The testing plan for the U.S. Air Force’s sixth-generation F-47 fighter is continuing to take shape ahead of the type’s expected first flight in 2028. The Air Force Test Center (AFTC) aims to blend developmental and operational test elements, and leverage new tools in the virtual realm, to help accelerate that work. All of this is in support of an aggressive program schedule that aims to see the first production F-47s enter operational service in the early 2030s.
Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark Massaro, head of the AFTC, was asked about how the groundwork is being laid for F-47 testing during a virtual talk the Air & Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies hosted yesterday. AFTC is located at Edwards Air Force Base in California, which is the Air Force’s main flight testing hub.
“So, I’ll leave timelines to the [F-47] program office and other folks to talk to, but what I will tell you are some of the things that we’re doing to accelerate our test capabilities to get critical capabilities out the door,” Massaro explained. “Integrated test is a key component.”
A rendering of the F-47 fighter. USAF
“So, how we mix together the DT [developmental test] and OT [operational test] elements, how we bring our operational test partners in earlier to define the requirements early on in the test planning process,” he continued. “We understand that the information that we can get early on in a program may have applicability to that final operational test requirement to establish whether it’s effective and suitable to the end user. So that’s a key component to accelerating test capabilities.”
There has always been overlap in development and operational test efforts for new U.S. military aircraft, but the Air Force has been taking steps to more deeply integrate these processes in recent years. The F-15EX Eagle II fighter, which reached initial operational capability in 2024, was the first ever Air Force aircraft to be fully tested and fielded through DT and OT efforts conducted in parallel, as you can read more about here. The service has more recently applied these concepts to the B-21 Raider program with test flights where developmental and operational test pilots have shared the cockpit.
A pair of F-15EX test jets. USAFA B-21 Raider seen from a KC-135 aerial refueling tanker during a flight test. USAF
“Another thing that we’ve learned over time too, if you think back to software testing and you think about agile software development, is having an iterative capability that you constantly iterate on,” Brig. Gen. Massaro also highlighted yesterday. “So, thinking about how we can structure our software, or our software testing, our capabilities testing.”
In this way, “we have those opportunities to inform decision makers on a regular cadence on what type of capability they may have at a certain timeline to be able to issue out to a warfighter on a time that might not be a normal milestone chart,” he continued. “We’re really working to incorporate into our test planning processes.”
“Another thing – and I kind of alluded to it a little bit earlier, too – is on the digital front, using our software tools, that super intelligence, graphic processing units, which have a significantly higher capability to process information, to really refine model iteration,” the AFTC head added. “Those models and flight test data [can be used] to update things like computational fluid dynamics when you’re doing tests like loads and high-alpha maneuvering to get information quicker from a flight test back into the program.”
Those “digital tools” can also be used “to accelerate how that information then goes back into a design choice or change if they need to make it,” he continued. “Coming up with those opportunities to use those tools in a test design and in a program” can then further help “to accelerate that final schedule delivery.”
Brig. Gen. Mark Massaro seen during a ceremony marking his assumption of command of the Air Force Test Center on June 30, 2026. USAF
Even very high-fidelity modeling in the digital realm is still not a substitute for real-world flight tests. However, Brig. Gen. Mark Massaro spoke more generally yesterday about how AFTC has been blending digital and live testing to maximize their respective benefits.
“We use models to develop our capabilities, and we need to anchor those models in truth, in physics, and an understanding of what happens in the real world,” the AFTC head stressed. “Outside of a cyber system, all of our capabilities touch the real world and touch physics, and we need to understand those dynamics. So, the models that we use to do design work, to do iterative type[s] of developmental work, and, in ways, operational work, too, need to be anchored in that real world truth.”
At the same time, “we can’t replicate what we need to go and test, and develop tactics and operationally test, in the real world on some of our ranges,” he also noted. “So, from a geographic perspective, just the width and the depth and the height of the ranges to the laydown of the systems that we have to see on the ranges to be able to execute against a threat, [and] the numbers that we might have to be testing.”
Blending real and virtualized elements can therefore be very valuable.
An “element that we’ve done in the developmental world for quite a while, that are [sic] part of this conversation, are plugging in, even though it’s a virtual environment, plugging in real world hardware into that virtual environment,” Massaro offered as one example. “So, you’re getting real-world software, the OFPs [operational flight program software], or you’re getting real-world sensing information coming into that virtual environment and feeding it there.”
Virtualized elements can also be added to real-world flight test events in various ways. The Air Force, among others, is also making use of these so-called live, virtual, constructive (LVC) concepts for training purposes for many of the same general reasons, including limited range capacity.
It is also worth noting here that the F-47 program is already benefiting from years of flight testing in secret using full-scale demonstrator aircraft. A substantial amount of simulation and modeling would also already have been done as a byproduct. A simulator likely already exists, as well, which could be used for risk reduction and fine-tuning of the F-47 design, as well as testing flight dynamics.
An F-22 test jet assigned to the 411th Flight Test Squadron, which now serves as the Air Dominance Combined Test Force (AD-CTF). USAF
Though much about the F-47 program remains highly classified, the Air Force has consistently said that the program continues to be on track. Prime contractor Boeing is now building the first flying example, and construction is already well underway to establish a full production line. As mentioned, the target date for a first flight is currently in 2028, ahead of operational fielding in the early 2030s. As an aside, Boeing has also now won the contract to develop the Navy’s sixth-generation carrier-based fighter, currently referred to as F/A-XX.
AFTC is doing its part now to be ready to support the flight testing that will be needed to keep the F-47 program on track in the coming years.
The UH-60 Black Hawk has been the rugged workhorse of U.S. Army aviation for nearly 50 years, with around 4,000 examples currently in service with 36 nations worldwide. Many of these helicopters, and new aircraft coming off the line, are set to fly as far out as 2070, and Sikorsky is curating a suite of upgrades to keep them valuable assets for the future fight. A new “digital backbone” is designed to underpin swift technological insertions such as launched effects, with related initiatives including the provision of more power to lug greater payloads, and the fully-autonomous U-Hawk cargo drone variant.
“As part of an overall “Black Hawk 2070” modernization effort we’re developing a number of complementary capabilities, including our U-Hawk uncrewed cargo variant, which we plan to fly later this year,” Jason Wrigley, Sikorsky’s director of business development for Black Hawk, told TWZ at the company’s Stratford plant in Connecticut.
Sikorsky plans to fly its U-Hawk uncrewed cargo version of the Black Hawk this year. Sikorsky
“A new digital backbone for the Black Hawk is at an advanced design phase in our labs and it’s designed to provide interfaces throughout the aircraft that will provide power, data, a network, cooling and most importantly, open architecture interfaces that enable the easy integration of new equipment, such as sensors. We see this as a core building block for the next generation of Black Hawk, along with new engines and other airframe improvements designed to futureproof the platform.”
The new digital backbone is designed to work in concert with a modern, software-driven strategy that meets the Army’s Modular Open Systems Approach and the desire to add technologies cheaper, faster, and more easily. Wrigley says that as customers identify new capabilities and needs for their Black Hawks, the digital backbone will be sufficiently efficient to permit customization even on a mission-by-mission basis. Sikorsky is also introducing a new modular nose to the H-60, which is reconfigurable with sufficient volume to support even more sensors and electronics.
“There’s a big focus on open architecture and that ability to quickly plug-and-play,” says Wrigley. “The new modular nose will change the look of the Black Hawk up front to provide even more space for equipment that will work directly with the new digital architecture.”
The new modular nose will give the Black Hawk more than twice the internal volume of the original nose section and it’s designed to provide space for internal electronics and an integrated mount for external sensor pods. It is designed to provide sufficient space to accommodate electronics that enable roles such as search and rescue, drone control, and flying in degraded environments, and it will also house some of the equipment required as the Black Hawk’s autonomous capabilities expand.
Sikorsky plans to introduce a new modular nose to the UH-60M. Sikorsky
Joshua Powers spent 22 years as an Army Aviation officer flying the Black Hawk, and he’s well qualified for his new role with Sikorsky handling business development for rapid capabilities insertions. “Army units know the Black Hawk inside out; how to fly it, maintain it, and use it to maximum effect. The upgrades we are developing will bring new capabilities faster, without time-consuming and complex changes to sustainment, training, and operations, plus we are adding more range, more payload, and more power to meet the demands of the Indo-Pacific region.”
“I find it amazing to pair new technology with a rugged platform like the Black Hawk. These new innovations are needed to meet the needs of the new complex battlefield. The fight I fought in Iraq is very different from the current operating environment and what future warriors are going to go up against, and what we’re asking them to do is very different from what came before.”
Bringing autonomous co-pilots to the Black Hawk
Autonomy is a central pillar of Sikorsky’s strategy for the future Black Hawk. The company’s MATRIX autonomy software is now being matured on a UH-60M variant, and while it’s not necessarily designed to completely replace pilots, MATRIX will assume some of their workload, making flying safer and simpler as mission sets grow increasingly complex and dangerous. “Pilots that are controlling collaborative drones, for example, need to be able to focus on the drone mission, and autonomy will help lighten their cognitive load,” explains Wrigley.
“The standard Black Hawk crew operates with two pilots. Adding our MATRIX autonomy system gives the operator options – a single pilot could fly without an unbearable workload and still fulfil a mission commander role, for example. The Army could then operate the Black Hawk with no pilots at all when that’s the appropriate option.”
The U.S. Army received its first UH-60MX Optionally Piloted Vehicle (OPV) on March 20, 2026. Sikorsky
“We delivered the first UH-60MX to the Army earlier this year,” says Wrigley. The delivery marked the first full authority fly-by-wire and optionally-piloted UH-60 in the Army fleet. “They are using it for testing and soldier feedback to develop tactics, techniques and procedures for the autonomous Black Hawk. We have since received a contract to deliver three more MX aircraft to the Army.”
MATRIX autonomy kits have now been installed on all three U.S. Army Black Hawk models; the UH-60A, UH-60L and UH-60M. Sikorsky plans to incorporate autonomy options into all Black Hawks as they are built, plus the MATRIX system will be able to be retrofitted to existing examples.
Powers is well aware of the benefits autonomy will provide from complex combat operations to more mundane day-to-day missions. “Flying at night and seeing the tracer fire coming up at you, things like that, I honestly feel that’s not the big threat. It’s when you’re going to land and there’s just a big dust cloud. When you’re tired, you aren’t as focused. Having MATRIX, whether that’s with one, two, or no pilots, it’s about that reduced workload on the mission. Pilots won’t be as fatigued, plus they have the safety net of a fully autonomous aircraft that can, if needed, land in all of those difficult environments. It will give commanders more operational flexibility and the ability to mitigate risk in less-than-ideal conditions dictated by the enemy or weather.”
The first UH-60MX during testing alongside Sikorsky’s UH-60A Optionally Piloted Black Hawk. Sikorsky
“The Black Hawk operation isn’t just about pilots, it’s also that integrated four-person crew. As a pilot, you’re relying on your senses and also on the guys in the back to watch out and tell you where you’re going. MATRIX is just going to help that team effort and put you in a better position to bring the crew back safely. It integrates all the systems and sensors and uses altitude, airspeed, radar altimeter, drift indications, and puts the fly-by-wire technology to where it can make rapid adjustments and changes based on what it’s seeing with the sensors.”
The volume of testing, the maturity, and the confidence in MATRIX helped Sikorsky to develop the S-70UAS, or U-Hawk, which was unveiled in 2025. The U-Hawk project essentially removes the cockpit and its associated equipment from a Black Hawk and replaces the front end with cargo doors to provide a huge internal space as a supply drone.
“We acquired a used UH-60L Black Hawk as the template for our initial U-Hawk. We added the clamshell doors and that was the actual aircraft that we showed at AUSA last year,” says Wrigley. “Since then we’ve been adding the fly-by-wire and integrating the MATRIX autonomy. It’s currently in our innovations hangar in Bridgeport, Connecticut, getting the final work done and it will make its first flight as a U-Hawk later this year.”
The first U-Hawk is based on a modified UH-60L. Sikorsky
Sikorsky sees the U-Hawk as a natural evolution for the Black Hawk in contested logistics missions, when cargo needs to be moved but the threat is sufficiently high that it drives a need for uncrewed platforms to tackle the mission.
“We’re spending a lot of time on the U-Hawk and its roles. As well as being an uncrewed cargo helicopter, it can also be a truck that can carry a large volume of launched effects,” explains Wrigley. “There are Black Hawk models on the market right now that are being divested, and we see those as being an ideal option for conversion to U-Hawk configuration to affordably introduce this capability to the market.”
Drone dispenser
The integration of small drones dubbed ‘launched effects’ into rotary-wing operations is a major initiative from the Army as a new means to collect intelligence for commanders on the battlefield, relay communications, jam and distract enemy emitters, and act as loitering munitions. These mini air-launched drones can be carried and fired from stub-wing-mounted launchers, with other concepts seeing larger volumes of them carried inside the cabin as a “mega-pack,” with Sikorsky seeing both as being highly-applicable to both the Black Hawk and the U-Hawk.
This is exactly the kind of capability that the digital backbone in the Black Hawk is intended to open the door to; installing plug-and-play drone command kits, which could enable the Black Hawk to act as a “drone mothership” to launch, task, and command swarms of multi-mission launched effects.
A Launched Effect-Medium Range is fired from a UH-60M Black Hawk during Project Convergence-Capstone 6, in July 2026. U.S. Army
The Army tested its latest operational concepts for launched effects during the Project Convergence Capstone 6 demonstration event this summer. This annual exercise is designed to develop concepts and tactics as well as gather soldier feedback, as it works to transition new systems into service. The latest exercise built on previous launched effects testing on the Black Hawk, when a UH-60M deployed Anduril’s Altius-700 launched effects that then operated as an autonomous hunter-killer team to locate targets, share data on those targets, and then strike them, without the need for the Black Hawk to expose itself to threats.
“As a young Black Hawk pilot, the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior was the primary scout platform, but it was limited by range and its ability to be detected,” explains Joshua Powers. “Today, we launch small drones that can remain unseen and they can give us real-time feedback. Launched effects make our lift assets more capable.”
“We see the Black Hawk as the aircraft capable of carrying, deploying and then acting as an airborne mission command node for launched effects,” adds Jason Wrigley. “In the operational environment of the future, it’s really about the mass of those launched effects. This isn’t about carrying one or two of them, this is about carrying and controlling a large number of them.”
A “quiver” of launched effects inside the U-Hawk shown at the AUSA 2026 trade event. Jamie Hunter
“We’ve tested them on the stub-wings, but we are also exploring what we call “quiver” – that large number of launched effects inside the cabin in that “mega-pack.” This creates additional opportunities for mass that we think is going to be really critical. We’ve done a lot of operational analysis in concert with the Army on what the right mix of launched effects might be to extend the standoff range of the aircraft to improve survivability – which is of course what it’s all about – but the right mix will ultimately come down to the mission. We have seen a lot of testing over the past few years, so we do believe this is a capability that can be introduced operationally soon on the Black Hawk.”
More power for more missions
To support the increased lift that might be needed for a missionized Black Hawk lugging large payloads, including an arsenal of launched effects, Sikorsky is well along in development of a new engine that is designed to create over 1,000 pounds of increased payload capacity and increased range for the Black Hawk. The T901 Improved Turbine Engine (ITE) from GE Aerospace provides 50 percent more horsepower over the existing T700 engines in the UH-60M.
