“As part of the presidential airlift acceleration efforts, the Air Force is procuring two aircraft to support training and spares for the 747-8 fleet,” Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokesperson, told TWZ in a statement. “Given [that] the 747-8i is no longer in active production, and is a very different aircraft than the 747-200, it is important for the Air Force to establish an overall training and sustainment strategy for the future Air Force 747-8i fleet.”

The Air Force’s two existing VC-25A Air Force One jets are based on the 747-200, a type that has become increasingly difficult to operate and maintain in recent years. The last 200-series model rolled off Boeing’s production line in 1991. This version is also the basis for the service’s four E-4B Nightwatch ‘doomsday plane’ flying command posts, which are in the process of being separately replaced with E-4C Survivable Airborne Operations Center (SAOC) jets converted from newer 747-8s.

Furthermore, Boeing shuttered the 747 line entirely in 2022. Lufthansa, Korean Air, and Air China are the only airlines that still use 747s of any kind for scheduled passenger flights. A number of other commercial operators continue to fly freighter versions, and a number of specially configured 747s also remain in VIP fleets globally.

“The Air Force is procuring the two aircraft for a total of $400M. We expect the first aircraft to arrive early next year. The second is expected to be delivered before the end of the year,” Stefanek, the Air Force spokesperson, added, though the reasons for the reverse order in delivery of the jets are not clear. She further clarified that one of the aircraft will fly and be used for training purposes, at least initially. The other aircraft will be utilized as a source of spare parts from the start. Air Force One pilot and flight engineer training has previously been contracted out.

Unconfirmed reports that Lufthansa was selling two 747-8s to the Air Force first emerged last week. The aircraft in question reportedly have the registrations D-ABYD and D-ABYG, which have been flying for the German airline since August 2021 and March 2013, respectively. There had been no prior indications that Lufthansa was looking to divest any part of its 747 fleet, and it is unclear how long this deal has been in the works.

“To be clear,  Boeing continues to modify two 747-8i aircraft for the VC-25B program, the first of which is expected to deliver in mid-2028,” Stefanek stressed. “The two aircraft mentioned above are additional aircraft to be used for training and spares.”

As mentioned, the VC-25B program has repeatedly faced delays due to technical and other issues. Earlier this year, the White House confirmed the first of these aircraft was not expected to arrive until sometime in 2029 at the earliest, representing a new schedule slip. The Air Force had originally hoped to take delivery of the first jet in December 2024.

Pushing the timeline to the left to 2028 would notably give President Donald Trump a better chance of flying in one of the VC-25Bs before the end of his second term. Trump has been particularly outspoken and active in regards to the program since before his first term. In December 2016, as president-elect, he had publicly called for the purchase of the two new Air Force One jets to be cancelled. Trump subsequently became a supporter of the program after claiming to have single-handedly been responsible for slashing the cost of the aircraft, though this remains debatable.

He has, however, continued to be critical of the progress, or lack thereof, on the new VC-25Bs. This is said to have contributed to the acquisition of a highly-modified ex-Qatari VVIP 747-8i aircraft earlier this year, ostensibly as a gift from that country to the United States. The process of converting that jet into an ‘interim’ Air Force One, reportedly helmed by L3Harris, began in September. The Air Force has said previously that it expects the conversion to cost less than $400 million. TWZ has previously questioned the feasibility of this plan in detail, given the strenuous operational and other requirements the jet will have to meet to truly serve in the Air Force One role.

With the ex-Qatari jet and the two 747s from Lufthansa, the plans around the future VC-25B fleet have ballooned from two aircraft to five, four of which will be flyable. This also reflects a broader trend under the Trump administration to expand U.S. government executive aircraft operations.

Separate from the VC-25B program, the Air Force’s acquisition of the two 747-8s from Lufthansa highlights broader potential challenges for operating any aircraft based on this design, also including the E-4Cs, as time goes on. It is worth noting here that with no new 747s in production, at least the initial tranche of E-4Cs are being converted from ex-Korean Air jets. Many more 747-200-series jets were made than -8 versions, as well.

