Japan’s Ministry of Defense has included an intriguing description of the ASM-3 Kai missile in its record fiscal year 2027 defense budget request, referring to the weapon as an “air-to-surface/anti-air missile.” Until now, the ASM-3 family has been publicly associated with the air-launched anti-ship (anti-surface) mission, and the wording potentially hints at an additional capability or intended role for the upgraded weapon.
The reference appears under a sub-section entitled Durability and Resilience, which calls for funds to “secure ammunition and fuel, increase the number of operational units (by addressing parts shortages, etc.), enhance the resilience of facilities (through facility upgrades associated with the formation of new units and the introduction of new equipment, etc.), and strengthen the operational infrastructure (by enhancing manufacturing capabilities, etc.).”
— 因幡のよっちゃん（稲葉義泰 Yoshihiro Inaba） (@japanesepatrio6) August 31, 2026
In terms of securing ammunition, the document highlights the breadth of weapons systems involved, ranging from 5.56mm small arms ammunition and 30mm cannon rounds, via 155mm precision artillery rounds, up to advanced missiles including the Type 23 ship-launched air defense missile and the ASM-3 Kai.
The Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) ASM-3 is Japan’s domestically developed supersonic air-launched anti-ship missile, originally intended to arm the Mitsubishi F-2 fighter. The improved ASM-3 Kai (“Kai” meaning modified or revised) represents a significant evolution of the weapon, although the full nature of its capabilities and performance have not been officially revealed. The missile has already been observed undergoing testing on F-2s.
The ASM-3 program has also gone through a number of different configurations over its development history, with at least five distinct external configurations identified in previous reporting. The existence of multiple iterations leaves open the possibility that the newly identified “anti-air” designation could ultimately correspond to a dedicated air-to-air variant or derivative of the ASM-3 family, rather than simply a secondary capability of the baseline ASM-3 Kai.
Reportedly, the ASM-3 Kai is capable of flying more than 400 kilometers (about 250 miles), although the exact range of the operational weapon remains classified. It is powered by a ramjet engine, giving it sustained high-speed performance — reportedly around Mach 3. If it indeed has an air-to-air capability, this would be an advantage in some scenarios, compared to relying solely on a brief but very powerful rocket boost as many air-to-air missiles do.
A Mitsubishi F-2 launches an ASM-3 anti-ship missile. (JASDF)
The weapon is also understood to employ an active/passive radar seeker, providing it with both an active radar mode for detecting and engaging targets and a passive mode that can home in on their electromagnetic emissions. While an active radar seeker is common on long-range air-to-air missiles, the latter passive capability could also be of extreme value in an air-to-air application.
The ASM-3 is also a substantially larger missile than typical fighter-launched air-to-air weapons. While that imposes obvious carriage and aerodynamic penalties, it also allows for a larger propulsion system, seeker, and warhead than would be practical in a smaller missile.
A weapon capable of traveling hundreds of miles at high speed, while carrying an active/passive radar seeker, could potentially be especially useful against high-value airborne assets such as airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft. These platforms provide vital wide-area surveillance, battle management, and targeting capabilities. At the same time, their powerful radars are necessarily emitting, potentially making them detectable and trackable by a missile employing a passive seeker.
China’s rapidly expanding AEW&C fleet is an increasingly important part of its ability to generate situational awareness, coordinate fighters, and extend its sensor coverage well beyond its immediate borders. The force, which already numbers dozens of increasingly capable fixed-wing aircraft, is a growing operational challenge for Japan and other regional air forces.
The second example of the Chinese KJ-3000 AEW&C aircraft, still painted in primer. via X
The ability to threaten such aircraft from well beyond the range of conventional air-to-air engagements could force an opponent to operate its AEW&C fleet even further from contested airspace, reducing the effectiveness of its sensors and command-and-control architecture. Although a passive seeker could also offer an avenue for homing in on relevant radar emissions, exactly how the ASM-3 Kai’s seeker would operate against airborne targets is not publicly known. Equally, a different variant of the missile, optimized for anti-air missions, could incorporate both passive and active seekers specially adapted for that mission set, although it is very possible a single configuration can accomplish both missions. As well as AEW&C aircraft, such a missile would be just as relevant for other high-value, non-maneuvering targets at long ranges, including intelligence-gathering platforms, tankers, and other support aircraft.
The budget language by itself falls short of establishing whether the ASM-3 Kai has been tested or validated against aircraft. The designation could reflect a broader classification within the budget documents, or it could point toward a genuine expansion of the weapon’s intended target set.
Such a weapon would not necessarily be a replacement for Japan’s existing air-to-air missile arsenal. Instead, an “anti-air” ASM-3 Kai could occupy a specialized niche focused on high-value or otherwise particularly important airborne targets at extended ranges.
The possibility is consistent with Japan’s broader effort to expand the flexibility and reach of its air-launched weapons. Tokyo is pursuing a growing family of standoff weapons as part of a major expansion of its counterstrike and deterrence capabilities, including longer-range missiles capable of striking targets well beyond the immediate vicinity of Japan.
Other air-to-air missiles mentioned in the same section of the document comprise the U.S.-made AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) and the domestically developed AAM-4B, another medium-range weapon, thought to be the first of its kind to be fitted with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna.
Between the exclusive AESA radar and Japan's labour cost, Mitsubishi's AAM-4B might be the most expensive air-to-air missile on the planet pic.twitter.com/rfBnXB8RzS
The FY2027 defense budget request also mentions another apparently new air-launched weapon for Japan, the AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER). Japan has not previously been publicly documented as an international AARGM-ER customer, but the weapon would be an obvious candidate for integration with its F-35 fighters if it wishes to bolster their suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD) capabilities.
An AARGM-ER seen under the wing of an F/A-18F Super Hornet during a test. U.S. Navy
In terms of F-2-related developments, the document calls for the upgrade of an initial 10 of these aircraft to make them compatible with the air-launched version of the Upgraded Type 12 anti-ship guided missile, a significant new weapon that you can read more about here.
A pair of new missiles slung beneath the wings of an F-2, understood to be the air-launched version of Japan’s Upgraded Type 12/Type 25 anti-ship missile. @bibabibabibary @bibabibabibary
TWZ has contacted Japan’s Ministry of Defense seeking clarification on the “air-to-surface/anti-air” designation and what it means for the ASM-3 Kai’s intended capabilities and target set. It could also be the case that the description is an error in the budget document.
