other Geran variants.”
TWZ cannot independently verify these claims.
STING S takes down a Geran-5 jet-powered drone-missile
The crew from the 1020th Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment took down a Russian Geran-5 using the new STING S. This drone is faster and carries a larger explosive payload than other Geran variants.
When we asked for more details, Wild Hornets told us “that the tests are going well. About a dozen enemy ‘Geran-4′ jet-powered strike UAVs have already been shot down, as well as several ‘Geran-5’ models, just in the last few days. We should note that at this stage we are talking about only the first results of combat testing within a few select units.”
The Sting S “is a high-speed quadcopter-type interceptor,” the Wild Hornets spokesperson added. “When choosing this model, we took into account that the solution should be inexpensive, easy to use, and quickly scalable.”
“Furthermore, most of the targets during combat testing have been destroyed using ‘Hornet Vision Ctrl’ remote control technology,” the spokesman stated. Wild Hornets claims the system provides low-latency image transmission, long-range communication, and resistance to electronic warfare.
100 remote interceptions in 100 seconds: Hornet Vision CTRL in action
Since deployment, Ukraine’s Defense Forces have remotely destroyed 1,000+ enemy targets using the system.
All thanks to the skill of crews taking down enemy drones with STING interceptors every day pic.twitter.com/9sUthdjsvF
“We expect this will allow us to rapidly scale up the deployment of the new interceptor once mass production begins,” the spokesperson noted.
As we have frequently noted, Russia and Ukraine continuously create new weapons and ways to defeat them. The jet-powered Russian drones, and Ukraine’s newest interceptors designed to destroy them, are the latest examples of a seemingly endless weapons evolution cycle in this war.
The Navy has identified the aircraft type at the center of last night’s mishap aboard the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. The service said the incident involved the crew of an EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jet who were forced to eject after the aircraft experienced an arresting gear failure while trying to land. This took place about 6:18 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time Monday as the vessel was off the coast of Virginia.
The Growler crew, attached to the “Zappers” of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 130, was “promptly recovered by search-and-rescue personnel assigned to Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 7. Both aviators were safely returned to the ship,” the Navy added. The cause of the mishap is still being investigated.
A U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet approaches the flight deck of Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), June 20, 2026. Eisenhower is underway in the Atlantic Ocean conducting carrier qualifications, supporting East Coast fleet replacement squadrons. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Miguel Santiago) Petty Officer 2nd Class Miguel Santiago
The two aviators and two additional sailors injured on the flight deck were flown to Naval Medical Center Portsmouth for follow-on evaluation, the Navy explained. Another sailor was flown to a Norfolk-area hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries. All told, eight sailors had to be evaluated by the ship’s medical personnel following the incident.
Air traffic control audio has emerged indicating that the injured sailor flown to the area hospital was transported to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital.
DSTY613 (MH-60S) brought the injured into Sentara Norfolk General Hospital last night.
It is unclear at the moment whether the aircraft was lost or if there was any damage to the carrier itself. We have reached out to the Navy to find out more details.
The failure of an arresting wire is one of the worst nightmares carrier-based fixed-wing naval aircrews and sailors on deck can face. The wire turns into a falling steel whip that can cut a person in half as it slices through the air across the flight deck, and usually, the aircraft it broke away from, ends up in the sea as it doesn’t have enough airspeed or time to get airborne again. You can read more about this type of mishap in our past reporting here.
The mishap took place as Eisenhower was working up in preparation for a future deployment scheduled for 2027, which TWZpreviously reported. This followed an extended 16-month Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) that wrapped in April. The carrier had been pierside at Naval Station Norfolk since Sept. 2 after completing a 12-day underway for Fleet Replenishment Squadron and Training Command Carrier Qualifications in the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Operating Areas.
U.S. Navy Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) conducts a full power demonstration during Sea Trial in the Virginia Capes, Apr. 22, 2026. Eisenhower returned to sea and is now in the Basic Phase in the Optimized Fleet Response Plan. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Nicole Schweigert) Seaman Apprentice Nicole Schweigert
Eisenhower got underway again on the afternoon of Sept. 28, according to ship spotters, for a Tailored Ship’s Training Availability and Final Evaluation Problem. That’s one of the final steps before onloading ammunition for the Composite Unit Training Exercise, when the full strike group gathers to complete pre-deployment training.
On Sunday, NBC News reported that Marines were injured during an Iranian cruise missile attack while transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Sept. 14. The network’s sources said the Marines were not on a U.S. Navy ship, but they did not identify which vessel they were on. However, a former Royal Mail vessel that at one point was being converted into a floating armory stands out as a strong possibility.
While much remains unclear about the Sept. 14 incident, there was only one vessel known to have been struck that day, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) and a maritime security official we spoke with. The ship was eventually identified by several maritime media outlets as the M/V St. Helena. Again, the St. Helena’s involvement remains unconfirmed, but the ship’s interesting background is of particular note.
The St Helena logistics ship during the Saudi Arabia on March 30, 2021. Photo by Colin McMaster
“Eight U.S. Marines were injured two weeks ago when an Iranian cruise missile attacked the ship they were operating on in the Strait of Hormuz,” NBC reported, citing three U.S. officials. “The Marines were not seriously injured, but they sustained smoke inhalation and possibly traumatic brain injuries, as they had symptoms of concussions, such as headaches, the officials said.”
“The Marines, seven of them enlisted and one officer, all returned to duty soon after the Sept. 14 attack, the U.S. officials said,” according to the network. “The officials said the Marines were operating as part of a battalion landing team during the Iranian anti-ship cruise missile attack.”
TWZ cannot independently confirm that Marines were on board the St. Helena or that they were injured. We reached out to the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) for more information. The Pentagon referred us to CENTCOM, and CENTCOM declined comment.
The incident took place amid an uneasy truce between Iran and the U.S. broken up by sporadic Iranian attacks on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the U.S. military is enforcing a blockade on Iranian ships, during which it has struck several for trying to bypass that effort as well as in retaliation for Iranian attacks on shipping. Negotiations between Washington and Iran have ebbed and flowed, and U.S. President Donald Trump is once again mulling a choice between continuing talks or renewing large-scale attacks.
As we noted earlier in this piece, after the vessel was struck, several maritime industry trade publications identified it as the St. Helena.
“Iran has attacked a historic former British Royal Mail passenger ship in the Strait of Hormuz,” TradeWinds News reported on Sept. 15, a day after the incident. “Maritime security sources identify the 6,800-gt St Helena (built 1989) as the latest vessel to be hit by an ‘unknown projectile’ in the war-torn waterway. The attack was reported late on Monday, according to UK Maritime Trade Operations, which cited a ‘verified source’ for the incident without identifying the vessel.”
Aerial view of the St Helena transport ship in the sea off Porto Pino during the Sardinia on July 4, 2022. Photo by Sam Bagnall
“UKMTO has received a time late report of an incident within the Strait of Hormuz,” the organization reported on Sept. 15, citing an incident that took place a day earlier. “A verified source has reported that a vessel has been struck by an unknown projectile.”
“There is no reported damage or environmental impact,” UKMTO added. “Authorities are investigating.”
According to Lloyd’s List, the ship was being operated by the Ambrey maritime security firm at the time it was struck. Ambrey declined to comment.
Shipping expert Sal Mercogliano and open-source investigator Tom Bike were among those suggesting the St. Helena could have been the vessel at the heart of the NBC report.