“One of the key building blocks of the future of the Black Hawk are the twin ITEs as we look to expand the mission capability and the utility of this aircraft for decades to come,” explains Wrigley. Sikorsky began initial testing of the first UH-60M with ITE in January 2025. “We are actively in the test program right now at our test facility in West Palm Beach, Florida. The twin ITEs in each Black Hawk and that additional power translates into some pretty significant operational opportunities. Since our first flight with ITE in May 2025 we’ve flown the aircraft with the new engine for over 50 hours and up to 17,000 ft above sea level.”
A UH-60M fitted with twin GE Aerospace T901 Improved Turbine Engines (ITE). Sikorsky
Sikorsky is accompanying the addition of the new engines with a significant expansion of the fuel tank to increase capacity and range. This is being done without impinging on cabin volume and thus retaining the important ability to transport 11 combat troops, while increasing range by around 100 nautical miles. “The T901 also improves fuel efficiency and eases maintenance – so overall we are really improving the payload capacity of the aircraft. We’ll be getting to the milestone C production decision on ITE within the next couple of years, and at that point it will become a core element of the Black Hawk program going forward,” Wrigley explains.
Building Black Hawks
Touring the Black Hawk production line in Stratford, Connecticut, it’s a hive of activity. Many of the major components for each helicopter are manufactured here. The long final assembly line sees teams of workers busily constructing UH-60M and HH-60M medevac Black Hawks for both domestic and foreign military sales customers, along with new HH-60W Combat Rescue Helicopters for the U.S. Air Force and MH-60R Seahawks.
“We’re designing all of these upgrades with the intent that they will all be available off the production line in new build aircraft, as well as in kit form for upgrades to existing assets in the field,” notes Wrigley. “Here in Stratford in what we call the “back shop” we build all the rotor blades, gearboxes, and many other components that go into each aircraft. We are already thinking ahead and we’ve invested significantly into additive manufacturing, with 11 parts on the Black Hawk today that are additively manufactured. It’s a great place to start, but there’s a long way to go and we’re working on qualifying more challenging components and load-bearing parts.”
A brand new UH-60M in pre-delivery testing. Sikorsky
Cohesively, the digital backbone, larger fuel tank, new engines, and the new modular nose will all be introduced on the production floor in the coming years to pave the way for that increased payload capacity to carry fully-equipped combat troops, supplies, and all the new kit needed for the future fight and the Black Hawk’s role as a multi-mission forward battlefield node. The autonomous U-Hawk and the optionally piloted flexibility afforded by MATRIX – all of these pieces of the future Black Hawk are presently coming together under an overarching effort.
“The future Black Hawk will be that complement to the future long-range MV-75 Cheyenne II,” says Powers. “These won’t be a one-for-one replacement for every Black Hawk currently in the fleet – the MV-75 has a specific purpose and function that the Black Hawk isn’t designed to do. What the Black Hawk can do with these new upgrades is shape the battlefield and with its autonomy be out there flying missions into contested environments.”
U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawks assigned to 4th Ranger Training Battalion. U.S. Army
“Those homeland missions are equally necessary. I recall talking about this in flight school when choosing an aircraft to fly, how it’s one thing to be deployed on combat missions, but it’s also about being back in the homeland on disaster relief when you need the Black Hawk to go out and save lives, those kinds of missions the Army National Guard does – it really underlines the importance and versatility of the Black Hawk.”
Over the past 50 years and looking ahead to the next 50, continuing the proven legacy of the Black Hawk will mean constant evolution to meet new missions and needs. Sikorsky’s task is for all of these new elements to meld into a future Black Hawk that’s ready to roll off this production line soon, that still also provides the same dependable, rugged capability for the Army at home or overseas, well into the future.
Before the hasty and unexpected departure of the bombers on Sunday, B-1s had been deployed to RAF Fairford continuously since March, initially in support of Operation Epic Fury against Iran. A contingent of B-52s had also conducted strikes on Iran from Fairford, but left back in July. The base is a major operational hub for the U.S. military in the United Kingdom, and regularly hosts strategic aircraft, including bombers and U-2 spy planes.
Dan Rivers, U.S. correspondent for ITV News in the United Kingdom, was among the first to report on Monday that the B-1’s quick departure had been prompted by concerns about a potential Spiderweb-like drone attack ordered by Iran, citing an unnamed source. Other outlets have subsequently reported similar details, all sourced to anonymous U.S. and British officials.
“They didn’t fly out by accident,” U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters during a gaggle at the White House on Monday when asked about why the B-1s had left Fairford. “There were some threats.”
“I can’t tell you that, but if they did, they’ll suffer greatly,” Trump added in response to a separate question about whether Iran might have managed to get weaponized drones into the United Kingdom.
“What you saw there was the Secretary of War [Pete Hegseth], out of an abundance of caution, trying to protect our guys,” U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance said during a separate press engagement on Monday. “We do feel, with some confidence, that the Iranians are – they’re trying to do what the Iranian state has done for 49 years, which is engage in acts of terrorism against the United States, and a lot of other people, as well. So, we are being extremely cautious.”
Another satellite image offering an overall view of RAF Fairford. Google Earth
“We’ve documented what happened [near Fairford] last week. I wouldn’t just directly tie that to the move that was made,” U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio also told members of the press on Monday. “The only reason why you guys are focused on how many planes are at Fairford is because of the threat that happened last week.”
“We have confidence in the security of all of our bases, because all of our bases are [sic] theoretically could be threatened at any moment,” he added.
Rubio’s comments notwithstanding, the remarks from Trump and Vance make clear that there was some recent threat intelligence that contributed to the decision to pull the bombers from Fairford. There are still many questions about the exact nature of the potential attacks, and how imminent, or not, the danger may have been.
Regardless, as mentioned, the prospect of a near-field drone attack on a base like Fairford carried out by actors in close proximity is extremely plausible, and the barrier to entry to such an operation is relatively low. Spiderweb may have thrust this reality into the public consciousness in dramatic fashion, but the danger well predates that operation, and even the start of Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
TWZ has been highlighting exactly these kinds of threats in the course of a decade or so now of regular reporting on drone incursions over U.S. and foreign military facilities and critical infrastructure, as well as American naval vessels operating offshore. Langley Air Force Base in Virginia and Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, some of America’s most strategic airbases domestically, are among the facilities that have had to grapple with this in the past. After the Langley incident, in particular, it had become clear to the larger public what we had been reporting for many years, that the United States does not control the airspace over even its most critical military installations.
New footage of yet another act of Russian terrorism on EU soil, showing the drone loaded with explosives on the tarmac at Leipzig/Halle Airport, just meters from a Ukrainian Antonov An-124 cargo aircraft.
— SPRAVDI — Stratcom Centre (@StratcomCentre) August 5, 2026
A drone attack on Fairford would also not necessarily have had to come from somewhere very close by. Longer-range one-way attack drones are steadily proliferating, and can be launched using a variety of methods from positions on the ground, as well as vessels at sea. TWZ explored the very real threat of sea-based drone attacks, including ones conducted covertly, and Iran’s specific ability to carry them out globally, following the leak of an FBI alert back in March.
The proliferation of lower-end one-way-attack drones has ‘democratized’ precision-guided attacks, even for non-state actors. The fielding of automated targeting capabilities, driven by developments in artificial intelligence and machine learning, is also becoming more and more widespread. That technology will soon enable these weapons to find and strike even moving targets on their own. Even without anyone at the controls and without the drone putting out any detectable radio emissions, very effective precision attacks can still be launched at static targets, like known parking areas for aircraft at airbases, just by using basic map coordinates or Google Earth. It’s also worth pointing out here that the definition of a stand-off attack is becoming increasingly blurry, with even quadcopter-type drones capable of flying miles away to conduct a kamikaze attack on a target based on a set of GPS coordinates.
Ukrainian Saker UAV with AI capabilities. The video shows the process of target recognition. It has reportedly already been put to use several times against Russian targets. pic.twitter.com/NVNJyxUjGP
Overall, it is an indisputable fact that aircraft sitting exposed on a flightline are particularly vulnerable to drone attacks, as well as other threats. This is something U.S. military officials have acknowledged themselves. Fairford, where B-1s and other bombers have no option but to park out in the open in well-established areas that are plainly visible from outside the base’s immediate perimeter, is indicative of how American military aircraft are generally positioned on the ground abroad and at home.
As we wrote all the way back in 2017:
“Similar swarming strikes could be unleashed behind the front lines as well, with hugely expensive and low density/high demand combat aircraft being especially vulnerable to this sort of tactic—something General James Holmes alluded to inadvertently while speaking to the Air Force Association, stating:
‘Imagine a world where somebody flies a couple hundred of those and flies one down the intake of my F-22s with just a small weapon on it.’
Actually, it would be even easier to just strike the jets as they sit idle and vulnerable on the flight line. One swarm could see a whole squadron of tightly packed fighters destroyed without even having a chance to fight back.”
This picture of a B-1 at Fairford on March 7 shows how bombers and other aircraft are typically parked at the base. The line of photographers along the fence line also underscores how close those parking spots are to the base’s immediate perimeter. JUSTIN TALLIS / AFP via Getty Images
“I’m not a big fan of hardening infrastructure,” Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach said at a roundtable at the Air and Space Forces Association’s main annual symposium in 2023, offering a prime example of this viewpoint. “The reason is because of the advent of precision-guided weapons … you saw what we did to the Iraqi Air Force and their hardened aircraft shelters. They’re not so hard when you put a 2,000-pound bomb right through the roof.”
Wilsbach was commander of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) at the time. He subsequently became head of ACC and is now Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the service’s top officer.
“I think that I don’t want to spend a lot of money on hardening shelters. Unless you’re going to send something 100 feet or more underground, we can blow it up, and so can they,” Wilsbach said in an interview with Breaking Defense in July of this year when asked explicitly if his position changed. “So, the economics of building a shelter that is impervious to a strike doesn’t work.”
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ken Wilsbach speaks during an all-call with personnel at RAF Mildenhall, another base in the United Kingdom, on July 13, 2026. USAF
“I think the economics favor defending your airspace, defending your ground space with systems that can defeat the incoming rounds, versus building a shelter,” he added. “Some people would argue, well, you should do both. Well, that’s even more expensive. And the other thing is, the shelter doesn’t go anywhere.”
It is fair to point out that typical above-ground hardened aircraft shelters are not invulnerable, especially to attacks involving ballistic, cruise, and certain air-launched threats. There are also substantial cost and other factors to consider when it comes to any major military construction effort.
That being said, having more hardened infrastructure also imposes costs and complexities on opponents, who have to dedicate more advanced and costly munitions and other resources to ensure targets are neutralized. Shelters have the knock-on benefit of complicating the targeting process for an enemy by obscuring where aircraft are or are not positioned, to begin with. An opponent has to treat shelters like they are full even if they are empty.
When thinking about hardened aircraft shelters, stereotypical Cold War-era reinforced concrete structures typically come to mind. However, they do not all have to be built to a one-size-fits-all standard with the same degree of hardening across the board to be useful. Shorter-range drone attacks are typically carried out by platforms carrying small explosive charges or that are designed to drop small bomblets. Even longer-range one-way-attack drones generally have smaller warheads than traditional missiles, they also hit with less kinetic energy.
A US Air Force F-16 fighter sits inside a traditional hardened aircraft shelter. USAF
A structure that shields against smaller blasts and shrapnel, also including from cluster munitions that can be readily scattered across wide areas, is one that then has to be addressed by more capable weapons. This could even include mobile or otherwise temporary shelters that offer sufficient concealment and protection.
This picture shows what the Air Force described as a “prototype portable camouflage, concealment, and deception hangar” in use during Exercise Hoodoo Sea in 2023. Air National Guard The prototype portable hangar intended to support camouflage, concealment, and deception efforts in use during an Air National Guard-led exercise in 2023. Air National Guard
Eliminating, or at least substantially mitigating, the lowest rung of threats creates a dilemma for opponents, who then have to decide whether it is even worthwhile to attempt certain types of attacks. There is clear value in narrowing the available options for the enemy and pushing them toward having to expend higher-end, more expensive munitions, that are available in smaller quantities, and that traditional active defenses may be better optimized to handle. As an example, it may be more viable to shoot down a small barrage of incoming cruise missiles than a swarm of dozens of drones.
There are magazine and stockpile depth issues at play here, too. This is something that has also been brought front and center by the conflict with Iran, which has fueled already long-standing concerns about the sufficiency of stockpiles of air defense interceptors, other critical munitions, and the capacity to replenish them quickly. This is something the British government, among others, is also grappling with, as you can read more about in our separate reporting here.
Furthermore, losses of aircraft on the ground are not without their own costs, which are even more lopsided if an opponent can simply use lower-cost weaponized drones. U.S. bombers are particularly expensive and prized assets that are in short supply compared to the level of demand, as seen during the height of combat operations earlier this year against Iran. When it comes to B-1s, specifically, there are only 45 of them left in service today. A dozen of them being knocked out in one go would have major repercussions strategically. Losing even one would also be a propaganda coup for whoever might be responsible.
How many shelters can we build for the upgrade cost of one Zumwalt class DDG that will probably be parted out in 10 years anyway?
On top of all this, the U.S. military simply will not always have the luxury of being able to rapidly relocate aircraft in response to threats. Moving a dozen bombers on short notice takes massive resources. It is not just aircraft that have to be repositioned, but supporting personnel and assets, as well as weapons and fuel. Having to shift to alternate locations could easily have negative impacts on tempo and other aspects of operations, especially in the midst of actual conflict. RAF Fairford is one of only a few bases globally that can support bomber operations for a prolonged period.
“There is value in some light protection against small, unmanned threats,” Gen. Wilsbach also told Breaking Defense in July. “Some of them — just nets that are up that keep a small, few-$100 drone from getting next to a $2 billion aircraft. That actually works, [and is] really cheap.”
A graphic included a contracting notice put out by authorities at Langley Air Force Base in 2024 showing how sunshade-type shelters at the base might be equipped with anti-drone nets. USAF
“It’s not either or,” Wilsbach said in a separate interview with Air & Space Forces Magazine in July. “The net keeps the small UAS [uncrewed aerial system] from getting close to an aircraft that you’re trying to protect… That’s a very inexpensive way to give you some modicum of protection without killing your checkbook on really exquisite defensive systems.”
In spite of these institutional developments, action to implement such recommendations on a broad basis has continued to lag. There still does not appear to be any major department-wide push to build new hardened aircraft shelters or other fortified structures at facilities globally. The U.S. Air Force does have a certain number of hardened aircraft shelters at bases now, especially in the Pacific and Europe.
This is all despite a very visible trend in the construction of new aircraft shelters and other hardened infrastructure elsewhere around the globe, including in China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Even before Operation Spiderweb, Russia had already initiated a large-scale effort to build new hardened shelters at various bases, especially on the occupied Crimean Peninsula, in the face of expanding Ukrainian drone and missile attacks. This effort has now extended to building the huge hardened shelters for the country’s bomber force, something the country has never done before.
“It is inappropriate to discuss matters of intelligence, and we will not discuss specific force protection measures,” a U.S. Air Force spokesperson told TWZ yesterday when asked about the reports that Iranian drone threats prompted the recent removal of the B-1s from Fairford. “The Department will continue to assess the threat environment surrounding our installations and take appropriate actions to protect our people, our platforms and the bases where our forces operate from.”
We still do not know exactly how serious or imminent any recent threat to the B-1s at Fairford was that contributed to their hasty departure. Regardless, the reports of concerns about potential drone attacks remain very plausible. The reality here is that a dozen bombers were yanked from a forward operating location in Europe without an adversary ever having to fire a shot. This is a problem set that is only growing, especially as lessons and expertise on low-end weaponized drones from the war in Ukraine are spreading around the globe.