However, the emergence of such a capability would also come at a time when very-long-range air-to-air weapons are becoming increasingly important as anti-access/area-denial challenges make it harder for fighters to get close to enemy aircraft and the high-value assets supporting them. China has fielded weapons such as the PL-15 and the much larger PL-17, while the United States is developing the AIM-260 and has just revealed the AIM-424 Malice, a U.S. Navy missile reportedly capable of reaching more than 250 nautical miles. The U.S. Navy is also fielding the AIM-174B, a very-long-range weapon developed very much with the Chinese threat in mind, and which we discuss in the video below.
For now, exactly what prompted the “air-to-surface/anti-air” designation for the missile is unclear, but if it reflects a genuine expansion of the ASM-3 Kai’s mission set, it would represent a particularly interesting development in Japan’s rapidly evolving air-launched weapons portfolio.
Hat-tip to Yoshihiro Inaba for bringing this development to our attention.
The U.S. Air Force has stood up a new squadron at Andrews Air Force Base to manage the arrival of HH-60W Jolly Green II helicopters to replace aging UH-1N Twin Hueys. Originally designed for combat search and rescue (CSAR) missions, the HH-60Ws assigned to the 5th Helicopter Squadron will be in a specialized configuration to take on the tasks of ferrying VIPs around the nation’s capital and supporting continuity of government plans. Questions have been raised about using Jolly Green IIs in these roles, and how this may impact the ability of the overall fleet of these helicopters to meet CSAR demands.
The Air Force held a ceremony at Andrews yesterday to mark the formal activation of the 5th Helicopter Squadron, also sometimes abbreviated as 5 HS. The 1st Helicopter Squadron (1 HS), with its UH-1Ns, will continue to operate throughout the transition to the HH-60W, which is expected to be completed in 2030, to avoid any gaps in capacity to meet critical operational requirements. A total of 26 Jolly Green IIs are set to be based at the facility, which is situated just outside Washington, D.C., a one-for-one replacement for the Twin Hueys that are there now. The arrival of the new helicopters will also lead to a small increase in total personnel, 60 in total, at Andrews.
A view from yesterday’s ceremony marking the activation of the 5th Helicopter Squadron at Andrews. An HH-60W Jolly Green II is seen at top right. USAF
The Air Force originally planned to supplant all of its UH-1Ns worldwide with new MH-139 Grey Wolf helicopters, which is a more direct replacement in terms of size and capability. The service is still acquiring MH-139s to supplant UH-1Ns elsewhere, including ones assigned to Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) units that help provide security around Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos. We will come back to this later on.
The first Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) MH-139A at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, with a UH-1N seen flying in the background. USAF The first AFGSC MH-139A at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, with a UH-1N seen flying in the background. USAF
“The HH-60W’s increased speed, range and carrying capacity will better deliver safe operations for U.S. senior leaders, service members, and the communities around the region,” the Air Force said in a press release regarding the 5th Helicopter Squadron’s activation.
The Jolly Green II also has in-flight refueling capability, something that is not found on the UH-1N or MH-139, and could be very valuable for missions around Washington, D.C. The HH-60Ws heading to Andrews are set to receive additional modifications, including to the main cabin seating arrangement, communications suite, and defensive capabilities, as you can read more about here.
Graphics depicting how the HH-60W’s cabin can be configured now for CSAR missions. Lockheed Martin
“In the next few years, the 5 HS will train aircrew and maintainers, establish operational and maintenance processes, and receive new aircraft as it prepares to execute the national security mission within the National Capital Region,” the release yesterday added.
National Capital Region (NCR) refers to a larger area that surrounds Washington, D.C., proper. Air Force operations in and around the NCR are primarily managed through a unit called the Air Force District of Washington (AFDW).
The HH-60Ws will be taking over an AFDW mission set from the UH-1Ns that currently includes daily airlift sorties transporting U.S. and foreign VIPs around the nation’s capital. The helicopters will also be in position to swing into action as part of continuity of government plans. In such a scenario, the Jolly Green IIs would be tasked to help rush senior officials and lawmakers to safety to ensure the continued functioning of federal authorities following an attack or a similarly serious contingency. 1st Helicopter Squadron’s role in responding to the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 was highlighted during the activation ceremony at Andrews yesterday.
A stock picture of 1st Helicopter Squadron UH-1Ns. USAF
The NCR presents particular challenges for crisis response missions and routine day-to-day flight operations. The airspace around Washington, D.C., is most densely defended and heavily monitored anywhere in the United States, and packed full of military and civilian air traffic every day. Where and when military helicopters can operate over the nation’s capital has been a hot topic of debate since a fatal mid-air collision involving an Army UH-60 Black Hawk and a PSA Airlines Bombardier CRJ700 regional jet in January 2025. The Black Hawk was conducting a continuity of government training flight at the time. This has been more recently highlighted by an incident involving a Marine One helicopter carrying President Donald Trump earlier this month. A subsequent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) investigation has highlighted communication issues and factors tied to the construction of a new helipad at the White House.
It is also worth noting here that Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX-1), the primary unit responsible for the Marine One presidential helicopter mission, would play a role in any continuity of government scenario in the NCR. Helicopters from the U.S. Park Police, as well as ones belonging to other law enforcement and civilian agencies, would be utilized, too.
As mentioned, there are significant questions about the impacts of basing HH-60Ws at Andrews will have on the rest of the Air Force’s Jolly Green II fleet. This is something TWZ highlighted when the Air Force confirmed it was moving ahead with the AFDW HH-60W plan with the release of its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request earlier this year.
A particular issue is the Air Force’s decision years ago to scale back total purchases of HH-60Ws, from 113 helicopters down to 91. If the service does not order more Jolly Green IIs in the coming years, this will mean that roughly a third of the entire fleet will be assigned to the AFDW mission.
The Air Force previously confirmed the plan will involve taking HH-60Ws out of “back up inventory.” In the past, the service has defended this decision as being “more cost effective” than a move to “procure additional MH-139A aircraft” to meet AFDW requirements. Whether or not there were other specific operational considerations that factored into the decision to use Jolly Green IIs to meet these needs instead is unknown. The acquisition plan for the Grey Wolf has also been significantly truncated, with the Air Force now planning to buy just 56 of these helicopters instead of 80.
“The MH-139A Grey Wolf was competitively selected to replace the UH-1N for intercontinental ballistic missile security and National Capital Region missions, including continuity of government and transport of United States government officials and security forces,” members of the House Armed Services Committee wrote in a report accompanying a draft of the annual policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2027 Fiscal Year, back in May. “The committee remains concerned regarding the justification for transitioning these missions to an alternate rotary-wing platform and seeks additional details on cost and operational implications.”