So piecing together the evidence it appears that the US may have converted St Helena into a armed merchant cruiser.
The Marines looked at putting Armed Guards on board commercial ships three years ago as reported by @USNINews.
Exactly what the St. Helena was doing at the time it was struck is unclear; however, the ship has had a very unusual past.
The vessel entered into service in 1990 and “sailed between Cape Town, South Africa and Saint Helena and Ascension Islands, carrying both passengers and cargo, some of which was Royal Mail, earning her the rare RMS designation,” according to Cruise Arabia and Africa.
The St. Helena was Britain’s last working postal ship, according to Maritime Executive. After it was retired in 2018 because it was no longer needed for that function, things got really interesting.
Two different organizations took over the vessel, including, as we noted earlier in this story, a company that was planning to use it as a floating armory in the Middle East.
“Renamed MNG Tahiti, the 103-meter (340-foot) ship is being readied by her new owner MNG Maritime to become a floating armory working in the Gulf of Oman,” Maritime Executive wrote on April 22, 2018. “She will deliver security guards and weapons to vessels sailing through the region and is expected to be operational in her new role in the next few months.”
It is unclear what happened to that plan. However, two years later, an off-road racing series called Extreme E said that it “secured exclusive use of the former Royal Mail ship in 2018.” After that, the ship underwent “an extensive refurbishment process, which has included total overhaul of steelwork, engines, generators, propellers, interior and cabin space, and more, making it not only fit for purpose, but also as efficient as possible ahead of its new mission.”
Aerial view of the St Helena transport ship in the sea off Porto Pino during the Sardinia on July 4, 2022. Photo by Sam Bagnall
The ship was “specifically designed to transport all the infrastructure and equipment the Extreme E needs for their race weekends,” the organization stated. The plan was to have the ship serve “as its freight and logistics hub due to her versatility and ability to carry and unload a mixture of cargo, like all 10 of the championship’s ODYSSEY 21’s [electric off-road racecar], as well as team members and guests. This was also fit with a Science Laboratory so research can be conducted enroute to the race locations.”
On Sept. 17, 2024, the St. Helena was put up for sale, according to Horizon Ship Brokers. The current ownership is unclear. We reached out to Horizon Ship Brokers for more details.
Horizon Ship Brokers
Last year, the saga of the St. Helena took a new turn. A company called Terra Nova Expeditions chartered the vessel for Antarctic cruises, but those plans were scrubbed last month because the vessel was stuck in the Persian Gulf and was no longer available for the Antarctic sailing season.
While we can’t confirm that Marines were onboard when St. Helena was hit, Marines have been training for this exact mission set. USNI News reported in 2023 that a “force of 100 Marines, newly trained by Navy personnel,” stood ready “to respond, if ordered, to provide armed security aboard foreign commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz.”
Those Marines were members of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) embarked on the three-ship Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), USNI added at the time.
It is unclear if those plans are still in place and if Marines in the region have actually been ordered to provide armed security for foreign vessels sailing through or near the strait. Regardless, Marines could be quickly trained to take on this mission set and have drilled for ship boarding and searches for years, especially special operations and specially-tasked units. CENTCOM declined to comment when we asked if there are U.S. personnel embarking on commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz.
At the same time, it is possible that the unique attributes of St. Helena made it a convenient host ship for sea base operations for U.S. forces in the region specifically for this crisis. Adapting commercial vessels for exactly this purpose has a long history around the Strait of Hormuz, as it was a central facet of the Tanker Wars during the 1980s, that saw U.S. forces operate from barges in the region. Today, commercial vessels remarkably similar to St. Helena operate in similar roles, especially in support of special operations and interdiction operations.
The special mission ship U.S. Motor Vessel Kellie Chouest steams in the Caribbean Sea while participating in a passing exercise (PASSEX), with the Dominican Republic Navy and USS Billings (LCS 15) Oct. 24, 2021. Kellie Chouest is deployed to the U.S. 4th Fleet area of operations to support Joint Interagency Task Force South’s mission, which includes counter-illicit drug trafficking missions in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Austin C
Once again, we have no idea what the ship’s mission was at the time of the incident and if Marines were simply helping it transit safely out of the Persian Gulf or something more, but the attack did expose the fact that individual Marines are more involved with activities in this tumultuous body of water than it may seem.
Details continue to come in, but police in the United Kingdom have declared a “major incident” and ordered evacuations near RAF Fairford after the arrest of “several men on suspicion of offenses under the explosives act,” the Gloucestershire Constabulary stated.
RAF Fairford is a major hub for U.S. military aircraft in the United Kingdom. It is a regular host of strategic assets, including bombers and U-2 spy planes. It also acts as a pit stop for other aircraft, including fighters, that are being ferried to and from the United States. Bomber strikes launched from Fairford were a central aspect of major U.S. combat operations against Iran earlier this year.
“A number of properties are currently being evacuated in the Whelford area following the declaration of a major incident,” the Gloucestershire Constabulary also announced today in light of the incident.
Emergency services in Fairford after a major incident has been declared, with armed police manning a cordon near the village of Whelford in Gloucestershire, near RAF Fairford, which is used by the United States Air Force (USAF). (Photo by Ben Birchall/PA Images via Getty Images) Ben Birchall – PA Images
The evacuations were spurred by the arrests.
“The Army’s specialist explosive ordnance disposal team are currently examining a number of vehicles,” Gloucestershire Constabulary added. “The local residents are being evacuated to a nearby leisure center.”
“A cordon is currently in place, but we’d like to reassure people that we believe this incident is contained,” the law enforcement agency explained. “We are working closely with our partners and are enacting the well-rehearsed plans we have in place.”
The incident began around 12:45 AM local time Sunday “when police received a call relating to three suspicious vehicles traveling towards RAF Fairford,” according to Gloucestershire police Assistant Chief Constable Richard Ocone. “Armed officers responded and subsequently arrested five men in the Whelford area on suspicion of committing offenses under the Explosives Act. The men were taken into custody, where they remain.”
“A 400-meter cordon has been put in place around the vehicles while the army’s explosive ordnance disposal unit examined them,” Ocene continued. “As a precaution, around 85 households have been advised to evacuate while these examinations take place.”
BREAKING:
The British authorities issue a first official statement on the suspected terror plot against RAF Fairford
They sent in a local low-ranking policemen to deliver a statement saying 5 men have been arrested and that people shouldn’t speculate about the case.
“We are aware of the current reporting, for questions regarding off-base incidents please contact the local authorities,” a U.S. Air Force spokesperson told us in response to our questions about whether the incident had raised force protection levels at RAF Fairford or other installations in the area hosting American forces. Unconfirmed reports by the local aviation spotter community claimed RAF Fairford had been placed under what is called FPCON Delta, the highest level of alert at U.S. military installations.
The incident at RAF Fairford has been escalating overnight, this is what is clear so far.
Gloucestershire Police has announced that they have arrested multiple men on suspicion of offences under the Explosives Act, and that they have declared a Major Incident.
“For operational security reasons we will not discuss specific force protection measures,” the Air Force spokesperson added. “The 501st Combat Support Wing and our fellow UK-based Wings remain vigilant and will take appropriate actions to ensure the safety and security of our U.S. service members, civilians, contractors, and their families. We constantly assess a variety of factors that determine what measures we institute or modify to protect our installations, our people and their families.”