A B-1 bomber seen parked out in the open at RAF Fairford on March 15, 2026. Matthew Horwood/Getty Images
Erecting new aircraft shelters and other hardened infrastructure would not be a full solution to those threats by themselves. At the same time, they would be a valuable added layer of defense, and a passive one that would have a huge logistical footprint to operate once the initial investment is made. The lack of movement to better fortify American airbases globally is only becoming more and more glaring, and it remains to be seen if real action will not occur until lessons are learned in a most unfortunate way.
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.
The first-ever F-16 Block 72 has taken to the air, marking a major milestone for the program and for Morocco’s long-running effort to field what Lockheed Martin describes as the most advanced version of the Viper.
The first of the jets for the Royal Moroccan Air Force (RMAF), a two-seat F-16D, completed its maiden flight at Lockheed Martin’s facility in Greenville, South Carolina, the company announced today. The aircraft will now proceed through flight testing ahead of its delivery to Morocco.
Morocco’s first @LockheedMartin F-16 Block 72 aircraft has taken flight in Greenville, South Carolina. The milestone marks another step toward delivering the most advanced F-16 configuration to the Royal Moroccan Air Force.
Interestingly, one of the photos of the jet published by Lockheed Martin shows the pilot in the front cockpit wearing a Digital Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (D-JHMCS). This advanced helmet is not often seen worn by F-16 pilots and it is not clear if it has been ordered by Morocco.
Regardless, Morocco was the first customer to select the Block 72 configuration when the U.S. government approved its purchase in March 2019.
At that time, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said Morocco was seeking 25 F-16C/D Block 72 aircraft in a package estimated at $3.787 billion. The proposed aircraft were to be equipped with the AN/APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR), an active electronically scanned array type, new mission computers, Link 16 Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems, modernized navigation systems, helmet-mounted cueing systems, and a range of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.
A Royal Moroccan Air Force F-16C/D Block 52+ with a pair of AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) under the wings. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Ceaira Tinsley
The distinction between the Block 70 and Block 72 is the engine. The Block 70 uses General Electric’s F110-GE-129, while the Block 72 uses Pratt & Whitney’s F100-PW-229, providing fractionally more power. The two configurations otherwise share the same major avionics and systems modernization package.
The F-16 began life as a Pratt & Whitney-powered fighter, with the F100 selected to power the original F-16A/B. But reliability and maintainability problems with early F100s prompted the U.S. Air Force to launch its Alternate Fighter Engine competition in the 1980s, leading General Electric to develop the F110 as an alternative. The resulting “Great Engine War” established two competing F-16 engine families, with Pratt & Whitney’s F100 and GE’s F110 ultimately becoming the principal powerplants for later F-16C/Ds. Although U.S. procurement eventually became heavily concentrated on the GE-powered F-16, Pratt & Whitney continued to supply F100-powered aircraft to international customers.
Airmen conduct a test run on a Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofan engine in the hush house at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. U.S. Air photo by Airman 1st Class Isaiah Pedrazzini
For Morocco, the choice of the Block 72 is based on ensuring as much fleet commonality as possible. The RMAF already operates F-16C/D Block 52+ aircraft powered by F100 engines, making the new aircraft a natural fit within its existing support infrastructure.
Morocco is also upgrading its existing F-16 fleet to the F-16V configuration, which is broadly similar to the new-build Block 70/72 standard.
That will eventually provide the RMAF with a larger fleet centered around a common, substantially modernized F-16 standard.
A separate notification in March 2019 covered the upgrade of Morocco’s existing 23 F-16C/D Block 52+ aircraft to the F-16V standard.
Morocco’s new and upgraded F-16s could also provide a significant boost to combined operations with its other international partners. In recent years, Moroccan F-16s participated in the campaign against ISIS, while the country has also deployed the aircraft on missions against Houthi rebels as part of the Saudi Arabia-led coalition in Yemen. In 2015, a Moroccan F-16 crashed in Yemen. Although the Houthis claimed they had shot down the aircraft, Moroccan authorities attributed the loss to a technical malfunction.
Outside of combat operations, the RMAF also frequently takes part in exercises with its allies, including the African Lion series, the largest annual, multinational joint military exercise led by U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) and partner nations.
A Utah Air National Guard KC-135 Stratotanker refuels a Royal Moroccan Air Force F-16 over central Morocco as part of Exercise African Lion 2019. U.S. Air Force/Courtesy Photo
Meanwhile, the new-build Moroccan aircraft also arrives at an interesting point in the F-16 program.
The Block 70/72 has attracted customers across Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and elsewhere, with Bahrain, Bulgaria, Jordan, Peru, the Philippines, Slovakia, Taiwan, and Turkey also having selected the latest-generation Viper configuration. So far, only Block 70s have been ordered, although tbe Block 72 has been offered to some customers and potential customers. There is also apparent U.S. Air Force interest in a version of the Block 70 tailored for its specific needs and referred to by the manufacturer as the F-16G.
An F-16D Block 70 aircraft for the Royal Bahraini Air Force prior to delivery. U.S. Air Force
Morocco’s position as the Block 72 launch customer means the aircraft now flying is effectively the prototype-standard production aircraft for an export configuration that other countries can now buy.
The Moroccan F-16 program is also increasingly tied to a broader effort to develop the country’s military-industrial and sustainment infrastructure.
Lockheed Martin says it is working with Moroccan industry, including Maintenance Aero Maroc, on an upcoming MRO facility at Benslimane. The more than 86,000-square-foot facility is intended initially to support heavy maintenance and modernization of C-130 Hercules aircraft, with plans to expand into additional platforms, including the F-16.
A Royal Moroccan Air Force C-130 Hercules taxis down the runway at the 3rd Royal Moroccan Air Force Base in Kenitra, Morocco. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Devin Nothstine
That could eventually give Morocco a greater role in sustaining its own expanding fleet and potentially supporting other aircraft in the region.
The F-16 program itself is part of a much broader U.S.-Moroccan defense relationship that dates back more than five decades. The Royal Moroccan Armed Forces now operate a range of U.S.-supplied systems, while Morocco is also set to receive HIMARS and has expanded its rotary-wing capabilities with AH-64E Apache attack helicopters.
For the RMAF, however, the F-16 remains central to its combat-aircraft modernization and, once it arrives, it will be the spearhead of the country’s fighter fleet.
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. HACM has suffered significant delays, and the Air Force has taken the risky step of scaling back overall testing plans to try to keep the program on schedule. The stated goal is to be able to make a decision to start rapidly acquiring HACMs in 2027.
A rendering DARPA put out during the preceding Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) effort. DARPA
“The U.S. Air Force, in partnership with Australia, has conducted a flight test of the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) as part of our continuous work to advance long-range strike capabilities,” an Air Force spokesperson confirmed to TWZ today. “This effort is part of the Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment (SCIFiRE), a collaborative agreement built on more than 15 years of partnership between our two nations.”
“Leveraging this enduring alliance, the Royal Australian Air Force executed the release of a HACM flight test unit over a designated Australian test range, gathering crucial data to advance the program’s objectives,” the spokesperson added. “The flight was the culmination of an extensive series of tests designed to measure the missile’s performance under realistic flight conditions.”
The spokesperson did not name the test range where the “release” was conducted or say when that occurred. Whether the missile flew under its own power for any amount of time after release is unknown. What aircraft was used to carry the missile aloft is also not known. TWZ has reached out for more information.
The Air Force did say previously that it planned to conduct HACM launches in Australia. The expectation has long been that this would be done at the country’s sprawling Woomera Test Range, which provides an ideal location for extended-range flight testing activities in general. The U.S. and Australia have partnered on other hypersonic testing at Woomera in the past, as seen in the video below. The remote inland location of the range complex makes it well suited for conducting more sensitive tests away from prying eyes, as well.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, has also reported in the past that RAAF F/A-18F Super Hornets would be used to conduct at least some of the HACM test launches. This would fit with today’s statement from the U.S. Air Force saying that it was the RAAF that “executed the release.” The Air Force’s initial launch platform is the F-15E Strike Eagle, though others are expected to follow.
A pair of RAAF F/A-18F Super Hornets. RAAF
To date, neither the Air Force nor Raytheon has released a confirmed picture or rendering of HACM. In 2023, the Air Force did release a picture, seen below, showing an air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile test article related to either HACM or the preceding HAWC effort.
USAF
“The missile consists of two stages, a rocket booster and a scramjet cruiser, which separates from the booster and eventually dives toward its target,” according to GAO. Scramjets do not function effectively at lower speeds, and designs powered by them require some form of initial boost to a high Mach velocity. Hypersonic speed is generally defined as anything above Mach 5, but what HACM’s peak speed might be is unknown.
Two-stage air-breathing missile-like hypersonic vehicle designs have been tested on several occasions in the past. This includes Boeing’s scramjet-powered X-51 Waverider and HyFly 2 hypersonic test vehicles, among others. The X-51 (as its name indicates) and HyFly 2 also notably had so-called ‘waverider’ configurations designed to ‘skip’ on the shockwaves generated during high-speed flight to help provide additional lift. Whether HACM might also use this principle is not known.
It’s also worth noting here that Castelion’s Blackbeard hypersonic missile also has a two-stage configuration. It remains unconfirmed whether or not the second stage of that weapon is powered, but it does not appear to be an air-breathing design either way. Castelion is currently developing an air-launched version of Blackbeard for the U.S. Navy, which is also in flight testing now, as well as a ground-launched type for the U.S. Army. You can read more about that missile here.
Scramjet-powered air vehicle designs, including aircraft and missiles, have historically proven challenging. As noted, HACM has suffered delays over the years. The original goal had been to begin flight testing in 2024, which slipped first to 2025 and then 2026.
“The HACM program is on track to conduct its first flight test in the second quarter of fiscal year 2026, but officials said there is effectively zero margin left in the schedule for the rapid prototyping effort. The program has already descoped the rapid prototyping effort from seven to five planned flight tests,” GAO said bluntly in a report published in July. “The Air Force plans to produce 13 missiles during the rapid prototyping effort, including test assets, test spares, and operational rounds.”
“If a significant flight test failure occurs, it is likely that the program will not be able to complete all five tests within the 5-year rapid prototyping timeframe,” the report continued. “According to the program, completing at least the first three flight tests is critical for informing the Air Force’s decision to initiate a rapid fielding effort and procure HACM in fiscal year 2027.”
GAO’s July report, which had a January cutoff date, noted later on that the Air Force’s target date for initiating the rapid fielding effort, more specifically, was the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2027. This fiscal period began last Thursday and runs through the end of the year. Whether the service is still aiming to keep to that part of the schedule is unclear, but it would seem extremely difficult to do so.
Another rendering of a notional hypersonic missile that has been used to illustrate discussions about HACM in the past. Raytheon via GAO
“The HACM program has taken on risk to maintain its current schedule. According to program officials, maintaining the schedule has required aggressively resequencing activities to focus almost exclusively on those necessary to support the first flight test date,” GAO’s report added. “In some cases, officials said this has involved risky strategies, such as concurrently performing parts validation testing while completing the system’s design, which could require the redesign of key parts if they fail validation testing.”
Lockheed Martin, which previously put out this rendering of a hypersonic cruise missile, had been working on HALO for the Navy before that program was cancelled. Lockheed Martin
Regardless, the U.S. military, as well as its Australian counterparts, have made it clear in the past that they view hypersonic weapons as critical for success in future conflicts, especially high-end fights, such as one in the Pacific against China. In general, air-breathing hypersonic cruise missiles offer a valuable and highly flexible way to strike targets, especially time-sensitive ones, quickly and over extended ranges. The weapon’s high speed and maneuverability drastically increase its ability to penetrate through enemy air defenses and reduce the total time an opponent has to react.
Whether or not the Air Force will be able to avoid any more major delays with HACM remains to be seen. The service’s goal to start at least limited production of HACM before the end of 2027, if not sooner, is even more ambitious now after years of schedule slips. As mentioned, officials have already acknowledged there was no more margin for error at the start of the year. There are many questions still about what form any initial fielding will take, and how that might be further impacted by the truncated testing plan.
The HACM program has at least now hit the important milestone of beginning flight testing.
Spain is moving ahead with plans to rebuild its airborne signals intelligence (SIGINT) capability, with the Airbus A321 — part of the highly successful A320 twin-engine airliner family — selected as the basis for three new SIGINT aircraft.
The choice is disclosed in the latest issue of Spain’s Revista de Aeronáutica y Astronáutica, the Ministry of Defense’s official publication. Airbus and Indra are currently working on the program’s conceptual design under the Santiago II initiative, which aims to deliver a crewed platform capable of collecting and processing intelligence across the electromagnetic spectrum.
The program is intended to restore a capability Spain lost when its last Boeing 707 SIGINT aircraft was retired in 2014. Equipped with Israeli SIGINT equipment, this 707 was designated TM.17-4 in Spanish service, and nicknamed Reina del Espectro (Queen of the Spectrum).
It served in the 47th Mixed Air Force Group, alongside four Dassault Falcon 20s (designated TM.11 in Spain), that were used for navigation aid calibration, remote sensing, and electronic warfare training.
A Spanish Air Force Falcon 20 EW. Roberto Yáñez/Spanish Air and Space Force COPYRIGHT ROBERTO YANEZ
The new aircraft will have to undergo extensive modification, including the installation of antennas, receivers, signal-processing equipment, operator consoles, communications systems and associated electrical and cooling infrastructure.
Indra is expected to provide much of the mission-system architecture. The company’s AirSign concept, unveiled in 2023, incorporated COMINT and ELINT sensors alongside data fusion, real-time signal analysis, communications, and command-and-control functions.
An earlier Airbus concept for a multi-mission A320neo family, including an AEW&C version with conformal radar arrays, a SIGINT platform, and a VIP jet. Airbus
While COMINT is concerned primarily with collecting intelligence from communications, ELINT focuses on non-communications electromagnetic emissions, including radar signals. Together, these capabilities provide a much fuller intelligence picture of not only what the enemy is doing in terms of their electronic emissions, but what they are planning, and their processes of operation.
Bizjets have become the platform of choice for many new intelligence aircraft, particularly where operators want a relatively low-cost, long-endurance platform with a smaller logistical footprint. Aircraft such as the Bombardier Global 6000/6500, Gulfstream G550, and Dassault Falcon 8X have been adapted for electronic intelligence and special-mission roles.
An Israeli Air Force Nachshon Oron multi-missionintelligence-gathering aircraft, based on a Gulfstream G550 airframe. Israeli Air Force
Spain’s decision to use the substantially larger A321 points instead toward the other end of the spectrum, providing significantly more room for antennas, processing hardware and crew, and allowing the aircraft to carry a much larger and more power-hungry mission system than the typical bizjet-based SIGINT platform.
At one time, the A321 was envisaged as the platform for NATO’s Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) system, which provides the alliance with reconnaissance capabilities, including synthetic aperture radar. However, this capability was eventually fielded on NATO’s fleet of five RQ-4D Phoenix uncrewed aerial vehicles, specialized versions of the Global Hawk.
Early concept artwork showing an A321 equipped with NATO’s Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) system. NATO
Elsewhere in Europe, Airbus launched a risk-assessment study for France’s future maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), also to be based on an A321 platform. Billed as a “flying frigate” by the company, the new MPA is intended to replace the French Navy’s Dassault Atlantique 2 fleet and emerges at a time when NATO nations are increasingly adopting the in-production Boeing P-8 Poseidon for their maritime patrol requirements.