At that time, the House Armed Services Committee explicitly directed “the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than December 1, 2026, assessing operational, cost, infrastructure, and readiness impacts of assigning any non-MH-139A rotary-wing aircraft to continuity of government and transport of United States government officials and security forces in the National Capital Region.” The lawmakers stressed that the report had to include “a comparison of procurement cost, cost per flight hour, infrastructure and aircraft modification requirements, and training and manpower impacts” and an assessment of the cost, schedule, and operational disruption associated with required upgrades to Joint Base Andrews facilities for each aircraft type.”
Separate questions have been raised in recent years about the utility of traditional CSAR helicopters in future operations, especially in the context of a high-end fight, such as one between the United States and China in the Pacific. Air Force officials openly talked about exploring alternatives for rescuing aircrew downed deep inside contested environments, but details about those plans remained limited.
At the same time, demand for traditional CSAR capabilities has certainly not gone away entirely. This was underscored by the operation to retrieve the crew of an F-15E Strike Eagle that went down inside Iran in April. HH-60Ws were part of the larger force package sent into Iranian airspace to help recover those aviators.
Wild footage from a USAF C-130 fueling two helicopters over Iran shared by telegram channels. The cars & the dialect are Iranian and from southwest. pic.twitter.com/K9cufOOY26
In the meantime, the Air Force’s UH-1Ns, a type the service first began operating in the early 1970s. are only getting older and harder to sustain, too. Three of the UH-1Ns currently assigned to 1st Helicopter Squadron saw combat during the Vietnam War. Just last week, one of the unit’s Twin Hueys made a precautionary landing in an open field in Maryland “after experiencing unusual mechanical noise” while on a training flight. This is hardly the first time such an incident has occurred.
There is a possibility that Congress could more directly intervene in the Air Force’s move to start flying HH-60Ws around Washington, D.C. With the expectation that UH-1Ns will remain in service at Andrews for another four years, there is time for the service’s own plans to evolve further.
With the activation of 5th Helicopter Squadron, the Air Force has now taken an important step toward an all-new helicopter force in the nation’s capital.
The U.S. military is planning to revamp Moron Air Base in Spain, including creating new parking spaces for as many as nine additional B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers. This effort comes even after Spain denied permission to use the base, and its naval station in the country, for direct strike operations on Iran during Operation Epic Fury. Long-range strikes by bombers flying from Europe played a major role in that operation. It also comes as the Pentagon is reviewing its posture in Europe, which could include major basing changes that fit the Trump administration’s vision for NATO and who it prefers to work with the closest, as well as tactical and strategic concerns.
The makeover is part of a nearly half-billion dollar construction program for U.S. facilities primarily in the Rota, Spain, area, which provide a great deal of support for American forces in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. It was announced on Thursday in a pre-solicitation notice posted on the government’s contracting portal that a contract is expected to be awarded next month.
Moron, located in southern Spain, is a Spanish Air Force Base, used by the U.S. Air Force to provide expeditionary combat support and the bed-down of transient aircraft. It also plays a major role in the “staging of aircraft and personnel in support of U.S. and NATO plans, exercises and contingency operations; and to provide Base Operating Support to tenant units,” according to the Air Force Fiscal Year 2027 Military Construction plan.
A U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress assigned to the 5th Bomb Wing deploys a drag chute to slow down after landing at Morón Air Base, Spain, during a Bomber Task Force Europe deployment, May 20, 2025. (U.S. Air Force photo by Cristina Oliveira) Cristina Oliveira
The first order of business is “a Combat Aircraft Parking Apron in Moron, Spain,” the recent pre-solicitation notice states. The plan calls for the “expansion of the Aircraft Parking Apron to provide nine (9) new aircraft parking spots in an unloaded condition, or three (3) new B-52 aircraft parking spots in a live ordnance [sic] loaded condition.”
The issue of being able to store live ordnance is critical, since extra space is needed for safety purposes in case of an unintended explosion.
“The current apron is not capable of supporting any loaded strategic bombers due to limiting factors associated with unrelated facilities violating inhabited building safety arcs,” the Air Force budget document explains.
U.S. Air Force 23rd Expeditionary Bomb Squadron aircrew prepare a B-52 Stratofortress aircraft for flight during a Bomber Task Force mission at Moron Air Base, Spain, May 27, 2025. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Bryan Guthrie) Staff Sgt. Bryan Guthrie
Beyond the new parking spaces, the planned expansion at Moron also calls for 10 new fuel pits and associated piping, the relocation of aCivil Engineer Storage Complex – including a new covered storage building and an open storage yard – and the extension of apron shoulders and access roads, among other items.
The Air Force sees these improvements as an imperative.
“This project is required to enhance readiness capabilities at Moron Air Base, Spain,” the Air Force Fiscal Year 2027 military construction budget documents note. “A key enabler for training and combat operations is substantial infrastructure, promoting a quick response and positioning of forces within prescribed response times. The expanded Strategic Bomber Aircraft parking apron will increase Moron Air Base’s ability to meet future mission requirements.”
If these improvements are not made, “[a]dequate airfield infrastructure will not be available to the DoW [Department of War] or its allied partners, and personnel, aircraft, and resources will lack key facilities and infrastructure to support expanded airfield operations for training and contingency environments,” the budget document warns. “This limitation will impede sortie generation and flying schedules, directly limiting airfield presence and impairing airfield capability and readiness. Therefore, responsiveness for bilateral and multilateral exercises and training missions would be compromised, directly limiting theater presence and impairing mission capability, readiness, and contingency support.”
The project has a price tag of between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000 and is “expected to be completed 1,038 calendar days after notice to proceed,” according to the pre-solicitation notice.
Moron Air Base, Spain. (Google Earth)
In addition, the Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) calls for new construction, renovations, alterations, demolition, repair work, and any necessary design to a wide range of U.S. assets in the region. This includes “airfield, industrial, infrastructure, administrative, training, retail, food service, munition storage, community support facilities and both vertical and horizontal construction in the Rota, Spain region or other areas managed by NAVFAC EURAFCENT, [Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command/Navy Region Europe, Africa, Central],” the pre-solicitation notice explains. “This tool may also be used throughout the NAVFAC area of responsibility (AOR), worldwide.”
However, as the Air Force budget documents stress, the Moron project is a priority.
The installation has long played an important role for American airpower. It has served as a host for B-1B Lancer and B-52 Bomber Task Force missions and as a way station for a wide array of other aircraft from fighters to aerial refueling tankers.
A B-1B Lancer assigned to the 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, departs Morón Air Base, Spain, in support of Bomber Task Force Europe, April 12, 2024. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Emma Anderson)
“Morón Air Base is a vital link in any operation moving east from the United States due to its strategic location close to the Mediterranean and the Middle East, its massive flight line, long runway, aircraft refueling systems and excellent weather,” according to the 496th Air Base Squadron, the facility’s host unit.