It is unclear if airfield operations at RAF Fairford have been affected. U.S. Air Force officials did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
The British Defense Ministry did not immediately provide comment on this unfolding event.
RAF Fairford is a major hub for U.S. military aircraft, with strategic assets, like B-1B Lancer bombers, being forward deployed to the base and tactical and other assets often using it as a pit stop during flights ‘across the pond.’
A U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer at RAF Fairford. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo) Tech. Sgt. Robert Trujillo
As mentioned, RAF Fairford played a key role in major combat operations against Iran earlier this year. No connection has been established yet between today’s incident and any particular group, but the base has drawn direct threats from the regime in Tehran in the past.
“The American aggressor army, which used to launch cruise missiles from its vessels in the Indian Ocean in its aggression after the official resumption of the war, with the end of the missile reserves of the aforementioned vessels, yesterday switched to using B1 planes flying from Fairford Air Base, England,” Tasnim News Agency, a quasi-state outlet in Iran with ties to the country’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed on Telegram on July 23. “As the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated, any base that is used to invade Iran’s territory is our legitimate goal.”
the enemy must pay the price for its breach of promises, and this time we will not allow America to use deceptive ceasefires to replenish its oil and ammunition stockpiles and then resume attacks once again.
Considering its importance to U.S. military operations, the base is a major potential target for nefarious actors, in general. Like other bases across Europe, it is a major potential target for Russia’s ‘hybrid war’ or ‘gray zone’ activities, as well.
Asked about the threats at the time, a British official told us that the country was prepared to defend itself.
“Our Armed Forces are ready to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attacks, whether it’s on our soil or from abroad,” a government official told TWZ. “The UK stands ready 24/7 to defend itself. This includes through operating a layered approach to air and missile defense, provided by Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force assets equipped with a range of advanced capabilities, working closely with our NATO allies.”
“In the Defense Investment Plan we have made air and missile defense a priority after years of underfunding, dedicating £790 million to enhance protection of the UK homeland and overseas bases from air, drone and missile threats,” the official added. “That is complemented by more than £2 billion of funding to deliver further air defense and counter-drone capabilities, and to upgrade and sustain our Typhoon fleet.”
This is a developing story.
UPDATE: 10:49 AM Eastern –
A Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) has been imposed over Whelford, Gloucestershire, following the incident. It applies to all aircraft, including “any small balloon, any kite, any UAS and any parachute, including a parascending parachute or paramotor,” according to the FAA. “Pilots are forbidden to fly within the designated area without permission.”
Cape Canaveral Space Force Station is getting lasers that can zap drones intruding into its airspace. When installed, the new directed energy defense system will be part of a much larger effort to protect the spaceport against drone incursions, a spokesperson for Space Launch Delta 45 (SLD 45) told us.
The idea is to ensure the safety of launches and to keep prying eyes away from an installation full of secrets about America’s military and commercial space efforts. Companies like SpaceX, United Launch Alliance, Blue Origin and Relativity Space use the installation for space launches. The base defense modernization effort comes as the Cape Canaveral region is inundated with drone incursions. There were hundreds last year.
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launches from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida, on May 29, 2026. (U.S. Space Force photo by Gwen Kurzen) Gwendolyn Kurzen
“As the world’s premier spaceport continues to support an unprecedented launch tempo for national security and commercial missions, securing critical launch infrastructure from low-altitude aerial threats remains a top operational priority,” the spokesperson explained. “The ongoing security modernization integrates detection, tracking, and defensive capabilities to include directed energy systems. These will provide security forces with real-time situational awareness and the necessary tools to safeguard personnel, launch complexes, and national security payloads.”
The spokesperson did not have a timeline for when the directed energy system will be operational. Florida Today was the first to report that lasers will make up this defensive system.
Col. Brian Chatman, who commands Space Launch Delta 45, told the publication that the facility is “bringing on a directed-energy system that can do a kinetic kill against UASs (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) that are coming into the area that are having nefarious intent.”
“The Air Force Research Laboratory [AFRL]-tested system has been proven to be able to safely bring down a drone,” Florida Today noted. “This directed-energy system uses lasers to shoot down any drone that flies into restricted areas.”
Chatman didn’t name the specific system to Florida Today and the SLD 45 spokesperson declined to say.
The following video shows one such AFRL-tested system that has been used in combat before.
For the spaceport, being able to use lasers is even more important than it is for other locations needing protection from drones. That’s because the traditional method of jamming radio frequencies to interfere with drone connections to controllers could damage spacecraft.
“If you start blasting a bunch of RF energy you run into potential challenges,” Chatman explained. “You don’t want that.”
There is good reason for Chatman to be concerned about drones. The spaceport has been subjected to many unauthorized incursions, the spokesperson told us. However, there were no statistics immediately available on how many or whether they occurred during launches. There were 500 unauthorized drone flights over the adjacent Port Canaveral in 2025, Port Canaveral CEO Capt. John Murray said.
In addition, on Sept. 18, a Chinese tourist pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor charge after flying a drone in restricted airspace above NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in late July. KSC is located across the Banana River from the space station.
It is unclear if the new laser system will also protect the skies over KSC. The spokesperson did not immediately know and is checking into it.
Cape Canaveral. (Google Earth)
That tourist, Xiaodong He, flew a drone that videotaped the installation, according to federal documents. The drone got within 1.56 miles of pad 39B, from where the next crewed lunar flight is expected to launch in 2028.
NASA’s Kennedy Space Center pad 39B. (NASA)
Encompassing about 25 square miles, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station is a large, unpopulated, open area with a long Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The station’s physical layout allows many vectors for drone incursions, and what’s housed there makes it a logical target for a nefarious actor.
The systems being prepared for launch and launched at the sprawling facility are extremely valuable and can take many years to build, costing billions. When they are out on the pad or being transported around, the rockets are massive tubes packed with high explosives that would cause a devastating secondary explosion if struck.
Even disrupting launches there due to a successful or even attempted attack could have major national security impacts.
Maybe the place that needs them most. Use your imagination with this one.
The move to bring directed energy systems to protect the spaceport comes as the military is investing heavily in these systems to counter drones. Late last month, for instance, troops from the Joint Task Force-Southern Border (JTF-SB) employed an Army Multipurpose High Energy Laser (AMP-HEL) system during an operation dubbed Ardent Vanguard. The AMP-HEL was used “to engage and defeat three hostile UAS, determined to be such based on their use in direct support of activities posing a physical threat to U.S. military personnel and CBP [Customs and Border Protection] partners,” according to a media release at the time.
The shootdown was part of the U.S. government’s ongoing effort to counter drones being flown by Mexican drug cartels.
Joint Task Force – Southern Border personnel used the Army Multipurpose High Energy Laser system to engage and defeat a hostile drone. (U.S. Army Photo by Sgt. Daniel Huerta) Operation Ardent Vanguard
The military is seeking to expand its ability to counter drones with directed-energy weapons. In May, the Defense Department and Joint Interagency Task Force 401 selected five installations to participate in a directed-energy counter-unmanned aircraft systems pilot program required by the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act.
“This initiative will accelerate the fielding and evaluation of advanced directed energy capabilities to protect critical infrastructure, military installations and homeland missions,” the Pentagon explained. “The locations were deliberately selected to support rigorous testing and operational assessments across diverse environments and mission sets.”
The Pentagon selected two “key southern border installations” for this program: Fort Huachuca, Arizona; and Fort Bliss, Texas. It also tabbed Naval Base Kitsap, Washington; Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota; and Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.