A rendering of the A321 MPA, France’s future maritime patrol aircraft. Airbus
Airbus does, however, have relevant experience in the conversion of airliners for military roles. The company’s A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft are modified at Airbus’s Getafe facility, providing an existing industrial base for converting commercial-derived aircraft into specialized military platforms.
The A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) conversion line at Airbus’s Getafe facility in Spain. Airbus
The Santiago II program is currently in its definition phase. Spain awarded Airbus and Indra a €16-million ($17.9-million), 18-month contract to study the platform and define the overall system. A subsequent phase will cover modification and integration of the three aircraft. The Spanish Ministry of Defense estimates the complete program at approximately €436 million ($489 million).
The program also has an industrial objective. Spanish authorities want domestic industry to acquire expertise and control over the integration of the SIGINT system, rather than simply purchasing a finished foreign intelligence aircraft.
The A321-based Santiago II fleet is intended to address the shortfall left by the retirement of the specially modified Boeing 707, providing a substantially more modern platform, and with more airframes for improved availability.
The three new aircraft will also complement Spain’s emerging uncrewed SIGINT capability. The Spanish Air and Space Force is introducing the L3Harris Scalable Open Architecture Reconnaissance (SOAR) system on its Predator B drones, giving the fleet ELINT and COMINT collection capabilities. The two systems are likely to fill different niches: the Predator B offers a relatively persistent, lower-cost uncrewed collection option, while the much larger A321 will provide substantially greater payload capacity, onboard processing, and crewed mission-management capabilities. Together, they will give Spain a layered airborne SIGINT architecture.
A Spanish Air and Space Force Predator B. Luis Alfonso Hernández Carrón/Spanish Air and Space Force A.Trigo
Spain’s decision also reflects a broader drive to invest in long-range SIGINT platforms capable of collecting, processing, and fusing vast amounts of electromagnetic data, as competition over the electromagnetic spectrum becomes increasingly central to modern warfare.
If the program remains on schedule, three heavily modified A321s will eventually provide Spain with a persistent airborne capability to detect, classify, locate, and analyze electromagnetic emitters in support of a host of operations. Especially when paired with the Predator B, the capability will likely be of considerable interest to other NATO partners in Europe, too.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has retired the last of its P-3 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft. The AEW version is instantly recognizable from the saucer-like radar dome on top, as seen on other AEW types like the E-2 Hawkeye and the E-3 Sentry. CBP was the only operator of this variant of the P-3 Orion and is said to have been the only law enforcement agency to fly any kind of dedicated AEW plane. The retirement of these aircraft comes at a time when American AEW assets, in general, are under heavy strain by demands globally.
CBP officially retired its final P-3 AEW on September 30, 2026, after a final flight from National Air Security Operations Center Jacksonville (NASOC Jacksonville), in Jacksonville, Florida. CBP has also flown Long Range Tracker (LRT) variants of the P-3, configured for more traditional maritime surveillance missions. The current plans for the LRT aircraft, and whether their sunset may also be on the horizon, are not immediately clear, and TWZ has reached out for more information. Orions of all types have been steadily disappearing from service with the U.S. military and elsewhere across the U.S. government as the aging aircraft become more difficult to operate and maintain.
End of the Road: AMO’s Iconic P-3 Dome Takes Its Final Flight!
On September 30, 2026, the distinct silhouette of a four-engine turboprop carrying its massive rotating radar dome touched down for the final time at the National Air Security Operations Center in Jacksonville.
“Our Jacksonville-based P-3 AEW fleet has served as a cornerstone of America’s outer-layer border security,” according to a brief announcement from CBP about the retirement on social media. “Its crews flew far beyond our borders, providing wide-area surveillance across the Caribbean, Gulf of America [Gulf of Mexico], and the transit zones of Central and South America, helping detect and track threats before they could reach the United States.”
By all indications, including official CBP sources, the P-3 AEW fleet consisted of eight aircraft at its peak. There is a confusingly worded 2014 CBP press release that mentions an “11th and final Lockheed Martin P-3 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft overhaul,” but that figure looks to also include three of the six LRT versions. The same release says that CBP only had 14 P-3s of all types at that time.
What was then known as the U.S. Customs Service (USCS) first began operating the P-3 AEW version in the late 1980s. The aircraft were converted from second-hand maritime patrol variants of the Orion. The first example had started life as a P-3B for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Ex-U.S. Navy P-3s were also converted.
A picture of a P-3 AEW in USCS service circa the late 1980s. CBP
The initial three P-3 AEWs were equipped with the AN/APS-138 radar. The same radar was used on early E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning and control aircraft operated by the U.S. Navy, as well as several other armed forces internationally.
“The Customs Service had previously borrowed U.S. Navy E-2Cs to meet its antinarcotics surveillance requirements, but required an aircraft with longer range and on-station time,” according to a 2006 report from Forecast International. “In June 1989, the U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report on the drug interdiction P-3B AEW aircraft. The findings indicated that the radar performance was as specified, but the P-3B (when compared to the E-2C) was less costly to operate per square mile of area covered because of the higher cruising speed and longer endurance. The P-3B had at least twice the in-flight endurance of the E-2C.”
Starting in the 1990s, USCS began the process of acquiring additional P-3 AEWs with newer AN/APS-145 radars, as also used on later model E-2Cs. The original AEW Orions were eventually refitted with APS-145s, as well. It’s worth noting here that the U.S. Coast Guard separately moved to acquire an AEW version of the C-130H, designated the EC-130V, in the 1990s, which used the AN/APS-125 radar, also used on older E-2s. Budget cuts led to the end of that program. The EC-130V that had been built was redesignated as an NC-130H and subsequently used for test purposes.
A US Navy E-2C Hawkeye. USNThe NC-130H test aircraft with its radar dome still on top. US Military
The P-3 AEWs were also equipped with a sensor turret containing electro-optical and infrared (EO/IR) video cameras, allowing the aircraft to more closely investigate targets spotted on radar. CBP regularly conducted P-3 operations that paired AEWs with LRT variants to provide an even broader array of sensor capabilities on missions. The LRTs have EO/IR sensor turrets, as well as AN/APG-66 and SeaVue radars. The pulse-doppler AN/APG-66 is primarily designed for spotting and tracking aerial targets, and was originally used on early variants of the F-16 fighter. SeaVue is a multi-function type with surface search and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery modes. Images produced via SAR are highly detailed maps of the surface below, and can be captured day or night, and regardless of any cloud cover, smoke, or dust.
Beyond radars and other sensors, the P-3 AEWs also had a robust communications suite consisting of VHF and UHF radios, as well as satellite communications links by the end of their career. CBP’s entire P-3 fleet, including the AEWs and LRTs, has received various updates over the years, including new ‘glass cockpits’ starting in the early 2000s.
Though primarily employed in support of counter-narcotics interdiction operations, the airborne radar and command and control capabilities were also applied to other missions, including disaster relief and humanitarian assistance efforts at home and abroad. As an example, CBP’s P-3 AEWs helped with air traffic coordination, as well as provided other support, during relief efforts in Texas in the wake of Hurricane Harvey in 2017.
At the same time, CBP’s entire P-3 fleet, including both the AEW and LRT versions, has only been getting increasingly older and difficult to sustain. The P-3B variant first entered U.S. Navy service in the 1960s. CBP did put its P-3s through a Service Life Extension Program overhaul in the 2010s, which included “new wings and tail for each aircraft and completely strips down the aircraft to its bare metal for an inspection,” according to a 2014 press release.
A P-3 AEW seen during a test flight as part of the SLEP overhaul. The aircraft notably lacks its radar dome. CBP
A key question now is how CBP will fill any gaps left by the retirement of the final AEW version. The agency does continue to operate a mix of other crewed fixed-wing aircraft with mixtures of radars and other sensors, as well as MQ-9 drones, but none of these platforms are equipped with a sensor like the AN/APS-145. CBP also has a network of tethered aerostats with radars at fixed sites around the Caribbean. As an aside, General Atomics, together with Saab, is now working on an AEW configuration for the MQ-9B drone, but there are no known U.S. orders for that capability at the time of writing. That platform will not offer the same level of flexibility and look-down capability as modern crewed AEW aircraft, either. Look-down AEW capability is only growing in importance today amid expanding and evolving drone threats, including to the U.S. homeland.
Another look at one of CBP’s now-retired P-3 AEWs. CBP
The Air Force, in particular, is also aiming to eventually push most, if not all, air moving-target indicator (AMTI) tasks currently performed by aircraft like the E-3 and E-7 into space. The service is heavily investing to accelerate the fielding of those capabilities, which could eventually offer revolutionary constant, persistent coverage globally. The first of those satellites are still not expected to reach an early operational state until 2028. It is possible that CBP could get access to a tailored data feed from this system when it does become operational. It still does not obviate the need to have crewed or uncrewed aircraft capable of more closely investigating tracks of interest using EO/IR cameras and other sensors.
Whatever the future might now hold, CBP’s unique time as the operator of the P-3 AEW aircraft has come to an end.
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.
We have a significant update on the fast-moving world of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) out of Mojave, California, today. Northrop Grumman’s Talon Blue, which now has the official designation YFQ-48A, has taken to the skies for the first time. The existence of Talon Blue was first officially disclosed in December of 2025 at a media event in Mojave that we attended.
Talon Blue flying out of Mojave Air and Space Port for the first time. (@Task_Force23) TASK_FORCE23
The uncrewed aircraft took to the skies over Mojave Air and Space Port, home of famed ‘bleeding-edge’ airframer and Northrop Grumman subsidiary Scaled Composites, which built the aircraft. A release from Northrop Grumman reads:
“MOJAVE, Calif. – Oct. 3, 2026 – Northrop Grumman’s (NYSE: NOC) YFQ-48A Talon Blue completed its first fully autonomous flight, including taxi, takeoff, in-flight maneuvers, and landing. Developed through company investment, Talon Blue combines modular design and advanced manufacturing to lower cost and support faster production without compromising mission capability. The flight builds on Northrop Grumman’s seven decades of autonomy experience and more than 500,000 autonomous flight hours, with lessons from Talon Blue informing future autonomous systems.
Details on YFQ-48A Talon Blue:
Talon Blue is part of Northrop Grumman’s internally-funded Project Talon portfolio focused on accelerating the development of mission-ready autonomous airpower capabilities.
Manufacturing and design innovations cut part count and overall weight, lowering cost and enabling faster production to meet growing demand for autonomous systems.
Designed with flexible operational concepts in mind, Talon Blue’s high air intake, wide wheelbase and integrated weapons bay support a wide variety of mission needs for U.S. and allied partners.
Craig Woolston, vice president and general manager, research and advanced design, Northrop Grumman: “Our customers made it clear they need autonomous systems that can be fielded faster and more affordably without sacrificing mission effectiveness. We listened. Talon Blue’s first flight is one step toward a new generation of autonomous capabilities. Every flight and lesson strengthens our broader autonomy work and sharpens what comes next.”
Talon Blue flying above the Mojave Desert in California. (Northrop Grumman)
While the Talon Blue aircraft draws most of the attention, Northrop Grumman has put great emphasis on its back-end autonomy development ecosystem, which includes its purpose-built Model 437 demonstrator aircraft, now under the Talon IQ badge (formerly Beacon).
With the loss of the F/A-XX next-generation naval fighter program to Boeing, Northrop Grumman winning a contract from the U.S. services for Talon Blue has become more important. Doing so would get the company back into the Pentagon’s tactical air combat portfolio. As we have discussed for years, advanced uncrewed tactical systems are set to be less risky and potentially more lucrative than traditional fighter programs as air combat rotates to predominantly uncrewed capabilities and mass production of them. Beyond U.S. needs, the demand for CCAs is likely to explode internationally in the coming years, so programs like Talon Blue could find success elsewhere if the Pentagon goes another direction, but getting the U.S. armed services’ stamp of approval and the scale of production that comes with it would surely help there too.
Author’s note: A big thanks to our friend @Task_Force23 for providing us with great photos for this story.
The volume of munitions expended in the course of U.S. operations against Iran this year has been and continues to be a hot topic of discussion, and there has been relatively little official data provided on this front. However, now we know that the F/A-18F Super Hornets of the U.S. Navy’s Strike Fighter Squadron 41 (VFA-41), the “Black Aces,” launched 421 missiles and bombs during their time supporting Operation Epic Fury.
This new insight into VFA-41’s role in the conflict with Iran comes from a photo of a large board listing the squadron’s weapons expenditures during Epic Fury, via Jeff Rojas, who goes by the handle @jro_photography on Instagram. Rojas also shared pictures recently taken of VFA-41’s Super Hornets. The Black Aces were one of the squadrons assigned to the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which has been on a marathon deploymentsince last year. The carrier only left the Middle East region last month and is now set to formally return home to San Diego, California, within days. Per the Pentagon’s official timeline, Operation Epic Fury began on February 28 and concluded on May 5, though U.S. forces have continued to conduct strikes on Iran, on and off, since then.
One of VFA-41’s F/A-18F Super Hornets spotted recently. Jeff Rojas Jeffrey Rojas
The complete tally of munitions employed as shown on the board, broken down by type, from greatest to fewest, is as follows:
1 GBU-12/B 500-pound-class Paveway II laser-guided precision-guided bomb
The total cost of all of these munitions, using available data from U.S. military budget documents, is very roughly $43,646,000, at least. Unit costs fluctuate regularly due to a variety of factors. Furthermore, the exact price tag for different JDAMs can be somewhat difficult to calculate given how the individual components are budgeted.
The JDAM is really a family of kits that turn standard unguided ‘iron bombs,’ which can vary significantly in the kinds of effects they are designed to produce, into warheads for precision-guided munitions. This is exemplified by the (V)2 and (V)4 subvariants of the GBU-31/B mentioned here, which are built using standard high-explosive and bunker-buster bombs, respectively. No specific subvariants of the GBU-32, GBU-38, or GBU-54 were mentioned in the information provided. Standard JDAMs can also only be employed against static target coordinates. The LJDAM kits add a laser guidance component (akin to what is found on Paveway-series bombs) that enables strikes against moving targets.
A JDAM, as well as a pair of AIM-9Xs, seen under the wing of a VFA-41 Super Hornet in August. NAVCENT
No specific version of AGM-154 is mentioned, either, but the C and C-1 types, which have multi-stage bunker-busting warheads, are the only ones understood to be in service today. Remaining A variants, which were loaded with 145 small bomblets, were removed from U.S. service in 2008 as a result of new guidelines on cluster munitions issued under President George W. Bush. A planned AGM-154B, which would have contained six “smart” Sensor Fuzed Munition bomblets, was never produced. You can read more about the full JSOW family here.
We do not know exactly what targets any of these munitions were employed against. However, a picture that Jeff Rojas grabbed of one of VFA-41’s Super Hornets, seen toward the top of this story and in part below, shows a very interesting broken submarine kill marking, with the added text “Sub Buster.” The jet also has a number of more typical bomb-shaped kill marks.
A close-up look at the broken submarine and other kill marks on one of VFA-41’s Super Hornets. Jeff Rojas Jeffrey Rojas
The video montage in the social media post below includes a clip, starting at 0:13 in the runtime, of a Hellfire missile hitting what looks to be a Ghadir class diesel-electric midget submarine in port.