In March, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, one of Europe’s most vocal critics of Epic Fury, refused to allow the U.S. to use its bases in his country for direct attacks on Iran. In addition, Sánchez denied permission for the U.S. to use Spanish airspace for Epic Fury, creating a logistics headache for American aircraft movements to the Middle East.
U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Arturo Herrera, 496th Air Base Squadron Operational Support Team tower watch supervisor, observes two B-1B Lancers taxiing at Morón Air Base, Spain, April 17, 2024. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Eve Daugherty) 2nd Lt. Eve Daugherty
Sanchez’s decision affected Naval Station Rota, another major U.S. installation in that country. Rota supports the movement of personnel, equipment, fuel, and supplies through its three operational piers. It also has a 670-acre airfield capable of supporting U.S. Navy and Air Force aviation operations, and some of the largest weapons and fuel storage facilities in Europe.
Rota is also the home of Destroyer Squadron 60 (DESRON 60), one of three U.S. Navy destroyer squadrons permanently based outside the continental United States and the only one of these to call Europe home.
The Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyers USS Porter (DDG 78), front, USS Donald Cook (DDG 75), USS Carney (DDG 64) and USS Ross (DDG 71), moored at Naval Station Rota, Spain. (Specialist 3rd Class Robert S. Price/Released)
Sanchez’s moves set off U.S. President Donald Trump, who was already angered by Spain’s refusal to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP, previously agreed to at last year’s NATO summit. In March, the American leader called Spain “a terrible partner” and threatened to cut off trade.
The situation reached a critical juncture at the NATO Summit in Turkey in July, with Trump again threatening Madrid.
“We don’t want to do any trade business with Spain anymore… I’d like you to cut it off,” Trump fumed in Ankara to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a press conference with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. “Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don’t participate; they don’t pay. I don’t want anything to do with Spain. Cut off all trade with Spain, please, including visits. Watch them, watch them come running back; oh, they’ll come running back.”
At a NATO summit, Trump said he had ordered Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to cut off all trade with Spain, calling Madrid a 'terrible partner' in the alliance https://t.co/1E2VkRee2jpic.twitter.com/Vt2oNxW8QM
However, the rift eased after Sánchez agreed to bump up his country’s defense budget, Trump claimed.
On his way back to the United States after the summit, he told reporters aboard Air Force One: “I did have issues, and I still do. But Spain, they came back all the way today. Spain was very generous today.”
Asked what Spain had done, he said: “They honored a request for lots of payments, and if they didn’t, we wouldn’t have even talked to them.”
The two leaders displayed new-found cordiality for the cameras while sharing a box at the World Cup Final between Spain and Argentina at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.
President of the United States Donald J. Trump greets Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez during the FIFA World Cup 2026 Final match between Spain and Argentina at New York New Jersey Stadium on July 19, 2026, in East Rutherford, New Jersey. (Photo by Europa Press Sports/Europa Press via Getty Images) Europa Press Sports
Though the Moron construction planning predated any of the political drama, as we noted earlier, the Pentagon is reviewing how many troops it will maintain in Europe and where it will base them. Undersecretary of War Elbridge Colby made a rare visit to NATO headquarters on Thursday to meet with officials to discuss the way forward. There, he pointed out that the Pentagon’s review is “designed to ensure that NATO is moving fast and irreversibly toward Europe leading, stepping up to take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe, stepping up to ensure our forces are postured for America’s global needs, and making sure that our access, basing, and overflight are clearly delineated and assured.”
Despite the geopolitical tiffs between the two nations, the investment in Moron and the larger construction package for Spain is a clear signal of how much the military and Congress value having access to bases in that country.
Saab’s first Gripen F two-seat fighter has taken to the air, marking the beginning of the flight-test campaign for a variant being developed in close cooperation with Brazil.
The aircraft departed Saab’s airfield at Linköping, Sweden, at 9:40 a.m. local time today and remained airborne for approximately 40 minutes. Saab chief test pilot Jakob Högberg and Brazilian Air Force test pilot Lt. Col. Aviator Abdon de Rezende Vasconcelos were in the cockpit for the inaugural sortie.
Gripen F test pilots Jakob Högberg and Lt. Col. Aviator Abdon de Rezende Vasconcelos. Saab
According to Saab, the flight was intended primarily to verify the aircraft’s core systems and initial flying characteristics. The company says the aircraft will now enter a more extensive test program, including progressive expansion of its permitted flight envelope.
That work will eventually cover the aircraft’s speed, altitude, G-loading, and angle-of-attack limits, as well as the tactical capabilities and systems associated specifically with the rear cockpit.
“This first flight represents an important step forward for both Saab and the Brazilian Air Force,” said Lars Tossman, head of Saab business area Aeronautics. “Seeing Gripen F take to the skies is particularly significant for all the Swedish and Brazilian teams whose years of engineering work have helped turn this aircraft into a reality. It is designed to accelerate pilot training while enhancing operational performance in advanced combat missions.”
First flight of the Gripen F, with landing gear extended. Saab
The Gripen F is the two-seat derivative of the Gripen E, but it is not simply a conventional trainer version of the single-seat fighter. Saab has designed the rear cockpit to be independently functional, allowing the aircraft to retain an operational combat role while carrying a second crew member.
The configuration is therefore intended to support conversion training and mission preparation while also offering potential advantages during complex combat missions through the division of cockpit workload. This could also include as a ‘drone controller,’ a growing area of interest for many air forces and something that Saab is also working toward with its uncrewed aircraft plans.
The Gripen F before its first flight. Saab
Combining the Gripen F, in particular, with a high-end drone of the kind that Saab envisages, would make a good deal of sense.
Saab has already pitched its stealthy, supersonic Autonomous Collaborative Platform (ACP) ‘fighter drone’ as an adjunct for the single-seater, describing it as “a great asset to the Gripen E.” Saab envisages the Gripen E serving as a tactical mission commander for one or more ACPs, working in conjunction with the company’s GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft.
The Saab A3 concept for its future Autonomous Collaborative Platform (ACP) ‘fighter drone.’ Thomas Newdick Thomas Newdick
The dual-crew benefits of the Gripen F, combined with the ACP, could give Saab an even more compelling route into the CCA market. After all, a fourth-generation fighter like the Gripen (Saab, it should be noted, rigorously avoids using this generational terminology), can remain highly relevant when teamed with CCAs, and a high-performance, stealthy drone like the ACP could make that combination even more potent. It could, at least possibly in some cases, allow air forces to skip the sixth-generation crewed combat air platforms altogether, or at least greatly reduce the need for them.