Though the Pentagon is pressing forward with making directed energy a key part of counter-drone efforts, laser weapons have limitations. These include their short-term magazine depth being limited to how many successive shots they can fire before thermal loads require the system to cool down. Energy supply can also be a limiting factor. Additionally, laser systems don’t function as well in heavy cloud cover and other inclement weather.
You can see the Iron Beam’s first claimed kills in the following video.
A World First — Combat-Proven Laser Defense, Powered by Rafael
For the first time in history, high-power laser systems have been used to intercept aerial threats in combat. This unprecedented breakthrough took place during the Swords of Iron War — with Rafael’s advanced… pic.twitter.com/B3D6UdCJvE
— Rafael Advanced Defense Systems (@RAFAELdefense) May 28, 2025
At the same time, a laser weapon of this kind is very much a point-defense weapon, with its short range meaning that multiple systems will be needed to provide coverage of a significant area. In some situations, even a single, large military base like Cape Canaveral Space Force Station might require more than one to provide full defensive coverage.
In addition, there have been concerns about the safety of the systems and the authorities required to use them in the homeland.
Safety concerns about using directed energy weapons, and especially kinetic ones, to take down drones in the U.S. have been a major factor in why they haven’t been previously used in this role. Almost two years ago, officials at U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), which has coordinating authority for counter-drone efforts in the U.S., said the use of such weapons was not yet on the table. The reason is that they can create dangerous or otherwise serious collateral effects that are less of a concern in a war zone.
That the U.S. Space Force is bringing in a laser system to protect some of the nation’s most important and secret military assets is a strong indication that these concerns are being overcome.
In a live television interview Thursday night Paris time, French President Emmanuel Macron said he was sending an unspecified number of troops and equipment to Saudi Arabia to protect the Yanbu energy hub, located on the Red Sea.
“This is the agreement we have finalized with the Saudis,” Macron explained. “We are going to send military resources, that is to say, soldiers, radar systems and defense systems, to protect this site — not to get us involved in any conflicts, but to protect this site.”
The French leader did not elaborate on the exact equipment he would send, how many troops, or when they would arrive. Nor did he address what would happen if French personnel were killed or injured or equipment damaged or destroyed. We have reached out to the French Embassy for further details. Based on his mention of radars and seeing that the threat to Saudi oil infrastructure is almost entirely from aerial attacks from drones and missiles, these will likely be air defense forces.
Nous agissons pour protéger nos compatriotes des conséquences de la crise au Moyen-Orient. Objectifs : sécuriser les approvisionnements et faire baisser les prix à la pompe. pic.twitter.com/kvrgHcV4E4
An infographic illustrating how Saudi Arabia has diverted oil from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. (Photo by Murat Usubali/Anadolu via Getty Images) Anadolu
Before Macron’s announcement on Thursday, the Houthis claimed they had carried out two more waves of attacks on Saudi targets, including one on the Saudi Aramco facility in Yanbu, “using a number of ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as drones.”
In addition, the Houthis claimed they struck Riyadh.
Earlier in the day, the Houthis said they struck “enemy command and control centers, operations rooms, weapon depots, missile launch platforms, and military sites belonging to Saudi-led enemy formations in Jizan,” a Red Sea port city.
“The Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen said on Thursday that it had shot down six ballistic missiles fired by the Iran-backed Houthi militia, in what appeared to be one of the largest cross-border attacks by the group since its conflict with Saudi Arabia [flared back up],” The New York Times reported.
The missiles were aimed at the Saudi cities of Taif and Yanbu, Maj. Gen. Turki al-Maliki, a spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition, claimed on X. “Escalations and violations by the terrorist Houthi militia will be dealt with firmly,” he stated, without specifying where the missiles were intercepted.
TWZ cannot independently verify any of these claims.
Today’s attacks are the latest in the escalating conflict between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia. Earlier this year, the Houthis imposed a blockade on the Bab al-Mandab Strait (BAM) and began striking Saudi ships in the southern part of the Red Sea as well as critical energy terminals on that body of water and Saudi refineries. Iranian proxies have also struck the vital East-West pipeline that carries oil to the Red Sea to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran vastly curtailed shipping after the launch of Operation Epic Fury. The East-West pipeline reportedly reopened after being shut down following a long-range drone attack.
The stark reality facing Macron is that if Saudi oil infrastructure and transport nodes near the Red Sea are destroyed or the pipeline that feeds it is shut down for months, the last major oil lifeline from the region — and especially to Europe — will be closed off, sparking a deeper energy crisis.
Iran has already severely curtailed the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz since the U.S. and Israel attacked it on Feb. 28. The movement of oil has been further impeded by a U.S. blockade on Iranian ports. However, transits have been increasing as of late, thanks in large measure to U.S. military escorts that U.S. Central Command claims have allowed more than a billion barrels of crude to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Still, the traffic is far below what it was before the war broke out.
Having both the Strait of Hormuz largely closed and energy exports out of the Red Sea shut down simultaneously is a nightmare scenario. By Thursday evening Eastern time, the per-barrel price of Brent crude oil shot up to nearly $107, according to OilPrice.com. It had fallen below $100 per barrel just two days earlier.
Given all this, the French president sought to offer reassurance about oil supplies, according to France 24.
“He said he had carried out ‘intense diplomatic activity,’ meeting in recent weeks with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Nigeria, all hydrocarbon suppliers, to ensure France keeps receiving the same volumes,” the publication noted.
“We have replenished gas stocks and also oil stocks” for the months ahead, the French president also said.
“Escalating tensions in the Gulf could have negative consequences here in the UK—such as rising prices, disruptions to energy supplies, and increased costs for British businesses,” the U.K. Defense Ministry (MoD) explained in announcing the deployment. “The Houthis pose a threat to stability in the Middle East; therefore, it is in the UK’s national interest—economically and in terms of security—that they do not succeed in their aims.”
“We unequivocally condemn Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia, and our position is clear: both Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni government have the right to self-defense,” the ministry added.
The jet will operate from a U.K. air base in Cyprus and will begin air-to-air refueling operations in the coming days, the BBC reported.
A Royal Saudi Air Force Voyager aerial refueling jet. (Air Tanker)
The French and British deployments contrast decisions by the U.S. and other nations not to get involved with the Saudi-Houthi fight.
Last week, Trump turned down a direct plea from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Kingdom’s de facto leader, to attack the Houthis. Meanwhile, Pakistan and Turkey, which signed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement with Saudi Arabia, have yet to provide any direct military aid. The pact holds that an attack on one is considered an attack on all; however, it doesn’t stipulate exactly what actions should be taken.
The security situation in Yemen has drastically deteriorated since the launch of Epic Fury after the Houthis joined the U.S.-Iran conflict on the side of their major supporter.
The Houthis have been directly attacking Saudi Arabia over claims that the kingdom has imposed a blockade on them. Beyond that, the mostly dormant civil war between the Houthis and internationally recognized Yemeni government forces, backed by Saudi Arabia, reignited in the wake of Operation Epic Fury. The Houthis have made large territorial gains in the renewed conflict, including capturing the port city of Mokha and two key islands in the Red Sea. This has strengthened the Houthi hold on the BAM. You can read more about that in our story here.