U.S. forces are degrading the Iranian regime's ability to project power at sea and harass international shipping. For years, Iranian forces have threatened freedom of navigation in waters essential to American, regional and global security and prosperity. pic.twitter.com/gIBN02mowh
It is extremely likely that the AIM-9Xs and AIM-120s were fired at Iranian drones, though they could have been launched at incoming cruise missiles, as well. At the time of writing, there are no known or reported instances of U.S. military jets engaging crewed Iranian aircraft in the course of the conflict to date. In 2024, the Navy carried out a crash program that increased the total number of AIM-9Xs that F/A-18E/Fs could carry per sortie, specifically in response to Houthi drone threats. Super Hornets loaded with nine air-to-air missiles are now referred to as “Murder Hornets.”
It is also important to remember that this is a discussion of the munitions expended by just one Navy strike fighter squadron. Lincoln‘s air wing includes four strike squadrons, three with Super Hornets and one with F-35Cs, as well as units flying other types of aircraft and helicopters. The carrier was just one part of a much larger array of air, naval, and ground forces that participated in Operation Epic Fury and subsequent operations against Iran. For additional context, consider that the entire Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, including its entire air wing and escorting ships, fired off 770 munitions in total, by the official count, during very active combat operations in and around the Red Sea between November 2023 and June 2024.
VFA-41 Super Hornets seen flying together recently. Jeff Rojas
As such, the tally of munitions launched from VFA-41 Super Hornets offers a very interesting view into that squadron’s contributions to Operation Epic Fury, as well as the full scale and scope of the conflict with Iran.
Special thanks again to Jeff Rojas for sharing the details about VFA-41’s participation in Operation Epic Fury and his pictures with us.
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?
Seven companies are said to now be in the running to develop a lower-cost and highly modular drone to succeed the MQ-9A Reaper. Though the field has some well-established entrants and some far lesser known names, the inclusion of Otto Aerospace in this group is particularly unexpected and interesting to examine. Otto has made bold, but still unrealized pronouncements about disrupting the aviation industry with potentially revolutionary high-efficiency designs that could have civilian and military applications. TWZ has been steadily tracking the company’s developments since we first reported on the existence of the Celera 500L aircraft back in 2017.
Air & Space Forces Magazinefirst reported on Wednesday that Otto Aerospace (previously Otto Aviation), as well as Anduril, Chaos Industries, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Grid Aero, Shield AI, and Swarm Aero, had “made the cut” for the Massed Modular Aircraft (MMA) program, citing anonymous sources. The MMA effort formally kicked off in July, and the Air Force is now aiming to have a fleet of at least 500 of these drones by 2032.
The Massed Modular Aircraft (MMA) program is seeking a successor to the MQ-9A Reaper, an example of which is seen here. USAF
An industry source has also told us that these seven companies are moving ahead in the MMA program. The Air Force has not yet offered an official confirmation.
“The Air Force’s partnership with the Defense Innovation Unit is accelerating requirements development and rapid prototyping by leveraging commercial innovation and reducing timelines,” a spokesperson for the service said when we asked for more information. “We continue working with industry to inform requirements and assess potential solutions as we shape the future MMA capability.”
TWZ has also reached out to all of the companies on the list for more details.
As mentioned, it is unexpected and especially interesting to see Otto named here in the context of MMA. The company’s core design philosophy centers around what is called laminar flow. Broadly speaking, this refers to liquid or gaseous “fluids,” including air, flowing in smooth, regular layers across a surface with little to no mixing between them. In aviation, optimization for laminar flow translates to reduced drag and improved aerodynamic efficiency. This, in turn, can offer a host of benefits, including when it comes to fuel economy, extended range, and overall performance, as well as reductions in operating costs.
With this in mind, all of the designs that Otto has shown to date, starting with the Celera 500L, have been based around teardrop-shaped fuselages to maximize laminar flow benefits. Many of them also feature long, slender glider-like wings. The sudden and unannounced appearance of the very exotic and futuristic-looking Celera 500L at the Southern California Logistics Airport in 2017, at which time nothing was known about the aircraft or its manufacturer, caused a stir in the broader aviation community. TWZ was the first to report on the plane and then unmasked its identity.
On top of the laminar flow-optimized shaping, the Celera 500L was a pusher-propeller design powered by a single high-efficiency, turbocharged, multi-fuel V12 piston engine. A relevant patent held by Otto also describes a novel exhaust system with a heat exchanger that provides an additional boost in thrust.
Otto conducted an extensive test campaign with the Celera 500L, taking the aircraft up to an altitude of 15,000 feet and to a speed of 250 miles per hour. The company posited that this would translate to a cruising speed of around 460 miles per hour at the design’s intended operating ceiling of 50,000 feet.
The Celera 500L seen during a test flight. Otto Aerospace
Development focus at the company has since shifted to the jet-powered Phantom 3500, which has a much revised design compared to the Celera 500L. Otto has said previously that it expects this aircraft to burn just 115 gallons of fuel per hour, further underscoring the benefits of its laminar-flow-centric approach. Comparably sized business jets like the Bombardier Challenger 350, Cessna Citation Latitude, and Embraer Praetor 500 consume around 300 gallons per hour, according to the company, citing data from Jet Support Services, Inc. (JSSI).
A rendering of Otto Aviation’s Phantom 3500, a business jet the company is currently developing. Otto Aviation
It is also worth noting here that Otto has already developed a drone with a “highly laminar-flow efficient airframe” for the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The company announced the successful completion of a flight test campaign in May. The pusher-propeller design has a teardrop-shaped main body, a glider-type main wing, and a T-tail at the end of a boom that extends to the rear of the aircraft. DARPA plans to use that drone to demonstrate laser-based power beaming technology that could be used to relay electricity to forward operating locations. The technology could also dramatically extend the endurance of an electrically-powered drone, potentially allowing it to stay in the air indefinitely.
The drone for DARPA is far too small to meet the Air Force’s MMA requirements. However, “the program leveraged Otto’s aerodynamic expertise to design and flight-test an unmanned vehicle that could inform design parameters for future energy-relay systems or more extremely fuel-efficient, long-endurance platforms,” per a press release Otto put out in May.
Otto Aerospace developed this drone, seen here rigged up for launch from a pickup truck, for the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Otto Aerospace
TWZ has highlighted in the past how the general range, fuel economy, and other advantages inherent to Otto’s designs could be even more pronounced in a configuration that does not need to support a human crew. Furthermore, Otto has previously shown militarized concepts, crewed and uncrewed. As we’ve written in our earlier coverage of the Celera 500L:
“Though primarily aimed at civilian and commercial operators, Otto’s new website also highlights the potential for the Celera 500L to use its long-range and high fuel economy to support military missions, including transporting personnel and cargo, as well as conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. A version of the aircraft, possibly unmanned, equipped with any number of sensor suites could be an impressive persistent surveillance and communications relay platform able to orbit over particular areas for very long periods of time and cover a wide swath of the battlefield from its high perch. It could also be able to reposition itself quickly and transit to its tasking area at jet-like speeds.”
A rendering of a concept for an uncrewed derivative of the Celera 500L. Otto Aerospace
While we have yet to see an explicit MMA proposal from Otto, a laminar flow-optimized drone could be a very attractive offering, given the program’s focus on reducing costs while having an unrefueled combat radius of at least 2,300 nautical miles, among other capabilities. A more efficient design could further translate to a drone that needs less fuel to meet range and other requirements, which, in turn, could allow for a smaller and/or cheaper design overall. Weight and physical space savings afforded by reduced fuel demand could be used to increase ordnance and other payload capacity, too. You can read more about what is known about the MMA requirements here.
There are more companies beyond Otto in the running. With the Air Force aiming to buy hundreds of MMA drones in the coming years, there will be stiff competition.
General Atomics, which developed and produced the MQ-9A, has publicly put forward its own proposal for a successor, called Wildfire. The new drone draws heavily on experience with the Reaper, as well as other drones in the company’s portfolio, and you can read more about what is known about that design here. General Atomics declined to offer additional comment in response to questions regarding the current state of the MMA program. As an aside, General Atomics is also now on contract to build higher-end FQ-42 Vengeance drones for the Air Force, one of two designs intended for higher-end air combat the service is acquiring under its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program.
A rendering of General Atomics’ Wildfire drone. General Atomics
The other company building CCA drones for the Air Force is Anduril, with its FQ-44 Fury, and it has now also been named in relation to the MMA effort. Anduril has unveiled two other very different tactical drones since 2025, the twin-engine hybrid-electric tail-sitting Omen, designed primarily for surveillance and reconnaissance, and Thunder, an armed tiltrotor pitched as an uncrewed companion for crewed rotorcraft. Neither of those uncrewed aircraft would seem to directly align with the stated MMA requirements, but might serve as a starting place. Anduril also has a history now of developing new uncrewed platforms and other systems discreetly, and sharing them with the public only when they have become relatively mature.
Anduril’s Omen drone, which was unveiled in November 2025. Anduril TREVOR DALTONThe Thunder tiltrotor, which Anduril unveiled earlier this year. Anduril
What design Shield AI might be offering is unknown. The MMA requirements would seem to sit between the company’s V-BAT drone, which is in service with several armed forces today, including in the United States and Ukraine, and the much higher-end X-BAT that is now in development. Shield AI has been working to expand on the V-BAT design, including plans to integrate air-launched munitions. Both V-BAT and X-BAT are also vertical-takeoff and landing designs. Beyond drones, Shield AI remains a major developer of artificial intelligence-driven autonomy packages for the U.S. military and others.
Earlier this month, newcomer Swarm Aero unveiled a new drone with performance and capabilities that align with the stated MMA requirements earlier this month. Called Gamera, the design has a single propeller at the front of a small central fuselage, together with sponsons holding large fuel cells on either side and a twin-boom tail configuration broadly reminiscent of the OV-10 Bronco light attack aircraft, as TWZ previously reported on in more detail.
Grid Aero is publicly developing a twin-engine cargo drone called the Lifter Lite, in part with funding from AFWERX, the Air Force’s internal technology incubator. Whether the company might work to adapt the Lifter Lite, which has been undergoing testing at least on the ground, to meet the MMA requirements or has proposed something entirely different is not known.
A picture of the first Lifter Lite cargo drone prototype. Grid Aero
The last firm on the list, Chaos Industries, does not appear to show any drone designs on its website at the time of writing. It is primarily known as a developer of radar systems, especially for use in counter-drone systems. The company declined to comment in response to TWZ queries regarding the MMA program.
To reiterate, the Air Force still has not confirmed the full list of MMA program contenders. Otto’s participation would be a standout, but the field as it is understood now features a number of very established drone makers, as well as emerging start-ups, all vying for a very lucrative opportunity. On top of the potential just to supply hundreds of drones upfront, those uncrewed aircraft look set to be a key part of the Air Force’s force structure for years to come, and will need to be supported throughout their lifecycles. The MMA requirements put heavy emphasis on modularity and open-architecture systems to allow for the rapid integration of new and improved capabilities and functionality down the line.
The Air Force has also previously raised the possibility of selecting multiple vendors to produce designs under the MMA program, or to pursue follow-on rounds of competition to help meet its operations requirements. This is exactly how the service has been running the CCA program, and has already led to the aforementioned production contracts with General Atomics and Anduril. In addition, the Air Force is targeting a base $10 million unit cost for each MMA drone, a price point that would help make losses more tolerable, and could open the door to acquiring a fleet of far more than 500 examples.
It is also important to remember that the Air Force has tried and failed on several occasions to develop and field an MQ-9A replacement. As TWZ has previously explored in great detail, the service’s view of what that drone should be has also evolved over time, with the current MMA program squarely focused on a more affordable option that does not put a heavy premium on survivability. The Air Force has acknowledged potential budget and other hurdles to its new effort. At the same time, heavy continued operational demand for Reapers, coupled with dozens of losses in the course of the war with Iran, as well as other operations in and around the Middle East in recent years, have put major new emphasis on finally finding a successor.
Overall, beyond what is already known about potential MMA offerings, it will be very interesting to see what Otto and the other contenders put forward to finally succeed the iconic Reaper.
After nearly seven years of waiting, Taiwan has received the first two aircraft from its long-delayed purchase of 66 new-build F-16C/D Block 70 fighters from the United States.
The two single-seat F-16Cs, serials 6727 and 6728, touched down at Chihhang Air Base near Taitung on October 2. They are the first factory-new fighter aircraft delivered to Taiwan in 25 years and mark the beginning of the aircraft acceptance and integration phase of the Republic of China Air Force’s (ROCAF) so-called Peace Phoenix Soaring project.
The two jets have also had an unusually eventful trip to Taiwan.
They began their journey to the island on August 17, flying from Lockheed Martin’s production facility in Greenville, South Carolina, to Hawaii. The aircraft were subsequently forced to remain there for more than a month after an unexpected issue prevented them from continuing across the Pacific as planned. The reasons for the delay have been the subject of considerable speculation, including weather and tanker availability.
ROCAF F-16C Block 70 serial 6727 arrive in Taitung. Peter Ho, Formosa Aviation & Military Image Press
The two jets finally departed Hawaii again on October 1, stopping in Guam before making the final leg to Taitung today.
Taiwanese Defense Minister Wellington Koo said today that more of the aircraft will arrive before the end of the year, although he did not provide a specific number.
Taiwan receives first 2 F-16V Block 70 fighter jets
Taiwan took delivery Friday of the first two of 66 F-16V Block 70 fighter jets purchased from the United States, with the aircraft landing at Chihhang Air Base in the eastern county of Taitung at around noon. pic.twitter.com/hbqdV6io26
— Focus Taiwan (CNA English News) (@Focus_Taiwan) October 2, 2026
The 66-aircraft purchase is worth approximately $8 billion. Taiwan originally expected deliveries to begin much sooner, but production-line adjustments, supply-chain problems, and software issues contributed to delays. COVID, too, had an impact on the production line.
The program’s delivery schedule has slipped repeatedly. Defense Minister Koo said in March, May, and again through his deputy in June that the first aircraft were expected to arrive by the end of September. That deadline passed without an F-16 reaching Taiwan.
ROCAF F-16C Block 70 serial 6727 touches down earlier today. Peter Ho, Formosa Aviation & Military Image Press
Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense acknowledged in late September that development and production of the aircraft’s new electronic warfare self-protection system had also been a factor.
The Block 70s are being equipped with L3Harris’ AN/ALQ-254(V)1 Viper Shield electronic warfare suite, and the system was not yet fully through its development and production process when the first aircraft were otherwise ready for delivery. L3Harris announced on September 3 that it had completed production of the first 35 Viper Shield systems, underscoring that the electronic warfare equipment was itself still moving into production as Taiwan’s fighters were approaching delivery.
Taiwan chose to acquire the AN/ALQ-254 rather than the AN/ALQ-257 electronic warfare system used on U.S. Air Force F-16s.
Lawmakers have questioned whether the system meets requirements associated with earlier work to modernize earlier F-16A/B Block 20 fighters to the F-16V standard. Meanwhile, Defense Minister Koo argued that those requirements applied to the earlier Block 20 upgrade rather than the new Block 70 purchase. Other international F-16 Block 70 operators are also using Viper Shield.
Taiwanese officials have defended the decision, citing the specific requirements of Taiwan’s F-16 fleet and associated procurement considerations. The system is intended to provide the new fighters with a modern electronic warfare and self-protection capability against increasingly sophisticated radar and missile threats.
There are also still questions about when the Viper Shield system itself will be fully ready.
ROCAF F-16C Block 70 serial 6727. Peter Ho, Formosa Aviation & Military Image Press
Weapons deliveries have also not kept pace with the aircraft themselves.