Brazil is central to the Gripen F program. The country was the launch customer for the two-seat variant and participated directly in its development as part of the broader technology-transfer arrangement underpinning its Gripen acquisition.
The first Gripen F was formally rolled out at Saab’s Linköping facility in June. Brazil’s original 2014 agreement with Saab covers 36 aircraft, in the form of 28 single-seat Gripen E fighters and eight Gripen F two-seaters. Deliveries of Brazilian Gripens began in 2020.
Rollout of the Gripen F. Saab
The F-model has also attracted interest beyond Brazil. Saab has subsequently received Gripen F orders from Thailand and Colombia. The South American nation will get two Gripen Fs, while the breakdown of Thailand’s Gripen E/F order has not been revealed. According to Saab, the 16 new-build Gripens ordered for Ukraine will all be single-seaters.
As for the Swedish Air Force, it plans to buy 60 single-seat Gripen Es, but bearing in mind the changing security situation in Europe, and the increasing focus on uncrewed aircraft, a future Gripen F order should not be ruled out. In particular, Saab has said it expects the Swedish government to acquire new Gripen E/Fs to backfill the 12 earlier Gripen C/D variants it has donated to Kyiv, and which are expected to arrive in Ukraine early next year.
Ukraine intends to purchase 20 Gripen E/F aircraft. In conjunction with the sale, Sweden will donate up to 16 Gripen C/D, including advanced ammunition. To replace the donated aircraft, new modern Gripen E/F will be procured for the Swedish Air Force. https://t.co/kPHjVDXnSbpic.twitter.com/IxEhsy2yvN
— Försvarsdepartementet (@ForsvarsdepSv) May 28, 2026
Saab also remains upbeat about the prospect of a Canadian order for the Gripen E/F.
Days after trade talks between Ottawa and Washington collapsed this month, further straining the Canada-United States relationship, Saab chief executive Micael Johansson told TWZ and other journalists that Gripen would be the “perfect” option if Canada moves ahead with a joint fighter purchase. The Swedish jet would add “combat mass” alongside the F-35, according to Johansson.
“I don’t think Canada will give up the F-35 completely; they will go forward with that to some extent,” Johansson said.
Johansson also pointed to the Gripen’s ability to operate from highway strips as well as conventional runways: “You get to use all kinds of airstrips that you cannot use with the F-35,” he added.
Part of the Saab pitch to Canada is the establishment of a new domestic final assembly line for the Gripen E/F, which would be the third such facility after Sweden and Brazil.
As for the Brazilian connection, this extends well beyond aircraft procurement. Saab says more than 350 Brazilian engineers, technicians, and pilots have participated in activities covering Gripen development, production, flight testing, and maintenance. Brazilian industry, including Embraer, has consequently become deeply involved in the program.
A Brazilian Air Force Gripen E. Saab
Meanwhile, Saab is continuing to expand what the fighter can actually do once it leaves the factory.
Recent work has included a test launch of the Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile, as well as last year’s integration of Helsing’s Centaur AI agent, which was tested in a beyond-visual-range combat scenario.
TAURUS LAUNCH Today a TAURUS KEPD 350 cruise missile was launched from a Swedish JAS 39 Gripen for the first time. The test was conducted at the Vidsel Test Range in Norrbotten. Today TAURUS is a long-range cruise missile that introduces a new deep-strike capability. FMV pic.twitter.com/vYcL75Lu4p
Speaking last week, Johan Segertoft, head of Saab’s Gripen business unit, points to the fighter’s digital architecture as a key enabler of the rapid integration of new capabilities. The company says the Centaur integration took just 10 weeks.
“We chose BVR because it’s one of the most complex things to prove that we could take third-party software and do it, but there’s a lot of things in an aircraft and outside an aircraft that benefit from the advancement of software,” Segertoft said.
Since the Gripen E first flew in 2017, Saab has implemented around 300 capability upgrades, according to Segertoft. He contrasts that with what he describes as a theoretical maximum of around five upgrades for competing aircraft.
The Gripen E used in the Centaur AI trials. Saab
That approach is summed up by Saab’s internal mantra, Segertoft says: “code in the evening, deploy in the morning, learn by lunch.”
The Gripen F test campaign will now move beyond basic systems checks toward progressively more demanding flight conditions. Saab’s Flight Test Center in Sweden will conduct the campaign before the aircraft undergoes the remaining acceptance procedures and is eventually handed over to the Brazilian Air Force.
The first flight therefore represents a milestone not only for Saab’s new two-seat fighter but also for the industrial partnership that produced it. Potentially, that model could be repeated in Canada in the future.
NASA is starting to explore options to fill the gaps that will be left by the eventual retirement of its iconic T-38 Talons. Since the 1960s, NASA has been using the jets to support astronaut training and as chase planes. However, the Talons are aging, supportability is already a problem, and challenges to sustain them further are expected to grow as the U.S. Air Force replaces its T-38 fleet with new T-7A Red Hawks.
The Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas, put out a contracting notice today seeking information about potential T-38 successors. NASA currently has 25 Talons in its inventory, according to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) online database.
A trio of NASA T-38s at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. NASA
“NASA JSC is conducting market research to obtain industry information regarding availability, capability, schedule, sustainment models, and cost efficacy for modern high-performance jet aircraft that could be used in evaluation and an evaluation program for supporting NASA’s astronaut SFRT [Spaceflight Readiness Training] requirements,” the notice explains. “NASA has operated the T-38N fleet in support of astronaut SFRT for several decades. With the U.S. Air Force planning to retire the T‑38 fleet in the 2030-2035 timeframe, NASA is evaluating options to transition to a more modern high-performance aircraft.”
The T-38N variant is specific to NASA and distinct from the T-38A/B/C variants the Air Force currently operates. The U.S. Naval Test Pilot School also has a handful of T-38Cs. Both the N and C variants are based on the original T-38A, which first entered Air Force service in 1961. The Air Force bailed the first Talons to NASA three years later.
A pair of US Air Force T-38 Talon jet trainers. USAF
The N models have received various upgrades over the years, including the integration of new modern ‘glass cockpits’ with digital displays starting in the 1990s. As of 2011, compared to contemporary C variants, “the T-38N aircraft includes differences in communications and navigation, such as the addition of weather radar, a data link weather system, the terrain avoidance and warning system, the terminal collision avoidance system, GPS with localizer performance and vertical guidance approach capability, and redesigned electrical, inlet, ejector nozzle, and flight management systems,” according to a report from the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Now, “NASA is seeking information on existing, production, or near-production high-performance jet aircraft capable of supporting SFRT,” per today’s contracting notice from the JSC. “NASA is not restricting industry responses to a specific performance class or aircraft design heritage.”