3. The Houthis have reportedly attempted to seize ROYG-controlled islands in the Red Sea from which Houthi fighters could launch attacks on international shipping. Houthi forces reportedly landed on the Hanish Islands in the southern Red Sea on the morning of September 10 after… pic.twitter.com/tiFPgNDOHZ
The civil war in Yemen erupted in 2014 and expanded a year later when a Saudi-led coalition joined forces with the government ousted by the Houthis. The fighting between Saudi-led forces and the Houthis largely abated after a tenuous ceasefire took hold in 2022. The Saudis held off on getting involved in the recent Red Sea conflict, which saw the U.S. and coalition warships duking it out with the Houthis and eventually led to a U.S.-led air campaign over Yemen. The United Kingdom was another significant player in that air campaign.
Meanwhile, exacerbating concerns about the flow of oil from the Red Sea, “a senior adviser to Iran’s supreme leader warned Thursday that Iranian forces and their Houthi allies in Yemen could respond to any new U.S. attacks by opening ‘a new front’ in its war with the U.S. by targeting energy supplies in the Red Sea,” CBS News reported.
The statements came after U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday once again threatened Iran.
“Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before?” Trump asked rhetorically. “Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?”
Trump added that he believed he would make a peace deal with Iran after the upcoming U.S. midterm elections, which will decide the control of Congress.
Trump to the UN: "Do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly? Do I drive them into hell?" pic.twitter.com/cIYBO1Mp3w
The fact that France is sending forces to Saudi Arabia is an ominous development and another indication that the current spate of unrest that began with Epic Fury does not appear to show any signs of ending anytime soon.
Ukraine claims it has recently regained about 125 sq. km. of territory near the town of Lyman in the eastern Donetsk region during what has been dubbed Operation Vivaldi. Rodion Kudryashov, a Ukrainian colonel and deputy commander of the Third Army Corps, offered some insights into this offensive and what made it different.
Though the operation is still ongoing, the success of Vivaldi began long before any troop movements, Kudryashov explained in an editorial he published in Ukrainian Pravda.
Ukraine is making advances near the town of Lyman, located in the Donetsk region. (Google Earth)
“After the Third Army Corps was formed, we changed the command system of its subordinate units,” he noted. “Some brigades came to the corps after very heavy fighting, with losses, manning problems and, most importantly, eroded trust in their leadership.”
Third Army Corps Commander Brig. Gen. Andriy Biletsky “then set out one of our key principles: a commander must be responsible for the entire cycle, from training a soldier to the result on the battlefield,” Kudryashov pointed out. “In some places that meant replacing a commander. In others it meant restructuring a staff or strengthening the NCO chain. In some cases we had to build, almost from scratch, processes that on paper should have been working long ago.”
At issue was changing the culture from a more rigid Soviet-era model, with a cumbersome chain of command, to a modern, more flexible one better suited for the current conflict.
“A modern commander has to handle an enormous flow of information and make decisions quickly,” the deputy commander proffered. “He has to understand what unmanned systems, logistics, reconnaissance and adjacent units can do, while not smothering initiative at lower levels with endless approvals. An army where every decision takes hours to travel up and down the chain loses to an army that makes the same trip in minutes.”
Once those changes were put in place, the Third Army Corps had to first stop Russian advances in the sector before it could move forward.
VIVALDI
GoPro footage from Ukrainian assault troops who took part in the Vivaldi counteroffensive, which resulted in the liberation of five settlements in the Lyman direction. pic.twitter.com/2SVXSKlEX0
“When the corps took over its area of responsibility, our first task was not an offensive,” the officer said. “We had to stop the situation from deteriorating and stabilize the forward edge.”
“The enemy was pressing. In some sectors our combat formations were losing cohesion,” he underscored. “The Russians were actively using infiltration tactics: small groups seeped between positions, massed in our rear, threatened logistics and gradually eroded the defensive line.”
“We had to stabilize the forward edge and stop the infiltration,” Kudryashov said. “We had to rebuild command, put in commanders capable of making decisions, form new teams and reconstitute units. We had to set up the surveillance-and-strike system and sustain the front line. We had to stockpile ammunition, drones and other resources, understand the enemy, and plan the next step before the previous one was finished. Only after that could we move forward.”
By June, the corps was able to secure the front “in the sector from Borova to Lyman and eliminate the enemy’s infiltration zones,” Kudryashov continued. “That sounds less impressive than the word ‘offensive,’ but no offensive ever happens without it.”
“You cannot plan a complex operation if you don’t know where your forward edge will be tomorrow,” the deputy commander extrapolated. “You cannot build up forces if your logistics are constantly under threat. And you cannot form a strike group if your units are always forced to patch new breaches. So the first phase of ‘Vivaldi’ was not an advance at all. It was creating the conditions that made an advance possible in the first place.”
Once the front was stabilized, the next step was shaping the battlefield for the offensive. The corps’ unmanned systems units went to work against Russian logistics, striking a pipeline and depots. That forced the enemy to change its fuel and lubricant supply routes.
Ukraine’s 3rd Army Corps released new footage of search-and-strike operations on the Lyman front. FPV drone operators from the 60th Mechanized Brigade’s FATUM unit targeted Russian armored vehicles, a Grad multiple rocket launcher and personnel. #Ukrainepic.twitter.com/1iNG7z2N1c
“The operation also involved the corps’ brigades, its reconnaissance and unmanned units, and attached forces from the SSO (Special Operations Forces), GUR (Defense Intelligence) and DPSU (State Border Guard Service),” the deputy commander said. “To counter infiltration, a joint headquarters was set up to coordinate special and reconnaissance units at the tactical level under a single concept.”
“In my view, this is one of the main characteristics of modern war,” he further stated. “It is not 10 strong units that each fight well on their own. It is 10 different elements that start working as one system at the right moment.”
An interesting new detail from Ukraine’s 3rd Army Corps about Operation Vivaldi on the Lyman axis.
The Corps says Ukrainian forces carried out a flanking maneuver and, for the first time, airlifted unmanned ground vehicles behind Russian lines, while also suppressing Russian… https://t.co/ZEq8C75bN4pic.twitter.com/KgKcZ0Zs2P
The influential, Kremlin-connected Rybar Telegram channel has acknowledged Ukrainian gains in this sector.
“In the first half of summer, Russian units gradually advanced in Lyman,” Rybar wrote this morning. “However, in August, the enemy launched counterattacks and, by the first week of September, regained some positions, and also began attempts to recapture Shandryholovo and Zarechnoye.”
“The enemy did not inflict significant losses on Russian troops, as the concentration of units of the West group of forces in the salient remained relatively low,” Rybar added. “However, later, the UAF deployed reserves to launch an offensive towards Zherebets in order to align the front along the water barrier and return it to the configuration of the end of 2025.”
rybar now saying the 144th division is still falling back. the 3rd corps is still advancing and destroying an entire army group as they move. this is historic. pic.twitter.com/2jOa8KR9oA
Though the battle is still in flux, Kudryashov said there are lessons the rest of the Ukrainian military should heed.
“Winning one battle is not yet winning the war,” he said. “The enemy is learning too. He changes tactics, looks for weak spots and tries to scale what works for him.”
“So our task is to be faster, not only in physically moving forward but also in our ability to see, think, decide and put into practice what delivers results,” the deputy commander avowed. “And to do everything possible so that our soldiers pay the lowest possible price for every next kilometer of Ukrainian land.”