Taiwan is receiving AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles as part of the F-16 package, with 200 ordered. The C-8 version incorporates upgrades from the U.S. Air Force’s Form, Fit, Function Refresh (F3R) effort, including new electronics and improved electronic-counter-countermeasures intended to make the missile more capable in a heavily contested electromagnetic environment. For Taiwan, the missile will provide the new F-16s with a modern beyond-visual-range air-to-air weapon that can be cued by the aircraft’s AN/APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR), as well as other sources of targeting information through the F-16’s networked systems.
An AIM-120 AMRAAM is prepared to be loaded onto an F-16V at Chiayi Air Base, in Chiayi on January 28, 2026. Photo by I-Hwa Cheng / AFP
The AIM-120C-8 is particularly relevant as Taiwan fields more F-16s against China’s increasingly capable fighter fleet, which includes aircraft equipped with long-range air-to-air missiles such as the PL-15.
Taiwan’s F-16 Block 70s will also be armed with the AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), intended for attacks against enemy air defense systems. According to Roy Choo, a defense journalist and TWZ contributor, the first of the new AGM-88F (remanufactured from U.S. Air Force AGM-88B) missiles arrived in Taiwan back in 2022, for the F-16V fleet.
The major gap is the AGM-154C Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW). The precision glide weapon is intended to give Taiwan a longer-range strike capability against ground targets without requiring the launching aircraft to fly directly over heavily defended areas. According to the latest reporting from Taiwan, deliveries of the AGM-154C have been held up by delays on the U.S. production line and may not begin until 2027 or 2028 at the earliest. Existing stocks of these weapons were also heavily used in Operation Epic Fury.
The two aircraft now sitting at Chihhang are significant for another reason. Unlike Taiwan’s existing F-16V fleet, they are new-production aircraft rather than older fighters that have been upgraded.
Taiwan received 141 F-16A/B Block 20s that were upgraded to the F-16V configuration under a separate modernization program completed in 2023. The new Block 70s incorporate many of the same technologies — including the APG-83 — but are built from the ground up as new aircraft.
A Taiwan Air Force F-16V taxis out during a spring military exercise at Chiayi Air Base, in Chiayi on January 28, 2026. Photo by I-Hwa Cheng / AFP
The Block 70s will also bring a significant new passive-sensing capability to Taiwan’s F-16 fleet. Under a $328.5-million U.S. Foreign Military Sales contract awarded to Lockheed Martin in February, Taiwan is receiving the company’s IRST21 Legion-ES infrared search and track system. Designed specifically for the F-16, the long-wave infrared sensor can passively detect and track airborne targets without emitting radar energy. That gives the aircraft another way to search for and track threats while reducing its own electromagnetic signature. The IRST21 also gives the F-16s a passive way to detect and track low-observable targets, potentially providing another means of finding Chinese stealth aircraft without relying solely on radar.
In 2019, Lockheed Martin displayed a model of a Block 70 F-16 with what appeared to be a podded IRST system on one of its chin stations at the biennial Taipei Aerospace & Defense Technology Exhibition in Taiwan:
The new fighters will therefore complement Taiwan’s upgraded F-16A/Bs while expanding the overall number of modern F-16s available to the ROCAF.
The timing matters.
People’s Liberation Army (PLA) aircraft operate around Taiwan on an increasingly routine basis, forcing the ROCAF to maintain a persistent air-defense posture. The additional F-16s will provide more aircraft for missions ranging from air defense and counter-air operations to maritime strike.
Ground crew prepare to load AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles in front of an F-16V during a drill at Hualien Air Force base on August 17, 2022. Photo by SAM YEH/AFP via Getty Images
The F-16V fleet is also being tested for a more specialized intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance role. The ROCAF has recently been conducting flight and systems integration testing of the MS-110 advanced reconnaissance pod, part of its Phoenix Scout project. The service plans to acquire six pods to replace older reconnaissance equipment. Based on the DB-110 digital sensor architecture, the system combines visible-light and infrared imaging with long-range, day-and-night reconnaissance, and real-time image transmission, allowing imagery to be passed more rapidly to ground command and intelligence elements. Integrating the pod with the F-16 and associated ground systems will give Taiwan another means of monitoring activity around the island and its surrounding waters.
A ROCAF F-16V carrying an MS-110 reconnaissance pod. Peter Ho, Formosa Aviation & Military Image Press
But Taiwan remains heavily outnumbered across the Taiwan Strait.
A J-20 fighter during the Changchun Air Show on September 22, 2025 in Changchun, Jilin Province of China. Photo by Zhang Xiangyi/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images
And the F-16s will face the same fundamental problem as Taiwan’s other combat aircraft in a major conflict: staying operational.
China possesses extensive missile and air capabilities that could threaten Taiwan’s airbases, aircraft shelters, fuel supplies, command-and-control infrastructure, and other elements needed to keep fighters flying. You can read more about how the ROCAF would likely go to war with China in this previous in-depth feature.
Basing the new F-16s at Chihhang Air Base, operated by the 7th Tactical Fighter Wing, is significant, Choo told us.
“The basing of the aircraft at Chihhang allows the ROCAF to readily project air power south and eastwards, especially over the Bashi Channel, which is one avenue PLA can gain access to the Philippine Sea and beyond,” he explained. “Previously, ROCAF fighters from other bases maintain QRA detachments there”
A new F-16C Block 70 lands at Chihhang Air Base in Taitung on October 2, 2026. Photo by CHENG Yu-chen / AFP
The F-16 delivery today is only the beginning of a much larger effort to get all 66 aircraft into Taiwanese service.
According to the latest information from the ROCAF, 63 F-16C/D Block 70s remain in various stages of production and delivery in the United States, with some already moving through the handover process. The remaining aircraft will be delivered according to production, flight-test, and acceptance milestones before being ferried to Taiwan.
Once the full order is delivered, Taiwan will operate more than 200 F-16s when the new Block 70s are combined with its existing fleet.
That will give the ROCAF a considerably larger force of modern F-16s, with substantial commonality between the upgraded F-16V fleet and the new-production Block 70s.
The aircraft will still need to go through Taiwan’s acceptance procedures, while pilots and maintenance personnel complete the necessary conversion and training work. The new jets will then be progressively incorporated into the ROCAF’s operational units.
Remarkably, the arrival of the first Block 70 fighters today marks the first delivery of new fighters to Taiwan since 2001, when the last of the 150 F-16A/B Block 20s were delivered.
“The ROCAF’s surviving fleet of 139 F-16s, 53 Mirage 2000s, and 129 F-CK-1s was largely inducted in the 1990s, when Taiwan held the upper hand in the cross-Strait air-power balance,” Choo explained. “Even then, there remained a requirement for additional fighters, prompting the island’s first formal request to purchase 66 F-16C/Ds during the 2006 Monterey Talks.”
F-CK-1s taxi for takeoff during a scramble as part of a combat readiness exercise at Ching Chuan Kang Air Base in Taichung on January 7, 2025. Photo by I-HWA CHENG / AFP
“By the late 2000s, these fighters were approaching the limits of their combat effectiveness as the PLA air fleet expanded in both size and capability. Fortunately, substantial upgrades began to be rolled out to the F-CK-1s and F-16s from the 2010s.”
In the wake of the 2019 acquisition of the F-16C/D Block 70s, questions arose over the aircraft’s asymmetric value as the Taiwan military increasingly focused on developing a plan for asymmetric capabilities in response to the PLA’s growing combat power.
“However, developments in recent years have underscored the continued importance of a capable fighter fleet not least for policing Taiwan’s airspace amid the PLA’s sustained gray-zone air operations around the island,” Choo added.
ROCAF F-16C Block 70 serial 6728. Peter Ho, Formosa Aviation & Military Image Press
The timing of today’s arrival is also notable.
The aircraft reached Taiwan just days after U.S. President Donald Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington. The delivery comes amid questions in Taipei about the future pace of U.S. arms transfers, after Trump said in May that a proposed $14-billion Taiwan arms package was being held in abeyance. He had approved an $11-billion package in December 2025.
Washington continues to say that its policy toward Taiwan has not changed.
Beijing, for its part, continues to oppose U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and regards the island as part of Chinese territory.
It has taken nearly seven years to get the first two F-16C/D Block 70s, to Taiwan. But their arrival marks the first step in a major modernization of the ROCAF’s F-16 fleet, adding new-production fighters with improved radar, electronic warfare, sensors, and weapons to a force that is already operating upgraded F-16Vs.
The photograph was released by the U.S. Navy and shows an RAAF F/A-18F assigned to No. 1 Squadron taking off from Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu on September 11 during Gray Flag 2026. The loadout also includes a CATM-9X — the inert training variant of the AIM-9X — and a CATM-120, the inert training version of the AIM-120 AMRAAM, three external fuel tanks, an AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR targeting pod, and a Tactical Combat Training System (TCTS) pod.
An AIM-260 JATM is seen on station 7, the “cheek” station, of a Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18F Super Hornet during Gray Flag 2026. U.S. Navy photo by Dana Rene White
Gray Flag is the naval aviation test community’s flagship large-force test event, providing opportunities for large-scale integration of new capabilities across services, platforms, industry, and allied forces. Gray Flag 2026 was the largest edition of the exercise to date. According to the Navy, more than 3,000 personnel from over 150 organizations participated, flying more than 750 sorties and logging over 2,000 flight hours across hundreds of multi-domain test objectives.
Previous iterations of Gray Flag have been used to test new and still-developmental weapons in increasingly complex, operationally representative scenarios, including actual missile engagements against realistic targets. Making use of the sprawling Point Mugu Sea Range, the event has also become an important opportunity for working out how sensors, weapons, aircraft, and networks interact as part of larger kill chains and kill webs. A new, longer-range air-to-air missile is especially relevant when it comes to developing tactics, techniques, and procedures within a broader, networked air-combat architecture.
Beyond being the first apparent glimpse of an Australian JATM in any context, integration of the weapon onto Australia’s Super Hornet fleet has already progressed to the point of carrying the missile — in inert form — during a major U.S.-based test and integration exercise.
A close-up look at an AIM-260 test round on the same station of a U.S. Navy Super Hornet. Jonathan Tweedy/@flightline_visuals
As TWZreported in August, Australia is set to become the first country outside the United States to operate the AIM-260 following a roughly $480-million procurement through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program. The Australian government said at the time that the missile would first be integrated onto the RAAF’s F/A-18F fleet, before being fielded on the F-35A and EA-18G Growler. Looking further ahead, the RAAF’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat collaborative combat aircraft (CCA) could also emerge as a candidate for integration with JATM.
Australia’s announcement did not provide a delivery schedule or specify when JATM would enter Australian service.
The overall proportions and external configuration of the AIM-260 were revealed when an example appeared on a U.S. Navy F/A-18F in May of this year. That aircraft, operated by Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 31 (VX-31), provided the first publicly known photographic view of the highly classified missile.
An F/A-18F from VX-31 carrying the AIM-260. Jonathan Tweedy/ @flightline_visuals
The AIM-260’s exact specifications remain classified. It is intended to provide substantially greater range than the AIM-120 AMRAAM while retaining a broadly similar form factor. That compact configuration is important because the missile is designed not only for external carriage but also for internal carriage by aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35.
The weapon has been developed as a response to the increasingly long-range air-to-air threat posed by China’s PL-15 and other advanced missiles. Official range figures have not been released, although previous reporting has pointed to an intended range of at least 120 miles and potentially considerably more.
Close-up of a J-20 fighter carrying four inert examples of the PL-15 in its main ventral bays. viaChinese internet
The Australian procurement therefore represents an important expansion of the JATM program beyond the U.S. fleet.
The timing of the Point Mugu photograph is particularly interesting. Gray Flag is specifically intended to bring together large numbers of aircraft, weapons, sensors, networks, and other systems for demanding integration and test activities. An Australian Super Hornet carrying JATM at such an event would be entirely in line with the purpose of the exercise.
Ground crew members stand by an EA-18G Growler on the flight line at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, during Gray Flag, on September 30, 2026. U.S. Navy photo by Katie Archibald
It is not clear, however, what role the missile was playing. The photograph does not establish whether it was an Australian-owned operational weapon, a U.S. test asset, or a missile being used for a particular integration activity. Blue bands on the missile body confirm that it’s a training missile with an inert rocket motor and/or warhead.
Public evidence of an Australian aircraft carrying the AIM-260 is another important milestone in the weapon’s transition from a closely guarded U.S. development program toward allied service.
It also underscores the most interoperability aspect of the Australian acquisition. Canberra is buying into a U.S. long-range air-to-air weapon program at a time when the Royal Australian Air Force and U.S. forces are increasingly expected to operate together across the Indo-Pacific.
A Royal Australian Air Force E-7A Wedgetail, two EA-18G Growlers, and two F-35As fly in formation with two U.S. Air Force B-2 bombers and two F-22 Raptors. Australian Department of Defense
The exercise also comes as the U.S. moves to accelerate development and future production of the AIM-260. In September, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin reached a framework agreement laying the groundwork for a future multiyear procurement deal, while the Air Force Test Center confirmed that the missile is already undergoing both ground and airborne testing. The agreement is intended to give Lockheed Martin and its suppliers the demand signal needed to expand production capacity, although the number of missiles, costs and delivery schedule remain undisclosed.
The development should also be seen in the context of broader U.S.-Australian cooperation on air-launched weapons. RAAF F/A-18Fs are also being integrated into the U.S.-Australian Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) effort under the Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment (SCIFiRE), with Australia providing test infrastructure for the weapon’s flight-test program. You can read more about this program here.
The video below shows a hypersonic test conducted at Woomera in 2016 under the U.S.-Australian Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation (HiFIRE) program.
Australia said its F/A-18Fs would be the first RAAF aircraft to receive JATM, and an Australian Super Hornet has now been photographed carrying one during a major U.S. Navy test event. For the RAAF, getting JATM onto its frontline fighters is consequently an increasingly urgent requirement, giving its Super Hornets a credible long-range counter to the weapons they could face in a future high-end fight.
For aerospace aficionados, it’s like we have entered into an alternate dream reality. The idea that we are seriously talking about the possibility of bringing back the SR-71 Blackbird to flight status is hard to comprehend, but amazingly this is where we are at. The biggest question I am getting about all this is why? We touched on the likely primary answer to that in our original reporting — high-speed is back in tactical vogue, and the Blackbird can sustain it in a realm of great interest, between Mach 3 and 4, and do it over and over again. It can also carry very large things and even launch them off its back at those extreme speeds. But those are not the only potential reasons for taking on such a gargantuan, high-profile, and costly technical challenge. Learning from the journey itself could be just as valuable as the actual flight test data a revived SR-71 produces.
Let me explain.
(NASA)
The Blackbird was as close to alien tech as it gets over 60 years ago, and even today, we have nothing like it in known operation. Yet it has been dormant for nearly three decades. Much of the expertise that built, supported, and operated it is sadly gone. But the exercises of reverse engineering and leveraging breakthroughs in additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping, as well as injecting new material sciences, avionics, propulsion and other technologies where applicable, and above all else, building the digital toolkit to make it all happen as fast and efficiently as it can be done, are all of extreme learning value.
I would not be surprised if a ‘digital twin’ is being created right now of the SR-71 using NASA’s SR-71 tail number 844 — the jet in question that has mysteriously disappeared from its display pad. Once such a model exists, breakthroughs in digital engineering can be brought to bear to see how fast the program can be accelerated, both in terms of development and flight testing. This could include not only getting the SR-71 back in the air, but improving its performance and reliability, possibly substantially, using all the new technologies we have today. It’s even possible a clone of sorts leveraging all these advances could be built using digital engineering tools.