The notice does provide the following list of desired characteristics:
“High reliability with established maintenance documentation”
“Self-starting engine capability”
“Performance comparable to a modern jet trainer/light fighter aircraft”
“Capability to support dynamic maneuvering, formation flying, and cross-country navigation”
“Dual-seat, dual-control configuration (tandem or side-by-side)”
“Modern avionics compatible with instrument flight operations”
“Aircraft capable of being single-pilot qualified from either seat is highly desired”
“Prior to any fleet transition, NASA seeks to conduct a limited-scope evaluation program using a small number of modern aircraft,” the notice adds. “This evaluation program is not a full fleet buy or replacement. It is intended to operate a small number of aircraft within JSC’s existing operational framework to assess compatibility, logistics, cost efficacy, and training impact.”
Furthermore, “NASA anticipates evaluating a small number of aircraft over a multi-year period,” it continues. “NASA requests information on potential procurement options such as lease, lease-to-own, barter, or other arrangements due to limited upfront procurement funding.”
A quartet of NASA T-38 jets flies in formation past Launch Pad 39B at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. NASA
NASA is looking to be solely responsible for flight operations of the jets, but is expecting contractors to handle maintenance, whether the aircraft are government-owned or not.
The contracting notice does also say that “NASA is open to operating the aircraft under reasonable flight hour limits, maneuver restrictions, or operational envelopes consistent with contractor recommendations.”
Just what kind of limits and restrictions NASA might be willing to accept is unclear. The entire reason for operating the T-38s now is to offer a high-performance platform with a good degree of maneuverability to support the SRFT requirements. These are attributes that are also valuable when flying as a chase plane and otherwise supporting flight research and test activities.
NASA certainly seems to be willing to consider a wide range of potential operations, both in terms of aircraft and operating schemes. When Boeing won the Air Force’s T-X competition to replace the T-38 with what became the T-7A, TWZ noted the possibility that other Talon operators, including NASA, could follow suit.
One of the US Air Force’s New T-7A Red Hawks. USAF The first pre-production T-7A lands at Edwards Air Force Base. USAF
There are a wide variety of other jet trainers available on the open market. This includes Korea Aerospace Industries’ (KAI) T-50, a design capable of supersonic flight that has been offered on the U.S. market before through a partnership with Lockheed Martin. A version of the T-50 was one of the losing entrants in the Air Force’s T-X competition.
With expectations that funding for new jet trainers will be limited, at least initially, NASA could well seek to enter into some kind of new arrangement with the Air Force (or another branch of the U.S. military) just like it did in the 1960s. It’s also worth noting here that the T-7A program continues to suffer significant delays due to technical issues and other factors. This has led the Air Force to repeatedly push back its own T-38 replacement timeline. The service’s original goal was to reach initial operational capability with the Red Hawk in October of last year, but it is now targeting August 2027 to achieve that milestone. A full-rate production decision is now not expected to come until January 2029. So, the prospect of NASA actually getting T-7s anytime before the USAF gets all the jets it badly needs is questionable.
There are also no indications that NASA’s SFRT requirements will slow in the meantime, either. If anything, these training demands could grow as work continues toward the resumption of crewed missions to the Moon under the Artemis program. The Artemis IV mission, currently scheduled for 2028, is set to be the first time astronauts have set foot on the lunar surface since Apollo 17 in 1972.
A NASA T-38 wearing a special Artemis program paint scheme. NASA
From the wording of today’s contracting notice from JSC, NASA is still some years away from making a final decision on what will come after the T-38N, but the hunt is now on.
Europe is entering an interesting, and potentially highly consequential, period in the development of beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air weapons. While the public emergence of new U.S. weapons in this class has unsurprisingly grabbed the headlines in recent months, Europe is meanwhile working on several projects that ultimately seek to field its next generation of far-reaching air-to-air missiles.
As in the United States, the immediate catalyst is the rapid evolution of Chinese air-to-air missiles, particularly the PL-15 and newer systems that are emerging around it. The India-Pakistan air combat experience from last year has brought the issue into sharper focus, demonstrating the operational consequences of underestimating an opponent’s long-range air-to-air capabilities. However, while Pakistan said its Chinese-made fighters and missiles shot down several Indian aircraft, the precise circumstances, numbers, and tactics involved remain the subject of competing claims and outside analysis.
Pictures of the PL-15E missile body that came down in India’s Punjab region during the Indo-Pakistan conflict in May 2025. via X
For Europe, the MBDA Meteor is currently the state of the art in terms of BVR air-to-air missiles, and its unique set of capabilites is something we have discussed in depth in the past. The question is increasingly not simply how to improve the Meteor, but what should come after it, and what kind of weapons architecture (or ‘kill chain’) will be needed for the next generation of crewed and uncrewed combat aircraft and their weapons.
A U.K. Royal Air Force Typhoon takes off, loaded with Meteor missiles below the fuselage. Crown Copyright
One of the most intriguing current developments is France’s Comet program, which appears to be led by the French side of the pan-European MBDA consortium. Very little is publicly known about the weapon, and its exact specifications remain unclear. It nevertheless appears to represent an effort to provide a significant step beyond the current MICA family, offering greater range and speed. If the apparent timeline of around 2030 is correct, Comet could be viewed as a relatively near-term response to an increasingly demanding threat environment.
Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) research institute in London, told TWZ that Comet looks like “a response to the exchanges between the Pakistanis and the Indians, where, on day one, the Indians underestimated how aggressive the Pakistanis were going to be, particularly with PL-15. It seems coincidental at the very least that this kind of thing has just popped up onto the horizon.”
Four dummy PL-15 missiles in the internal weapons bay of a Chinese J-20 fighter. Chinese Internet
That would distinguish Comet from the U.K.’s Future Air Superiority Effectors, or FASE, program which appears to be associated much more closely with the longer-term requirements of the U.K.’s Future Combat Air System and GCAP/Tempest.
Talking to TWZ, Justin Bronk, a research fellow for airpower at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), explained that FASE “is likely aimed at providing significantly better combat capabilities by the early-mid 2030s than a mid-life upgrade of the Meteor missile would be able to offer within the bounds of its basic layout and size.”
Creating an interesting overlap with FASE and Comet is a joint Franco-British study looking at what comes after Meteor. In April, the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding launching the 12-month effort that will assess future air-combat threats and potential next-generation missile concepts. The study is intended to identify the technologies required for a successor weapon and establish a development roadmap. While the two countries are at least formally examining the same post-Meteor problem, their longer-term combat air priorities appear to be diverging.