The Latest
On the battlefield, in addition to the gains Ukraine has made near Lyman, it has also largely been able to hold off Russian advances across the front lines. Here are some key takeaways from the latest Institute for the Study of War assessment of frontline operations:
Sumy: Russian forces recently conducted an infiltration mission east of Sumy City, and they continue to conduct glide bomb strikes against frontline settlements in northern Sumy Oblast to set conditions for future offensives.
Kharkiv: Russian forces continued offensive operations in northern Kharkiv Oblast and in the Borova, Kupyansk and Velykyi Burluk directions on Sept. 21 and 22 but did not advance.
Donetsk: Ukrainian forces reportedly continue counterattacks in the Lyman direction, including southeast of Lyman, as Russian forces are attempting to use redeployments to stabilize the area. Russian forces continued offensive operations east and southeast of Slovyansk near Rai-Oleksandrivka and toward Mykolaivka and Fedorivka Druha on Sept. 21 and 22 but did not advance. During this period, they also tried to advance in the Novopavlivka and Oleksandrivka directions but made no gains, as Ukrainian forces counterattacked in both areas.
Zaporizhia: Ukrainian forces recently advanced or maintained positions in western Zaporizhia Oblast.
Kherson: Neither Russian nor Ukrainian forces reported ground activity in the Kherson direction on September 22.
Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, September 22, 2026: The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) falsely claimed that Russian forces have encircled Dobropillya — an intensification of the Kremlin’s cognitive warfare campaign alleging encirclements across various sectors of the… pic.twitter.com/yMoAcyVIme
In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly this afternoon, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called for Russia to end its war and said it was paying a heavy price — and exacting a terrible toll — for little territorial gain.
“This ridiculous and never-ending war with Ukraine must be ended,” the Ukrainian leader urged. “I do not know a single world leader who would say otherwise. I do not know anyone who is openly for this war, except one man.”
He was referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Ladies and gentlemen, for almost five years now, Russian generals have been trying to carry out Putin’s crazy order to seize our eastern land, the Donetsk region,” Zelensky continued. “And just this year, from January through August, the Russian army lost 248,964 people on the battlefield in Ukraine in eight months. Twenty-one countries in the world have smaller populations… than the number of Russian troops lost in just eight months.”
“It’s madness, but they still keep going there to die because that is what Putin wants,” Zelensky suggested. “After losing so many people, Russia managed to capture just over 1,000 square kilometers of our land this year, and we have already liberated a significant part of it. Russia is a country that already has 17 million square kilometers of its own land without any Ukrainian territory, by the way. So to add another 1,000 square kilometers, Putin is paying with 248 people for every kilometer. Does anyone still think that he is reasonable? And moderate?”
“Russia’s leader, Patient Zero, the man from whom this war began and spread into the world, becoming the largest war in Europe since World War II, will inevitably leave this war,” Zelensky proffered. “But the longer Putin is able to wage war, the more evil he will leave behind in this world. Today, nothing in war works the same way it did, by the way, in 2022, except the courage of people.”
Russian missile and drone barrages have “caused damage, but they didn’t break us,” the president proclaimed. “We build our defense. What is really difficult for us now is Russian ballistic missiles and their new jet-powered Shaheds — Iranian technologies.”
Residential buildings stand against the backdrop of smoke from a Russian attack on Kyiv. (Photo by Bohdan Diev/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images) Tatyana Kudel’s’ka
“Just imagine this: since the beginning of this year, Russia has already used more than 2,100 missiles of different types again against us, against Ukraine, our people and our children,” Zelensky stated. “More than 950 of them were ballistic missiles. In eight months of this year, Russia used 63,000 attack drones of different types against Ukraine, our people, and more than 7,700 of them were jet-powered Shaheds, truly destructive and very dangerous weapons. Just think about it. The Russians launch jet-powered Shaheds every hour, every hour, against our cities, our economy, our infrastructure. Our combat aircraft are fighting them 24/7, and this is part of Russia’s strategy to create a new threat every hour, to make life harder for the economy and to disrupt people’s lives, and to stop children from being able to study, to study at school.”
Speaking at the Sixth Summit of the International Crimea Platform in New York on Wednesday, Zelensky said the return of Crimea is a condition for any return to normal relations with Russia.
“Disrespect for international law began in 2014, when Russia entered Crimea,” the Ukrainian leader stated. “There can be no full return to normality without Crimea, the restoration of security, the protection of people and lives, the release of prisoners held by Russia, and a return to the fundamental principles of international law. Territorial integrity matters, state sovereignty matters, and human lives matter. And Russia must learn this.”
Tuesday, Zelensky met with U.S. President Donald Trump.
Among the topics of their three-hour meeting were a path to end the war and a renewed discussion about the licensing of Patriot air defense interceptors so they can be built in Ukraine. The country is struggling to defend against Russian ballistic missiles because of the dearth of these munitions.
“Just had a positive and productive meeting with President Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly,” the Ukrainian leader stated on X. “Both the United States and Ukraine want this senseless Russian war to end before winter. We discussed possible de-escalation steps that could pave the way to diplomacy.”
“I am grateful that, in parallel with this, our teams continue to work on launching the production of Patriot interceptor missiles in Ukraine,” Zelensky noted. “This is exactly what will help protect lives if Russia rejects negotiations and continues to rely on ballistic terror against our people this winter and beyond. We also discussed other bilateral and multilateral issues, including the winter air defense package for Ukraine. Thank you to President Trump, his team, and all the American people for their support.”
I just had a positive and productive meeting with President Trump @POTUS at UNGA. Both the U.S. and Ukraine want to see this senseless Russian war ended before winter. We discussed potential de-escalatory steps that can open up the way to diplomacy. I am grateful that in the… pic.twitter.com/Ayvsj9It3m
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) September 22, 2026
For his part, Trump said negotiations about Patriots are ongoing but offered no commitments.
“We’re talking about that,” Trump stated. “We’ll be talking about that now. If you would have come in at the end, we would have had an answer. But we’ll be talking about that. I mean, we talk about it all the time. Very capable people, really amazingly capable people.”
This isn’t the first time the two leaders have talked about a Patriot licensing deal. The issue came up back in July. As we noted at the time, such a deal faces big challenges.
First of all, it could face bureaucratic and regulatory hurdles, like getting congressional approval. Major security concerns exist, not just by having license production of a very sensitive weapon in Ukraine but also having to do with whatever facility will perform the work, which would become a top target for Russia. Even if they got the clearance to move forward, delivery of new weapons will still take years due to the time it takes to build the facility and to source long-lead components.
Even Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s biggest arms makers, currently produces only about 650 PAC-3 MSE interceptors a year, or just shy of two per day. However, under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot PAC-3 MSE annual production to 2,000 in the years to come.
You can read more about the headwinds a Patriot licensing deal would face, even if it were to come to fruition, in our initial story here.
A Patriot interceptor. (DOW) Department of Defense
Ukraine’s president also confirmed that “Kyiv is ready to agree to an energy truce on the condition that Russia does not attack its energy, electricity and heating infrastructure as well as its water supplies,” CNBC reported. “Trump has previously called on Ukraine to stop targeting Russian oil refineries with drone strikes, which he says are ‘hurting the world’ as fuel supply disruptions from the Ukraine and Iran wars propel U.S. diesel prices to a record high.”
Ukraine’s repeated attacks on Russian oil infrastructure is having a major impact.