Ensuring there is a sufficient logistical base to support the VC-25B and E-4C fleets will be critical going forward, and the secondary market looks set to continue playing an important role.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post USAF Buying Lufthansa 747s To Serve As Future Air Force One Trainers, Spare Parts Sources appeared first on The War Zone.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Capitol Hill on Tuesday to again explain to lawmakers the details of a Sept. 2 attack on a suspected drug boat that also killed the survivors of an initial strike on the vessel. Three more boats were destroyed yesterday in the Operation Southern Spear campaign that began as a counter-narcotics mission but has morphed into one aimed at Maduro.

New imagery emerged on social media Monday showing that at least four more U..S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotankers have joined six aerial refuelers that recently arrived at Aeropuerto Internacional Las Américas in the Dominican Republic. Meanwhile, KC-46 Pegasus tankers have been flying sorties out of the U.S. Virgin Islands for months, with a major ramp-up in activity in recent weeks. As we previously noted, forward deploying the tankers reduces the amount of time needed to fly to the region and thus increases time on station and sortie rates.

In addition, an online airplane tracker using the @LatAmMovements X handle said more C-17 Globemaster III heavy cargo jets have arrived in Ecuador with supplies from Erbil, Iraq. The flight was the latest of several from the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) region bolstering Southern Spear. CENTCOM declined to comment on that effort.

The open-source tracker also found that at least nine C-17s have arrived in Puerto Rico from the Vermont Air National Guard’s 158th Fighter Wing, likely carrying supplies and troops ahead of the looming deployment of an unspecified number of F-35A stealth fighters, which we were the first to report. The Vermont National Guard (VNG) declined to offer any details. Low resolution satellite imagery we obtained shows C-17s in Puerto Rico.

Low resolution satellite imagery showed C-17s on the ground in Puerto Rico. We also found that , with a major ramp-up in activity in recent weeks.

The new tankers and cargo planes join a growing aerial armada that includes combat search and rescue (CSAR) aircraft, E/A-18G electronic warfare jets, Marine Corps F-35B and AV-8B Harrier II fighters, MQ-9 Reapers and AC-130 Ghostrider gunships and various helicopters already in the region.

As for the Navy, an official told us Tuesday morning that no new ships have joined the 11 already there, including the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier.

Beyond equipment, U.S. Southern Command continues to expand its footprint in the region. On Monday, Trinidad and Tobago agreed to allow the U.S. military to use its airports for Southern Spear. That follows an earlier deployment by the U.S. Marine Corps of an AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar (G/ATOR), a modern road-mobile multi-purpose AESA radar that can be used for air defense and more general air traffic control purposes.

Amid all these aircraft movements, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a new Notice To Airmen (NOTAM) warning them to “exercize caution” in and around Venezuelan airspace.

“OPERATORS ARE ADVISED TO EXERCISE CAUTION WHEN OPERATING IN THE MAIQUETIA FLIGHT INFORMATION REGION (SVZM FIR) AT ALL ALTITUDES DUE TO THE WORSENING SECURITY SITUATION AND HEIGHTENED MILITARY ACTIVITY IN OR AROUND VENEZUELA,” according to the NOTAM. “THREATS COULD POSE A POTENTIAL RISK TO AIRCRAFT AT ALL ALTITUDES, INCLUDING DURING OVERFLIGHT, THE ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE PHASES OF FLIGHT, AND/OR AIRPORTS AND AIRCRAFT ON THE GROUND.”

That move came after a Jet Blue airliner had a close encounter with a U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker near Venezuela on Friday. The FAA issued a similar NOTAM last month.

On the economic front, the Trump administration is reportedly planning to take control of more oil tanker ships in the wake of the seizure of the M/T/ Skipper last week. The goal is to deprive Maduro of revenues gained from oil sales.

There are upwards of 18 sanctioned oil-laden ships in Venezuela’s waters now, Axios reported. “Eight are classified as ‘Very Large Cargo Container ships’ like Skipper, which can carry nearly 2 million barrels of Venezuelan crude, according to Samir Madani, co-founder of the firm Tanker Trackers that monitors global shipping.”

So far, Trump has opted against moving into Venezuelan waters to seize any of these vessels, but that could soon change, Axios noted.