Beyond Meteor
Meteor remains one of Europe’s most capable air-to-air weapons. Its ramjet propulsion system gives it an important advantage over conventional solid-rocket missiles by allowing it to retain propulsion and energy much further into an engagement.
However, the threat environment that Meteor was designed against is changing. Meteor’s requirements were established in an environment dominated by the Soviet/Russian air-to-air missile threat. Today’s planning increasingly has to account for Chinese weapons such as the PL-15 and newer systems that may combine very long range with substantially greater speed.
A Su-35S launches an R-37M — the longet-range Russian air-to-air missile. Russian Ministry of Defense screencap
“Since the Meteor is still more than a match for current Russian air-to-air missiles in air-to-air engagements, it is likely that the capability goals for the FASE program will use far more capable Chinese air-to-air missiles, aircraft, and sensors as pacing threats,” Bronk added.
That raises the uncomfortable question of what happens when both sides can launch extremely capable BVR weapons against each other?
Simply put, higher speed now matters more, because it reduces the target’s reaction time and can make the terminal engagement substantially more demanding. One of Meteor’s advantages is the considerable energy it retains when it reaches the terminal phase, but the tradeoff is a slower average speed across the entirety of its flight envelope.
Barrie explained: “Meteor’s fly-out speed is somewhere between Mach 3.5 and somewhere below Mach 4. If you launch a PL-15 off a J-20, which is doing Mach 2, that weapon probably stays above Mach 5 for an awfully long time, which is one of the issues. It’s that risk of a mutual kill. Obviously, if the weapon against the J-20 is coming out at Mach 3.5 to Mach 4, then you have a bit an issue there.”
At the same time, a missile’s effectiveness depends on many other factors, including launch conditions, flight profile, midcourse guidance, seeker performance, electronic warfare environment, and target maneuvering.
However, the nature of the threat may push the next generation of European weapons toward a combination of greater range, substantially higher speed and greater terminal energy rather than simply another incremental improvement to Meteor. Indeed, the United Kingdom has dropped its plans for a Meteor mid-life upgrade, presumably to focus its efforts on an altogether more ambitious and capable successor, or successors.
Does the next weapon need a ramjet?
The Meteor was designed around a ramjet motor, especially since it was expected to face a ramjet version of the Russian R-77 (AA-12 Adder) missile. This was never fielded, and, as far as we know, China doesn’t have a weapon in this class either. A Meteor successor therefore won’t necessarily use the same kind of propulsion.
Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force personnel move standard R-77 missiles. PLA
Meteor demonstrated the advantages of air-breathing propulsion, but there are trade-offs involved in using a ramjet or another air-breathing system. Achieving very high speeds while maintaining useful range and maneuverability can become increasingly difficult, and propulsion complexity adds cost and potentially consumes valuable internal volume.
The performance being attributed in open sources to Chinese solid-propellant weapons like the PL-15 suggests that another approach is possible.
Barrie would not be surprised if the ramjet is dropped. “The issue with a ramjet is it’s not impossible to get above Mach 5, but it’s difficult, and there are lots of compromises you probably have to make … I wonder if they may just look at energetic solids.”
A future European missile could therefore use a substantially larger solid-propellant motor, potentially coupled with a different boost and sustain architecture, to achieve the required combination of speed and range. Using more than one stage, or a multi-pulse solid rocket motor could be other solutions to the issue.
The size problem
Perhaps the biggest opportunity for a new European BVR weapon comes from the aircraft that will carry it.
Meteor was developed within the physical constraints imposed by existing fighter aircraft and their weapons-carriage arrangements, including internal carriage in the F-35. A future combat aircraft such as Tempest is expected to have significantly greater internal volume available for weapons.
“One of the drivers for Tempest is internal carriage, obviously, but lots of it,” Barrie continued. “A big main bay, and then probably sizeable side bays as well. That lets you carry a considerably larger weapon mass internally than an F-35. If you look at size of the platform in terms of what they’ve released, it’s a big aircraft, and one would assume it has a very significant internal weapons bay.”
The current AIM-120 AMRAAM internal carriage configuration on the F-35, with two missiles in each weapons bay. Crown Copyright
A larger missile can carry more propellant, potentially support a more powerful propulsion system, accommodate a larger or more capable seeker, and provide additional volume for electronics and other subsystems.
There are different ways of increasing the range of an air-to-air missile, but this process is always easier if the weapon can be made larger. Bigger dimensions can translate to a bigger engine, more fuel, multi-stage rocket motors, and air-breathing engines, like the ramjet used in the Meteor. Other range-extending options that the United States has examined include throttleable “multi-pulse solid rocket motors” and more exotic “propellants, grain configurations, cases, and liners,” all of which would also be able to ensure greater range — as well as higher speed — compared to existing weapons.
The result could be a weapon that is considerably larger than Meteor but still fully compatible with the aircraft for which it was designed.
This reality, and the use of the plural effectors in the U.K.’s FASE terminology raises the possibility that the future European BVR requirement may not be for one missile, but for a family of weapons — at least as far as the British are concerned.
Why “effectors” may matter
If FASE ultimately refers to multiple effectors rather than a single missile, that could point to the broader direction of future air combat, involving crewed aircraft as well as various uncrewed wingmen.
Tempest is expected to operate as a so-called quarterback, supported by a number of uncrewed combat aircraft, remote carriers, or other systems operating considerably farther forward. Those uncrewed systems will have different size, payload and weapons-carriage constraints from the crewed aircraft.
This means that not every platform will need the same BVR weapon, or even be able to accommodate them, when it comes to the larger missiles.
Instead, a future force might require something resembling a family:
A large, long-range, high-speed weapon for the crewed Tempest aircraft, optimized for the highest-end air-superiority engagements.
A medium-sized weapon suitable for existing fighters and potentially future aircraft with more constrained weapons carriage.
A smaller weapon optimized for CCAs or other uncrewed systems where internal bay dimensions, payload and cost are more restrictive.
A modular missile could possibly cover two of these categories at once. More broadly, these weapons could share technologies without necessarily being identical missiles. Common seekers, electronics, datalinks, software, guidance technologies or other subsystems could potentially be reused across the family.
The result would be a fundamentally different approach from simply developing a single Meteor replacement.
The seeker may be as important as the motor
The front end of a future European BVR weapon is another area where significant change is likely.
An active electronically scanned array (AESA) seeker would seem a logical baseline for a next-generation weapon. The United Kingdom’s previous work with Japan on the Joint New Air-to-Air Missile program, or JNAAM effort was particularly interesting in this regard, given Japan’s experience with active electronically scanned air-to-air seekers.