“Russian refinery throughput fell to 3.8 mb/d, its lowest level in more than 20 years and roughly 30% below a year earlier,” according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). “Reported gasoline output is down by 20% compared with 2025 levels, while diesel production is estimated to have fallen by nearly 30%, prompting the government to restrict fuel exports to protect domestic supplies.”
Amid the U.N. General Assembly meeting, strikes by both sides continued.
“At least 16 people were killed and 59 others injured in Russian attacks across Ukraine over the past day, as Russia launched several waves of ballistic missiles at Kyiv overnight,” the Kyiv Independent reported, citing local authorities.
“Two people were killed and eight others injured in Kyiv, where Russian ballistic missiles struck the capital in three waves overnight,” the publication added. “Residential buildings, a maternity hospital, energy, and logistics infrastructure were among the sites damaged, according to President Volodymyr Zelensky.”
“Russia launched 282 attack drones of various types overnight, including jet-powered drones, as well as Zircon anti-ship missiles and Iskander-M, S-400, and KN-23 ballistic missiles,” the news outlet stated, citing the Ukrainian Air Force. “Ukrainian air defenses shot down 227 aerial targets, including 219 drones, four Zircon missiles, three ballistic missiles, and one Banderol munition. Strikes were recorded at 13 locations, while debris from downed targets fell at 10 locations.”
A difficult night for Ukraine as Russia continued attacking our civilians, launching a ballistic missile attack on Kyiv, and attacking Kyiv and other Ukrainian regions with drones. The air raid alert in Kyiv was turned on at 3:28 a.m. and hasn't turned off since.
Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy infrastructure continued.
“Over the past 24 hours, two oil refineries were hit – one in Bashkortostan and one in the Samara region. There were also strikes in the Black Sea,” the Ukrainian Defense Ministry stated on X. “We are taking the war back to where it came from. We are bringing peace closer for Ukraine. I thank the units involved for their precision.”
I thank our warriors for the results they achieve every day in carrying out Ukraine’s long-range sanctions. Over the past 24 hours, two oil refineries were hit – one in Bashkortostan and one in the Samara region. There were also strikes in the Black Sea.
In an effort to defend against Ukrainian attacks, Russia continues to use netting to protect its energy facilities. You can see a recent example in the video below.
After more frequent Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries and fuel depots, Moscow and the Moscow region decided to cover potential targets with anti-drone nets.
Finland’s President Alexander Stubband Zelensky this morning “signed an Agreement on Enhanced Defense and Security Cooperation under the Drone Deal format,” the Finnish Defense Ministry said in a statement. “It will enable defense materiel cooperation between the two countries.”
“The agreement will enable Finland and Ukraine to transfer technology and knowledge, pursue research, development and innovation cooperation and promote joint manufacturing and drone technology development between their industries,” the MoD stated. “Another objective is to simplify administrative processes, for example regarding the granting of export authorizations, to make the transfer of defense materiel and technologies between the two countries as efficient as possible.”
Finland and Ukraine take their defence cooperation to the next level
Today, we signed a drone deal with @ZelenskyyUa. The agreement enables, among other things, the joint production of defence materiel. Defence sector companies in Finland are ready, and the joint effort can now… pic.twitter.com/UUh2kZPPpk
With electronic warfare interfering with how drones controlled by radio frequencies operate, Ukraine is testing a new system of small radio beacons placed on the ground that allow drones to navigate without GNSS — including missions deep inside Russia. While many systems might not need this fix, some of the lower-end drones might.
Ukraine is testing and scaling this technology as part of a layered navigation system designed to keep drones autonomous in heavily jammed environments.
“The concept is quite simple,” the BBC wrote. “If the enemy jams the signal coming from above—specifically from GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) satellites, which determine the precise coordinates, speed, and time of any object on Earth—then specific points must be created to provide that same signal from below.”
The idea is to guide the drones by triangulating their location.
“To achieve this, special small devices—radio beacons—are either installed on the ground or air-dropped across a specific area. Their coordinates are known; thus, when a drone flies through the area, it receives coordinate data and signal transmission timing from several beacons. From there, it is a matter of basic geometry: the UAV calculates its own spatial position using data on the distance to the beacon and its altitude above the ground.”
GPS can be jammed. Ukrainian drones still need to fly.
A new beacon network is helping solve that problem.
Small radio beacons placed on the ground allow drones to navigate without GNSS or a constant communications link — including missions deep inside russia.
In the age of robots, uncrewed ground vehicles (UGVs) are playing a larger role in combat. The following video shows one UGV rescuing another one by pushing it back on its wheels.
A Ukrainian logistics UGV comes to the rescue of its overturned teammate, helping get the stranded ground robot back on its wheels. pic.twitter.com/q7d5I2tyOe
It’s stunning to comprehend how much has changed since Russia began its invasion of Ukraine. The conflict quickly turned into one dominated by artillery, with both sides scrambling to source shells wherever possible. Drones have since replaced tubed artillery as the ‘king of battle’ along the front, but cannons still have an important place on the battlefield. The commander of a new combined drone-artillery brigade offered some fresh insights into how his guns are now being deployed to achieve effects that drones still can’t provide.
As we have frequently documented, the ubiquity of drones has changed the nature of combat, especially when it comes to artillery. Not only can drones hold artillery positions at risk, many are cheaper than shells and easier to produce at scale. Most types are also precision guided munitions capable of hitting moving targets with pinpoint accuracy and can also provide battlefield surveillance. However, they are not a panacea, especially amid the cat-and-mouse game of electronic warfare countermeasures and improving kinetic and passive defenses.
In a recent interview with the Ukrainian Oboronka news outlet, Lt. Col. Vitalii Korniienko, commander of the 7th Artillery Brigade, talked about the changing nature of artillery warfare. Korniienko, whose unit is part of the Ukrainian National Guard, explained what is being done to keep his array of domestically produced Bogdana 155mm systems, donated weapons like M777 howitzers, remaining Soviet-era 2S7 Pion 203mm self-propelled howitzers and other guns, relevant. Here are some takeaways from that discussion.
How The Game Changed
“Guns used to be massed at positions to create an ‘artillery wall’ and a barrage of fire,” the lieutenant colonel said. “That practice is gone now. So, how effective is artillery today? We can create an artillery barrage, but what is the point of mindlessly churning up the earth? I’d rather send 20 FPV drones to destroy the target. The cost of that mission is $20,000.”
A soldier from the 13th Khartiia Brigade of Ukraine’s National Guard hones his FPV drone piloting skills during a training flight in the Kharkiv region, Ukraine. (Photo by Viacheslav Madiievskyi/Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images) Future Publishing
“Alternatively, I could fire 200 shells, but the cost would be astronomical,” he pointed out. “Plus, if we fired 100 shells from a gun in a single day, it likely wouldn’t survive until evening. The sky is full of drones; every shot gives away the position, leading to detection and an attempt to dismantle it using every available means. Nowadays, a typical mission involves a series of up to 10 shots. First, 3–5 shells for ranging, followed by fire on the target. That’s a minimum of five shells, with each costing at least $2,000.”
What Does The Drone-Artillery Brigade Do Differently?
“It is a concept of ours that was approved: combining artillery and drones within a single brigade,” Korniienko said. “Drones take out enemy artillery and logistics, while our guns provide cover for the infantry, destroy targets, and pin the enemy down in their dugouts. This way, we mitigate the limitations of both systems and boost overall effectiveness.”