The SR-71 served as an integral part of NASA’s flight test fleet at Dryden Flight Research Center, located on the premises of Edwards AFB. (NASA)
This is not necessarily an unprecedented concept. Just look at similar exploratory engineering programs like the X-55. But when it comes to partially reverse-engineering an airframe you have no support for, and few, if any, spare parts, America’s highly-secretive foreign materiel exploitation (FME) community could potentially lend a hand.
Operating in the shadows, they have been able to not only get totally foreign aircraft divorced from American supply chains pieced back together and flying, but they sustained them for years in total secrecy. They also did this long before the advent of rapid prototyping and digital engineering assets that we have today. Imagine what they can do now. They could be a top source for NASA to pull in to help in its far less sensitive but uniquely similar endeavor. This is just one example of many of how government and industry could come together to support and benefit from the SR-71 resurrection program.
Now, about those supply chains. During its heyday, the SR-71’s logistical tail was one of the most exotic ever created. It supported the Blackbird, as well as its progenitor, the A-12, for the better part of half a century. Reestablishing this supply chain would be a highly challenging, but rewarding exercise that could have major impacts across the aerospace industry, as well as others. So, how can we use all the capabilities we have now to jump-start the sustainment of the highest-performing air vehicle from an era of slide rules and drafting tables?
NASA SR-71 on the ramp in the evening. (NASA)
The idea of putting aircraft out of production back into production is not a foreign one to the U.S. military, either. NASA’s SR-71 program could serve as a pathfinder for better evaluating such proposals and their costs, while pushing the envelope forward on exactly how it can be done efficiently. The same can be said for simply keeping aging aircraft (or any vehicle or system for that matter) operating longer and for cheaper, by applying cutting-edge technologies and practices. NASA can create the playbook for doing so, and that playbook could end up being more valuable than the flight testing a reborn SR-71 does.
I think it’s fairly clear that we have lost something when it comes to aerospace engineering as of late. With all our advances and incredible tools even legendary Skunk Works founder Kelly Johnson could have only dreamed of, it seems like we have to relearn even simple lessons from decades ago, and oftentimes that can be a very expensive, time consuming, and even deadly process. In some ways, it seems like we have gone backward, or at least stalled out in certain engineering areas. The simple things become hard and hard things have become simpler. How did they do so much protractors and pencils way back then? Getting a Blackbird flying again can help explore and possibly answer this and other questions, and help mitigate these deficiencies going forward, as well.
NASA Blackbird tail 844 refueling behind the specialized, JP-7-filled KC-135Qs that supported the program. (NASA)
Even if NASA’s dormant SR-71 never ends up getting back in the air, even attempting such a challenge could be considered a success. Doing so could identify core areas across multiple disciplines that could be improved and areas of existing technology that could be better exploited for a whole array of tasks. It can also develop and refine new technologies in the process. All this sits at the core of NASA’s mission, and there is no vehicle on Earth that could drive people and organizations to give it their all for such a comeback dream as the Blackbird. It’s even possible that we could see corporations or even individuals help foot the bill for it.
And yes, all these benefits need to be weighed against cost. Surely there is a limit to how much the government can invest in such a program. Now corporations and individuals, that’s a different story.
So, yes, the main goal of this effort will likely be high-speed flight testing, but so much can be learned in the journey to get there that it must be quantified in the ‘business case’ for reviving the Blackbird.
The U.S. Air Force is looking at adding a missile warning system (MWS) to its new F-15EX Eagle II fighters. This will give the aircraft a way to optically detect incoming missile threats, especially passively guided ones like heat-seeking infrared-guided missiles, which they currently lack. The continued absence of an MWS has become more pronounced in light of recent combat experiences over Iran.
The F-15EX is derived from earlier F-15 variants that all have MWSs, and it had seemed logical to expect the Eagle II would feature this capability. So it was puzzling when the first examples rolled out without such a system, and no apparent plans to install one on a jet already costing upwards of $100 million. The omission has been glaring for years now, especially given that the aircraft has all the provisions for such a system, including blanked-over spots for the sensors.
The 22nd F-15EX for the US Air Force seen departing Boeing’s plant in St. Louis, Missouri, in August 2026. USAF/Senior Airman Melany Bermudez
Now, the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s (AFLCMC) Fighters & Advanced Aircraft Directorate “is seeking sources for the procurement of an operationally qualified threat missile launch and approach warning system for rapid integration into the United States Air Force (USAF) F-15EX Eagle II fighter aircraft,” per a contracting notice put out yesterday. “The MWS must alert the F-15EX aircrew to the presence of missiles that may threaten the aircraft without unreasonably distracting the aircrew with false alarms.”
As mentioned, the F-15EX is already configured to accommodate an MWS, inside and out, something AFLCMC’s notice emphasizes. This is a result of the Eagle II having been directly derived from the F-15QA variant for Qatar, which itself was an outgrowth of the F-15SA for Saudi Arabia. While many of the F-15EX’s advances come from these aircraft, the first F-15 variant to get an MWS was actually Singapore’s F-15SG. The Advanced Eagle line and the F-15SG are part of Boeing’s extended F-15E Strike Eagle family.
A pair of Qatari F-15QA Advanced Eagles. USAF
“The MWS must use the six (6) pre-existing F-15EX sensor locations, data cables, power cables, and cooling,” the contracting notice says. “It must be easily, safely, rapidly, and organically installable and removable in the field by USAF military aircraft maintenance personnel without requiring any change to aircraft configuration beyond installation of MWS line replaceable units (LRUs) in the six (6) pre-existing locations in the aircraft dedicated for missile warning.”
The most visually prominent of those pre-existing sensor locations are two horn-like sponsons, one on each side of the forward fuselage right below the cockpit canopy. There are two more locations at the ends of the jet’s tail booms. The last two locations are situated so additional sensors can face straight up and down to provide total 360-degree coverage.
A closer look at the nose end of an F-15EX, with the right-side horn-like sponson under the cockpit plainly visible. USAF/Master Sgt. Steph SawyerThe F-15EX also has pre-existing locations for MWS sensors at the ends of its tailplanes, as can be seen in this picture. USAF
The sources sought notice does not mention any specific MWS and invites prospective vendors to submit proposals. It also stresses that the Air Force is still in the “market research” phase of the contracting process and that it “does not constitute [a] solicitation and shall not be construed as a commitment” to buy such a system.
The F-15SA uses the AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System (CMWS), and this system is understood to also be found on the F-15QA. Beyond F-15 variants, versions of the AN/AAR-57, for which BAE Systems is currently the prime contractor, are fielded today on a wide variety of other fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, including various types in U.S. military service. CMWS variants are notably found across the U.S. Army’s AH-64, UH-60, and CH-47 helicopter fleets.
A picture of a Saudi Arabian F-15SA Advanced Eagle. Jamie HunterAnother close-up look at a Saudi F-15SA, offering a particularly good view of one of the aircraft’s missile warning sensors. USAF/Staff Sgt. Isaiah Soliz
All versions of the CMWS consist of several electro-optic missile sensors (EOMS), the number of which varies from platform to platform, linked to a central electronic control unit (ECU). The system is also designed to be integrated into larger defensive suites.
A picture showing five of the electro-optic missile sensors (EOMS) used in the AN/AAR-57, as well as the electronic control unit. BAE Systems
While the AN/AAR-57 is a proven system with years of successful integration on the F-15 and other platforms, it is just one option of the open market today. The Air Force could choose to take another route, possibly with a new system that offers added functionality.
The addition of any MWS will give the F-15EX a valuable, if not increasingly critical, boost in defensive capability. The Eagle II does already have an extremely powerful self-protection suite, including the Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS). However, it is heavily geared toward defending against radar-based threats that pump out signals that can be detected and jammed. Infrared-homing anti-air missiles zero in on their targets passively.
In general, MWSs also typically make use of passive infrared sensors to spot the heat plumes of missile launches and the thermal signatures of those threats as they continue their approach. BAE Systems says current-generation versions of the AN/AAR-57 are sensitive enough to detect infantry anti-armor rockets being launched, as well as small arms fire from the ground, under the right circumstances. Though an MWS is not an active countermeasure unto itself, the early warning it provides gives critical time to deploy flares or employ other defensive capabilities, or just take evasive action.
TWZ touched on all of this last month after The New York Times reported new details about the shootdown of an F-15E Strike Eagle over Iran in April. A shoulder-fired, heat-seeking surface-to-air missile, also known as a man-portable air defense system (MANPADS), is said to have been responsible, though this remains unconfirmed. The Strike Eagle also lacks an MWS. The Times‘ story said that the F-15E’s defensive suite provided the crew with only half a second of warning. As we noted at the time, it would actually have provided no warning given that the Strike Eagle also lacks an MWS.
A picture showing one of the tailfins of the F-15E shot down over Iran in April 2026. Iranian state media
Even before the current conflict with Iran broke out, TWZ had questioned the F-15EX’s lack of this capability given the general focus on increased survivability to match expanding threat ecosystems globally. EPAWSS is already a reflection of that reality, and could be made even more capable when tied together with an MWS. In May, we had reached out to the Air Force about any plans to integrate an MWS onto the F-15EX in light of observations from the ongoing conflict with Iran. The service told us then that it had no details to share. Whether the service now has any plans to add MWSs to the Strike Eagle fleet, which would require more significant integration work, is also unknown.
Buying F-15EX and not springing for the missile approach warning system is absolutely the dumbest thing. $100M fighter, but let's save a few bucks on a key defensive advantage. You are not always going to get a radar spike from a threat, even at altitude.
Infrared homing anti-air missiles, as well as air defense systems that use passive infrared sensors for target detection and cueing, are certainly not threats limited to Iran. In Yemen, Iranian-backed Houthi militants have been making good use of these capabilities for years now, something else we have explored in great detail in the past. The Houthis claimed to have downed a Saudi Arabian F-15 just earlier this month and, per a now-long standing modus operandi, subsequently released video captured through a ground-based forward-looking infrared (FLIR) system as evidence. The group also shared images of the wreckage of what looked to be an F-15SA Advanced Eagle, underscoring the dangers posed even to aircraft equipped MWSs.
Onboard footage of a Houthi SAM system shooting down a Saudi F-15 overnight over Yemen’s Marib province. pic.twitter.com/6mh23B2Ovu
These threats are not limited to the Middle East more broadly, either, and are only increasingly likely to be encountered in future conflicts globally. The emergence of ever-more capable and longer-range anti-air missiles with infrared or dual-mode guidance systems is a significant factor in all this. Expanding use of passive infrared search and track (IRST) systems on aircraft and infrared sensors on ground-based air defense systems are part of this larger equation, as well.
How the Air Force ultimately decided to proceed with the integration of an MWS onto the F-15EX fleet remains to be seen. However, the Eagle II’s lack of this capability is only becoming more striking, especially in light of the conflict with Iran.
The Wall Street Journalreported Wednesday that more than half of Ukraine’s F-16s are currently in what a Western source described as “maintenance limbo.” The same source told the newspaper that, at the current rate of operations and maintenance, Ukraine could exhaust the remainder of its available aircraft by the end of the year.
An F-16 over the Kyiv region on August 18, 2026. The jet carries four Sidewinder missiles, a Sniper targeting pod, and an AN/ALQ-131 electronic countermeasures pod. Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP ROMAN PILIPEY
The Ukrainian Air Force declined to provide the WSJ with figures on the status of the fleet. Open-source analysis suggests that Ukraine may have received around 40-50 F-16s so far. However, a proportion of these are held back for training elsewhere in Europe, while there have been five confirmed losses. Approximately 110 F-16s have now been promised by a coalition comprising Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway.
This is a growing issue, especially because right now F-16s are playing an important role in intercepts of jet powered Geran-4/5. https://t.co/ZtMFBSLAy1
The report follows TWZ’s recent reporting on a separate constraint affecting the F-16 force: Ukraine is struggling to maintain adequate stocks of air-to-air missiles for its fighters. AIM-9 Sidewinders and AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) have been heavily used against Russian cruise missiles and drones, and Ukrainian F-16 pilots have reportedly had to ration their missile shots. Aircraft have increasingly had to rely on their internal 20mm cannon when suitable missiles are not available. This is a far from ideal substitute, as you can read about here, but Kyiv is reportedly now negotiating for tens of thousands of additional rounds of 20mm ammunition.
The moment a Russian jet-powered "Shahed" drone is shot down by an F-16 fighter jet using its M61 Vulcan cannon. pic.twitter.com/gU72HJTXUa
Ukrainian F-16s have apparently been carrying laser-guided 70mm Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rockets, which should provide an extremely valuable, lower-cost option for engaging long-range drones and subsonic cruise missiles. The exact status of this weapon in Ukrainian hands is unclear, but there is so far limited evidence of extensive use by its F-16s, at least in the public domain.
All these problems are closely related because the same high operational tempo that is consuming Ukraine’s missile stocks is also putting additional hours on the already well-worn F-16 airframes.
The aircraft have become a critical important component of Ukraine’s air-defense effort, particularly as Russia has expanded its use of increasingly sophisticated one-way attack drones, as we wrote about only yesterday. WSJ reports that Russia has launched around 2,000 jet-powered drones against Ukraine this month, compared with approximately 350 in June. The newer, jet-powered drones can reportedly reach speeds of up to 375 miles per hour, making them more difficult for Ukraine’s interceptor drones to engage and increasing the importance of conventional fighters. At the same time, the stocks of effectors for ground-based air defense systems are being reduced, in some cases to a critical level, increasing the reliance on crewed fighters to take up the slack.
A Ukrainian drone attempts to intercept a Russian Geran-4 jet-powered drone. GUR
F-16s are well-suited to the counter-drone and counter-cruise missile mission, but using them extensively against large numbers of relatively inexpensive targets presents a difficult sustainment problem. In fact, the lower speed and altitude differential between the F-16 and a jet-powered drone, compared to a propeller-driven one, makes the higher-performance weapon an easier target for the crewed fighter in most scenarios.
However, every sortie adds flight hours to the aircraft, while each missile engagement draws from an inventory that Ukraine and its Western partners have to replenish. As the aircraft accumulate hours, they reach scheduled inspection and maintenance intervals, increasing demand on a maintenance network that is already supporting a fleet operating under wartime conditions.
The United States has established a substantial support arrangement for that purpose. In January, the Pentagon awarded Belgian company Sabena Aerospace Engineering a contract with a ceiling of approximately $235.5 million for intermediate- and depot-level maintenance of Ukrainian F-16 aircraft and engines, together with associated material-management support. The contract runs through January 2029, with approximately $69.7 million initially obligated.
Ukrainian Air Force F-16AM Fighting Falcon departing Belgium after receiving depot-level maintenance earlier this year. pic.twitter.com/Hy35iUZd8P
The contract provides an indication of the scale of the infrastructure required to keep the Ukrainian F-16 fleet operational. It also highlights why the reported turnaround times in Belgium are significant. A typical phase-inspection that would normally take approximately two to six weeks in the United States is reportedly taking as long as 40 weeks in Belgium.
A 40-week turnaround does not necessarily mean that an aircraft spends 40 weeks continuously undergoing a phase inspection. The overall period an aircraft is unavailable can also include waiting for parts, additional repairs, scheduling, and other work. It is unclear exactly how many Ukrainian F-16s are currently affected by these various factors.
U.S. Air Force engine shop where airmen remove the engine of an F-16 during a phase maintenance inspection in the United States. U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Christopher Stewart/Released Master Sgt. Christopher Stewart
At the same time, the reported turnaround times do point to a substantial capacity problem. Ukraine operates a relatively small F-16 fleet, so aircraft that remain unavailable for extended periods have a disproportionate effect on the number of fighters that can actually be generated for combat missions. Its mission spectrum also includes air-to-ground sorties, putting more demand on the hard-pressed F-16 fleet.