An infographic for the JNAAM program provides a loose visual indication of how it would have combined Japanese and British components in a single missile. Japan Ministry of Defense
A future weapon could also incorporate a passive radio-frequency capability alongside its active radar. That would provide another means of detecting or tracking emitting targets and could increase the weapon’s resilience in a heavily contested electromagnetic environment.
For its PL-17 ultra-long-range air-to-air missile, China appears to have chosen a combination of active and passive seekers, although, as Barrie points out, it also appears to have been designed around a very specific target set: E-7 Wedgetail, E-2 Hawkeye, other airborne early warning and control platforms, and support assets, like tankers and strategic electronic surveillance and attack aircraft.
This 2016 image provided our first look at the PL-17. Chinese internet
Whether such a capability is worth the additional cost and complexity is another question. A highly sophisticated multimode missile will inevitably be expensive, however, the same technologies could potentially provide utility against a broader range of targets than conventional fighter-on-fighter engagements. An air-to-surface capability should also not be ruled out, with a passive seeker potentially bestowing an anti-radiation missile (ARM) capability on the weapon.
Another passive seeker alternative could be based on an imaging infrared (IIR) sensor. This could provide an interesting complement to an active-radar seeker, making use of the same kind of two-way datalinked midcourse guidance system already included in Meteor. It could be especially relevant for engaging small or low-signature (stealthy) targets and in a heavily contested electromagnetic environment.
The weapon is becoming part of the network
Perhaps the biggest change will be the extent to which future BVR missiles exploit the wider kill chain, becoming much more than weapons guided by the aircraft that launches them.
The key requirement is for the missile to be track-source agnostic. This means a future long-range air-to-air missile could receive targeting information from a CCA, an airborne early warning aircraft, another fighter, a naval platform, or potentially space-based sensors.
For example, with Tempest operating alongside forward-deployed CCAs, the sensor that initially detects a target could be the CCA. The launching aircraft could then receive the track, launch a weapon, and continue receiving updates from multiple platforms.
Alternatively, a CCA could launch the weapon using targeting information generated by the crewed aircraft or another sensor elsewhere in the force, provided it is on the network.
A graphic from BAE Systems shows a Tempest fighter working as part of a networked team together with Typhoon, F-35, E-7 Wedgetail, and ‘loyal wingman’ type drones. BAE Systems
Two-way datalinks, midcourse guidance, electronic warfare resilience, and the ability to accept high-quality third-party targeting information become central requirements. Some of this functionality is available, to varying extents, on some current air-to-air missiles, but it will be even more important as air combat becomes increasingly reliant on distributed sensor networks and crewed/uncrewed aircraft teaming.
If it can rely on offboard sensors, the missile’s engagement range no longer needs to be constrained by the organic sensor range of the launching fighter. Faced increasingly by the realities of an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) environment, this could enable weapons that fly far beyond what the launch platform could independently detect and engage. The A2/AD threat is already pushing research into much farther-reaching air defense missiles, potentially with a range of up to 1,000 miles.
This also opens the door to more exotic propulsion concepts, including multi-stage weapons designed to combine very high-speed boost with a separate sustain or terminal stage.
The next generation of long-range air-to-air missile may therefore be defined as much by the kill chain they plug into as by the architecture and performance of the missile itself.
What happens to Meteor?
Meteor is one of Europe’s strongest examples of a successful multinational defense program. Six European nations participated in its development, and the program eventually produced a weapon that is widely regarded as a highly capable system.
Now, however, the countries that developed Meteor do not necessarily have identical requirements for the next generation.
The United Kingdom is moving toward GCAP/Tempest with Japan and Italy. Its future combat air requirements will increasingly be shaped by that program and by the threat assessment driving it.
The latest full-size mockup of the Tempest gives some idea of its size. GCAP
The United Kingdom appears to want a very large, very high-performance weapon optimized for Tempest and the future air-superiority mission, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. Japan likely needs very much the same.
Meanwhile, other Meteor users may prioritize a weapon that can be integrated onto existing fighters and remain affordable in larger numbers.
France’s Comet effort could meet that requirement, since it appears to be a comparatively rapid response to the emerging threat. With that in mind, France could eventually find itself with a near-term weapon, a future clean-sheet requirement, and a continuing relationship with the Meteor family, all while pursuing its own future combat air requirements.
Overall, it is far from clear whether the Meteor consortium will survive for another generation, at least in its current form.
Could Japan become part of the answer?
Given that it’s a partner in GCAP/Tempest, and based on its previous air-to-air missile studies with the British, Japan is particularly interesting in this context.
Japan faces a threat environment in which long-range air combat is of obvious importance, and Japan has already demonstrated advanced capabilities in active electronically scanned air-to-air seekers. The Japanese-developed Mitsubishi AAM-4B became the first air-to-air missile to feature an AESA seeker.
Although earlier air-to-air missile cooperation between Japan and the United Kingdom did not evolve into an operational program, the two countries are now developing a combat aircraft together through GCAP.
With Britain and Japan designing the future combat aircraft together, they could eventually develop some of its principal weapons together as well, although Italy’s requirements are likely very different.
Thinking beyond the missile
Europe can almost certainly build a faster missile than Meteor, but there are plenty more questions about what kind of air combat system that missile — or missiles — will fit into.
A future BVR weapon will have to operate from multiple types of platforms (crewed and uncrewed), receive targeting data from offboard sensors, communicate with CCAs, function in a highly contested electromagnetic environment, engage maneuvering targets at extreme range, and retain enough energy to remain dangerous in the terminal phase.
Increasingly, it seems that, rather than a single weapon, a family of effectors will be the solution.
For the United Kingdom, FASE may become one of the most important programs to watch because it could reveal how Britain intends to bridge the gap between Meteor and the weapons of the GCAP/Tempest era. At this stage, FASE appears to be ‘for U.K. eyes only,’ although Japan and Italy would appear to be likely beneficiaries, due to their teaming on GCAP.
A scale model of a possible Tempest configuration, in Italian Air Force markings. Leonardo
Elsewhere, Comet could provide an early indication of how France intends to respond to the emerging long-range missile threat while maintaining flexibility for a future system.
And for the wider Meteor consortium, it remains to be seen whether the program’s success can be carried forward into another multinational weapon, or whether the emergence of GCAP/Tempest and increasingly divergent national requirements marks the beginning of the end for the Meteor model.
Either way, the next generation of European BVR weapons is likely to be larger, faster, more networked, and more deeply integrated with the combat air system around it. At the same time, the need to create a family of effectors designed around a distributed force of crewed aircraft, CCAs, and offboard sensors will bring some formidable challenges.
Login
2発
TAURUS LAUNCH 
FMV 