Ukrainian troops firing a domestically produced 2S22 “Bogdana” self-propelled howitzer against Russian forces near the front line in the Zaporizhia direction. (Photo by Maksym Kishka/Frontliner/Getty Images) Frontliner#VIDEO
“Our primary operations are focused within the corps’ area of responsibility—targeting positions 10 kilometers deep or farther behind enemy lines. Of course, we will also engage closer targets if requested by the brigade holding the defense. In addition, we are shifting logistics tasks from pickup trucks to ground-based robotic systems. They are already transporting ammunition to drone and artillery positions, as well as food and fuel for generators.”
What Artillery Can Do That Drones Can’t
“Let’s be honest: 95% of strikes right now are carried out by drones,” Korniienko explained. “Yet, we cannot simply abandon artillery. The focus of our operations has shifted from merely striking the enemy to destroying, suppressing, and halting the actions of assault groups and armored columns—and the need for that remains as critical as ever. There are tasks that only artillery can handle.”
The high art of war, as practiced by the warriors of the National Guard's Artillery Brigade.
“For instance, we currently have several enemy targets in the Kupyansk sector that drones cannot reach due to electronic warfare (EW) interference, while slow fiber-optic drones are simply shot down,” the officer noted. “What do we do? We call in artillery. Nothing affects its shells. Fog, strong winds, snow, or headwinds—it makes no difference to artillery; it will operate regardless.”
Preparing Artillery For The Modern Battlefield
“At the beginning, both we and the Russians might have had two or three guns at a single position,” Korniienko proffered. “The enemy was doing this as late as 2023. Then it tapered off, because if you deployed six guns, an hour later they’d be gone. No one drives out into an open field anymore. Today, a gun wouldn’t even make it to the position without being spotted.”
Ukrainian National Guard troops prepare a ‘Bogdana-BG’ artillery installation from a dugout position. (Photo by Sofiia Bobok/Anadolu via Getty Images) Anadolu
As a result, the artillery crew’s deployment “is prepared in advance,” the officer stated. “First, anti-aircraft drone teams ‘clear’ the sky above the site of enemy reconnaissance assets. The position itself is a fully underground-dugout caponier with well-camouflaged access routes. We put a lot of effort into ensuring the artillery doesn’t get destroyed. Losing a gun is a huge blow to us.”
Short Range Versus Long Range Shells
“There is currently an ongoing debate about phasing out ‘short’ shells and switching entirely to long-range variants,” the officer stated. “This is intended to protect artillery from drone strikes.”
“What exactly is a ‘short’ shell, and should we stop using it?” he asked rhetorically. “The M107 155mm round is what is known as a ‘short’ shell. It is inexpensive and mass-produced; all our allies—and even our own country—manufacture it. We have sufficient stocks of them for combat operations. While accurate, its range is limited to 14–18 km, depending on the propellant used.”
Army
Long-range options “include the M795 and its foreign equivalents,” Korniienko explained. “These are longer, heavier, and significantly more expensive. With high-quality propellant, they can reach 30 km, or even further if equipped with a base-bleed unit. However, both these shells and the necessary propellants are in short supply.”
Army
“I do not believe abandoning the M107 is the right move,” the officer suggested. “Long-range shells cause faster barrel wear and compromise position concealment; firing a long-range charge produces a massive burst of flame from the muzzle—visible for kilometers at dusk or dawn.” “Besides,” he added, “18 km is a respectable range. If the gun is positioned 15 km back, it still has a 3-km margin to spare. That is sufficient for engaging frontline infantry. In my view, the ideal mix for most brigades would be 60% long-range shells and 40% standard M107 rounds.”
Big Versus Small Guns
“I operated 105mm guns in the Serebryanka area, on the Kharkiv axis,” Korniienko noted. “Based on intercepted communications, the enemy thought it was a mortar and searched for it within a five-to-six-kilometer range. But the howitzer was positioned eight or nine kilometers away and fired out to 10–12 kilometers.”
“There is almost no muzzle flash, just a bit of dust,” he added. “The shell arrives, and the enemy doesn’t even hear the sound of the shot. It’s compact and lightweight—you can transport it on a pickup truck. So yes, it would be useful.”
An L119 lightweight towed howitzer. (Via X)
“I’d also like to see the development of 203mm artillery; why move away from that caliber?” the officer wondered aloud. “Our ‘Pion’ systems fire a massive 100-kilogram shell capable of punching through at least two floors of a building or a bunker. And it’s reasonably accurate, too. You wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end when guns like that are firing at you. Overall, I believe we need competition. Right now, the ‘Bogdana’ is evolving under wartime conditions, which is good. But in a few years, momentum could stall. They might just keep producing the same system without significant upgrades because there’s no incentive to innovate. Yet, the nature of war doesn’t stand still.”
Wary Of Asian Shells
“We have a wide range of shells from different countries, and the ones coming from the West are fine,” Korniienko said. “However, their counterparts produced in certain Asian countries… the quality is frankly poor.”
“What is wrong with them?” queried Korniienko, who did not name the country in question. “On paper, the shell weight is listed as 46 kilograms, but when we weigh them, we find 46.9 or 45.4 kg. And that half-kilogram difference—give or take—has a huge impact on where the shell lands.”
As a result, “we no longer trust the standard firing tables provided with the shells; instead, we compile our own for each manufacturer. We weigh every batch and sort them by weight so that the difference between the ‘piles’ is minimal, ensuring a reasonably tight grouping. I can’t afford to make a mistake that causes a shell to land 2 kilometers off-target—right where our infantry guys are positioned. I should add that our artillerymen are actually wary of shells from one specific country. There have been instances where they tore off the muzzle brake or even caused the barrel to burst. A barrel burst is a disaster.”
Homegrown Is The Best
Korniienko said his unit was one of the first to test the Bogdana system, adding that he prefers it to other guns.
“We tested them and provided feedback to the manufacturer, which was then used to refine the design,” he explained. “It is a solid gun now, and it is my preferred choice. It might not be the absolute best, but I am very satisfied with the support and service.”
“If there’s a breakdown, the gun is back in position within a day or two,” he pointed out. “For instance, a gun broke down today, and we needed a repair team from the manufacturer. I know I’ll have it fixed by the day after tomorrow. They arrive in the morning, and by midday, the gun is ready. Then it takes another day or two to get it back to the position. That is very fast.”
That’s a very different experience than what he sees with donated weapons like the U.S.-made M777.
Ukrainian soldiers prepare to fire an M777 howitzer at Russian forces. (Photo by Diego Herrera Carcedo/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images) Anadolu
“As for the Western partners helping us—we are deeply grateful,” the officer avowed. “However, by the time you actually receive a part—say, a sensor—the gun might have been sitting idle for six months. And you can’t try to fix it yourself, because that would void the warranty.”
While artillery may no longer be the reigning weapon of war, as far as Ukraine is concerned, it has not been relegated to the dustbin of history yet either.
Login
(@bayraktar_1love) October 20, 2026
(@SergioCentaurus) June 5, 2026
Ukraine’s 115th Mechanized Brigade has released new footage showing a VB-140 Flamingo interceptor drone attacking a Russian Mi-28 attack helicopter in flight.
(@PressTV) 
(@DefenceGeek) 
. 
Inside Russian Shahed: power bank and a SIM card of a Ukrainian operator 
(@Tactixtm) 
(@mercoglianos) 
(@WarMonitor3) 
(@TheDeadDistrict) 
In Kyiv, two… 
: 