F-16 fighters are the best way to counter new Russian jet-powered drones.
Ukrainian F-16 aces have shot down about 2,500 drones of all types and about 650 cruise missiles.
Jet drones are exactly the kind of target F-16s shoot down very well, and it usually costs $25,000 or… pic.twitter.com/ajxYN9K0yK
The F-16s have finite airframe lives, require increasingly substantial inspections as they accumulate hours, and depend on a supply chain for engines, components and other parts. The missiles used to destroy the targets are another finite resource. It should also be recalled that the jets supplied to Ukraine are among the oldest still in operational service. Although upgraded to F-16AM/BM standard, the airframes have accumulated a lot of hours and fatigue.
There is an additional complication with the air-to-air missile inventory, too. AMRAAM is not used only by Ukrainian F-16s, but also employed by its NASAMS ground-based air-defense systems. Sidewinders, too, have both air-launched and surface-launched applications. The same broader Western supply chain therefore has to support both fighter operations and some of Ukraine’s surface-to-air missile systems. Stocks of both AMRAAM and Sidewinder have been eroded by Ukraine, as well as by combat actions in the Middle East.
Southern Ukraine, a Ukrainian NASAMS surface to air missile system intercepts a Russian drone with an (SL)AIM-120B AMRAAM. pic.twitter.com/LTeDDHaECp
At the same time, Ukraine is continuing to receive additional F-16s. Belgium has said it will transfer three more aircraft to Ukraine before the end of this year. More aircraft will increase the potential size of the force, but they will also add to the requirement for spare parts, engines, technicians and depot capacity.
“There is an important agreement with Belgium on the transfer of three F-16 fighter jets by the end of this year,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wrote on X. “We will work to receive these aircraft through an accelerated procedure.”
There is an important agreement with Belgium on the transfer of three F-16 fighter jets by the end of this year. We will work to receive these aircraft through an accelerated procedure. We have already received urgent deliveries of F-16 ammunition from Belgium and other…
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) September 29, 2026
Zelensky said Ukraine had already received “urgent deliveries” of F-16 weapons from Belgium and Spain, among other countries.
The alternatives to the F-16 are also limited in the near term. Ukraine continues to operate the Soviet-era MiG-29 Fulcrum and a small number of Su-27 Flankers, but these aircraft are themselves aging and are also required for strike missions. In their favor, the Soviet types were designed around a different concept of operations, making them easier to maintain in the field, and Ukraine has its own support infrastructure to sustain them.
The French Mirage 2000-5F force provides another Western option, but deliveries have been relatively limited, and additional aircraft are arriving incrementally rather than in numbers that can quickly compensate for a major reduction in F-16 availability. The longer-term fighter replacement plan is more ambitious. Sweden has agreed to provide 16 Gripen C/D fighters, with the first aircraft expected in early 2027, while a separate agreement covers the purchase of 16 new Gripen E fighters whose deliveries are not scheduled to begin until early 2029.
French-delivered Dassault Mirage 2000-5F fighter jet in service of the Ukrainian Air Force during flight somewhere over Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/eBCjtx2Gjc
That leaves the F-16 as the principal Western fighter capability available to Ukraine for the immediate future, increasing the significance of any prolonged disruption to its maintenance pipeline or its supply of air-to-air weapons. Ukraine needs enough aircraft to maintain a meaningful combat presence, enough missiles to arm them for the missions they are being asked to fly, and enough maintenance capacity to keep those aircraft available as their flight hours accumulate.
All this is becoming more important as Russia’s aerial campaign evolves. If the increase in faster jet-powered drones continues, Ukraine may have to devote still more fighter sorties to countering them at the very same time that a large portion of its existing F-16 fleet is reportedly unavailable and its stocks of air-to-air missiles are under serious pressure.
We have officially received our second rendering of Boeing’s F/A-XX concept, which has now officially won the tender, beating out Northrop Grumman to build the Navy’s next-generation stealth fighter. Let’s take a look at what we can see in this new image and discuss what insights it may provide.
Before we start, it’s worth reminding our readers that we are basing this analysis on two publicly released renders of a highly classified aircraft design. There are deliberate choices made in these renderings to obscure critical features and capabilities and mislead foreign intelligence as to the jet’s intended capabilities. So please keep in mind that the details are bound to change. This is also just a preliminary analysis. We will expand on it once we have more time to digest what we are seeing.
The front quarter view of the jet taxiing to a catapult aboard a carrier shows us a very broad, tailless, heavy tactical aircraft. This is a large jet. Clearly internal volume was a driving design factor, as it should be. You can read more about this in our past reporting here.
Boeing’s new F/A-XX render. Boeing
The aircraft is depicted with what appears to be a large single-piece canopy with a cockpit for just a pilot. Visibility to the rear looks limited at best. There has been much speculation about the possibility that F/A-XX will have the provisions for two crewmen in order to better take on its complex roles over long distances — in particular acting as a battle manager, including for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) and other drones. This appears not to be the case, and a high degree of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) will have to help with what will be extremely complex tactical problems the single pilot will face. It’s also worth noting that U.S. Navy carrier air wings have retained two-seat tactical jets for frontline use, with the F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler serving today. If F/A-XX replaces these aircraft, it will be the end of frontline two-seat tactical jet operations for the seagoing service.
Boeing’s only other F/A-XX render, released months ago. Boeing
We see a very broad nose section, which could (and likely would) contain a relatively giant active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. There is also a prominent chine-line edge wrapping around the forward fuselage, which is a normal trait of low-observable (stealthy) aircraft. The nose looks a bit more contoured, similar to the only other rendering we have of Boeing’s F/A-XX, compared to the shovel-like design of the company’s F-47 for the U.S. Air Force. Below the rear of this visible chine-line appears to be the engine intakes, mounted on the sides of the lower fuselage. They look to be a blended trapezoidal arrangement and are also set far back from the nose.
The F/A-XX’s extremely stout landing gear are depicted prominently in this new image, with a twin-wheel nose gear and thick mains. These are customary features for a carrier-based fighter and especially a heavy one like this.
The USAF’s second rendering of Boeing’s F-47. Secretary of the Air Force Publi
The jet’s wings have a positive dihedral just like the F-47 renders, which seems to be something of a trademark of Boeing’s next-generation fighter design. This Klingon Bird of Prey look harkens back to the Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator, which you can read more about here. We also see the wing’s large trailing edge flaps extended, which would be critical to slow-speed terminal operations around the carrier.
Finally, one thing we don’t see clearly is of particular note: the canard foreplanes that have been featured in F-47 imagery, as well as hinted at in Boeing’s only other F/A-XX rendering. It isn’t clear if they may be blended with the fuselage above the inlet areas and are obscured by the steam, or if they simply do not exist in this rendering. The inclusion of canards has been one of the most debated aspects of the F-47 and Boeing’s F/A-XX design, although they seem to make more sense for a naval fighter considering the tailless jet’s low-speed requirements that are needed to fly off the carrier. Again, you can read our past feature about the canards and our follow-up here and here.
The USAF’s first rendering of the Boeing F-47.
While the aircraft clearly shares distinct attributes with the F-47, it isn’t clear exactly how far the commonality between them goes. We could end up with a literal navalized F-47, which would leverage as much efficiency as possible between the two designs, or we could see major design elements and even proportional changes. The requirements imposed by carrier operations do dictate size and weight, to a certain degree. What lives beneath the jet’s skin – hardware and software – will have the most commonality regardless.
There is also the question of the aircraft caught on a thermal imager flying outside of Area 51, which was likely a Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) demonstrator from Boeing, or at least an aircraft related to those efforts based on how unique Boeing’s design clearly is. It’s always possible that the Navy flew its own NGAD demonstration program. The service has been notoriously tight-lipped about its NGAD risk reduction efforts.
The matter of the F/A-XX aircraft’s formal designation is also a question that remains unanswered. If this is a navalized F-47, then F/A-47 could be the jet’s official designation. If it differs substantially, or the Navy just wants to differentiate their design for whatever reason, we could see a different moniker applied. F/A-45 is possible, too, considering the F-47 was partially named in honor of President Trump, who approved the decision to move the Air Force’s program forward. Trump is the 45th and 47th President of the United States.
So, even on this day of long-awaited F/A-XX revelations, it’s also a reminder of just how much we do not know about both the Navy and the Air Force’s NGAD enterprises and their resulting designs, both of which will now be officially brought to you by Boeing.
After blowing past a self-imposed August deadline, the U.S. Navy has finally announced Boeing as the winner of its F/A-XX next-generation carrier-based fighter competition. F/A-XX has become one of the most hotly anticipated U.S. defense procurement decisions in recent memory after the Pentagon tried to shelve the program indefinitely last year.
Boeing had been competing against Northrop Grumman for the F/A-XX contract. An earlier down-select reportedly eliminated Lockheed Martin back in March 2025.
TWZ has now published an initial analysis of Boeing’s winning F/A-XX design based on what can be seen in the new rendering, which you can find here.
As mentioned, the Pentagon had moved to freeze the F/A-XX program in June 2025. Three months earlier, Boeing had won a separate U.S. Air Force competition to produce what is now called the F-47. U.S. military officials had argued that the U.S. industrial base lacked the capacity to support work on two next-generation fighters simultaneously.
A rendering of Boeing’s F-47 for the US Air Force. USAF
Congress subsequently intervened to keep the F/A-XX program running, but its future had remained very murky until earlier this year. In April, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Daryl Caudle said that a winner of the competition would finally be announced in August. Secretary Pete Hegseth and Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao both publicly committed to that same timeline later that month. There had been concerns that the program might have slipped back into limbo after that deadline came and went. Adm. Caudle told Aviation Week‘s Brian Everstine that he himself was no longer aware of when this decision might come on the sidelines of the Tailhook Association’s annual convention last month.
Just two weeks ago, Air Force Gen. Dale White, the service’s Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, reiterated concerns about industrial capacity in response to a question about potential challenges in building F/A-XXs at the same time as F-47s. White also acknowledged that these concerns were “not unique” to F/A-XX and F-47.
In this context, Boeing’s win today is perhaps unsurprising. The company will be able to leverage design work it has already been doing in relation to the F-47 program, as well as relevant production experience and supply chains. TWZ had previously highlighted similarities between what was seen in a rendering the company released of its F/A-XX proposal and official renders of what it is building for the Air Force. We still have yet to learn just how closely related the two designs are.
Boeing’s previously released F/A-XX rendering. Boeing
It is also worth noting here that Boeing previously pushed back publicly on the assertion that it was not ready to meet Air Force and Navy needs at the same time.
Regardless of any industrial base considerations, top Navy officials have been consistently vocal about the need for F/A-XX, even after the Pentagon’s move to put the program on ice last year. The service has presented the next-generation fighters as essential for staying ahead of top global competitors like China and Russia, as well as smaller adversaries, such as Iran.
“I know these things are expensive, and I know the defense industrial base is compressed, but we have got to figure out how to walk and chew gum here with aircraft,” CNO Caudle said in January, just weeks before the start of major combat operations against Iran. “The folks that used to be not in [the] headspace that I needed a stealth aircraft of this level to fly a mission into their country, will gain capability that the F-18 [F/A-18E/F Super Hornet] will not match against.”
A US Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet seen being launched from a carrier. USN
“This is an ever-evolving theme, and when you’ve got partnerships … well coupled with each other across China and Russia and Iran and North Korea, and terrorist groups that are getting that kit from all of those through back-channel ways, our ability to fly with impunity with our existing airframes is fleeting,” he added at that time. “So, if I don’t start building that [F/A-XX] immediately, you’re not going to get it for some time.”
The Pentagon has now issued a full press release for the F/A-XX contract award to Boeing, which is valued at approximately $20 billion. The deal covers the “full-scale development phase” and includes the procurement of “multiple test aircraft for ground, airworthiness, systems, and weapons integration testing.”
“The F/A-XX is a critical pillar in our commitment to maintaining peace through strength. F/A-XX will dominate contested airspace, extend operational reach, and deliver a decisive combat advantage for the warfighter,” Michael P. Duffey, Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment, has said in a statement. “The F/A-XX platform represents a crucial, non-negotiable investment in America’s national security and long-term air combat capabilities. We are joining forces with Boeing to field these capabilities rapidly, ensuring our warfighters possess the lethal and highly networked systems required to deter aggression, project undisputed power, and secure absolute air superiority.”
“This achievement marks a new era for the U.S. Navy,” Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao also said in a statement. “The Sixth-Generation fighter is a generational leap in air superiority and will provide the world’s best aviators with unparalleled capabilities to fight, win, and come home safe. We are excited to partner with Boeing, and for our warfighters to continue to dominate the skies and defeat our nation’s enemies.”
“The F/A-XX will provide advanced carrier-based power projection that extends the range of the most agile and survivable airfields: U.S. Navy carriers. In addition, F/A-XX will be interoperable with manned and unmanned platforms such as Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) and increase the capability of every CCA it teams with,” the press release adds. “Following this contact award announcement, Boeing will deliver the platform to augment and eventually replace legacy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers beginning in the 2030s, and operate alongside the F-35C.”
The Navy has not yet announced a formal designation for the F/A-XX aircraft. If Boeing’s base design does share significant DNA with the F-47, it is possible that the designation for the new sixth-generation carrier-based fighter could reflect that.
It is also worth noting how muted the F/A-XX announcement has been across the board given how hotly anticipated it was. The contrast with the F-47 contract announcement, which was a live-broadcast event headed up by President Donald Trump from White House, is particularly striking.
Update: 6:14 PM ET –
Boeing has now put out its own press release regarding the F/A-XX contract award, which notes that “technical and programmatic details” about the aircraft “remain classified under U.S. national security and export laws.”
“It’s an honor to be selected to produce the Navy’s first sixth–generation platform,” Steve Parker, President and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said in a statement. “Backed by decades of work, bolstered by game-changing innovations and solidified by the investments we’ve made in new facilities uniquely suited to build multiple products with next generation capabilities, our dedicated and talented team is ready to execute this critical program.”
6th-gen edge.
Thank you, @USNavy, for continuing our partnership to design, build and deliver your F/A-XX aircraft. We’re honored to produce the 6th-generation fighter that will revolutionize advancements in naval aviation to maintain U.S. carrier air superiority.
“Delivering two advanced fighters in parallel was always our plan, and we invested accordingly,” Parker added. “We are ready and able to build multiple concurrent future combat aircraft franchise programs.”
Boeing’s release explicitly highlights a major ongoing expansion of its production and other facilities in St. Louis, Missouri. That work is also widely understood to be supporting the F-47 program, asTWZ reported separately just earlier today.
“Investment in facilities is just one part of the story,” Boeing’s Parker also said. “We’re also investing in technology and people so that we can deliver for our customers.”
As an aside, Boeing also received a separate contract today from the Navy, valued at $16,667,607, to support the final shutdown of the production line for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter and EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jet.
Great timing. The same afternoon Boeing gets F/A-XX, the Navy gives them a new contract for shutting down the F/A-18, EA-18 line
Boom times are coming for STL though: F-47, F/A-XX, F-15EX increase, T-7 ramping up, MQ-25. pic.twitter.com/9TnMBC7jMb
Login
(@NOELreports) 
(@PressTV) 
(@DefenceGeek) 
it was with MAYAN41 86-0111 which only recently arrived at RAF Fairford suggesting not a rotation. That's 10 today now. 