“We have to wait for them to move. They’re sitting at the dock. Once they move, we’ll go to court, get a warrant and then get them,” a Trump adviser told Axios. “But if they make us wait too long, we might get a warrant to get them” in Venezuelan waters.

While the Trump administration continues to insist that Southern Spear is directed at stemming the flow of drugs into the U.S., The New York Times on Tuesday suggested Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and competition from China are the real motivating factors.

“Venezuela and its oil lie at the nexus of two of Mr. Trump’s stated national security priorities: dominance of energy resources and control of the Western Hemisphere,” the newspaper noted. “Venezuela has about 17 percent of the world’s known oil reserves, or more than 300 billion barrels, nearly four times the amount in the United States. And no nation has a bigger foothold in Venezuela’s oil industry than China, the superpower whose immense trade presence in the Western Hemisphere the Trump administration aims to curb.”

In its recently published China’s Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean, Beijing repeated its stance that it has a valid economic stake in the region and does not want to have its access cut off.

Against this backdrop, Hegseth and Rubio provided closed-door briefings to the Senate (SASC) and House Armed Services Committees (HASC) about the Sept. 2 boat strike. It was the first of nearly two dozen such attacks that have so far killed almost 90 people. These attacks – and especially the follow-up one on Sept. 2 that killed survivors – have been strongly condemned by various parties.

Hegseth promised to provide the committees with full versions of the video feed from that attack. Only snippets have been publicly released so far.

The full video of that attack will remain classified and won’t be shown to the public, Hegseth proclaimed. He also justified the boat attack campaign.

Southern Spear has been “a highly successful mission to counter designated terrorist organizations, cartels, bringing weapons – meaning drugs – to the American people and poison the American people for far too long,” Hegseth told reporters gathered at the Capitol. “So we’re proud of what we’re doing…”

Hegseth’s comments came a day after Trump issued an executive order declaring fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction, a move that could possibly widen the administration’s ability to take action against Maduro, who has a $50 million bounty on his head as a fugitive wanted on U.S. drug charges. However, while Trump and his aides have insisted Southern Spear is aimed mainly at stopping drug trafficking, “Venezuela is not a drug producer, and narcotics smuggled through the country mostly go to Europe,” The New York Times noted.

In a somewhat surprising exchange, Wiles, the president’s chief of staff, suggested getting rid of Maduro may be the real reason Trump is expending so many resources and so much political capital in the Caribbean.

“Over lunch, Wiles told me about Trump’s Venezuela strategy,” Vanity Fair reporter Chris Whipple wrote Tuesday in the second part of an exclusive interview with one of Trump’s closest advisors. Wiles told the magazine that “He wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle. And people way smarter than me on that say that he will.” The story continued, stating “Wiles’s statement appears to contradict the administration’s official stance that blowing up boats is about drug interdiction, not regime change.”

Trump’s true motivations and how he will act on them remain unknown. On Friday, he repeated his refrain that he may soon order strikes against drug traffickers on land in addition to those at sea. Meanwhile, some 15,000 U.S. troops who have surged to the region continue to wait for orders.

Update: 7:49 PM Eastern –

In a post on Truth Social, Trump offered the clearest indication of his motives and terms for the Caribbean build-up and how Venezuela’s oil reserves play a role.

“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America. It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us,” Trump wrote. “The illegitimate Maduro Regime is using Oil from these stolen Oil Fields to finance themselves, Drug Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Murder, and Kidnapping. For the theft of our Assets, and many other reasons, including Terrorism, Drug Smuggling, and Human Trafficking, the Venezuelan Regime has been designated a FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.”

Trump also ordered  “A TOTAL AND COMPLETE BLOCKADE OF ALL SANCTIONED OIL TANKERS going into, and out of, Venezuela, however, he did not provide details of how that will work. We reached out to the White House for more information.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The post More KC-135 Tankers Deploy To The Caribbean appeared first on The War Zone.

TWZ obtained satellite images of where the attack occurred in Novorossiysk from Vantor (formerly Maxar Technologies). Additional imagery from Planet Labs has also been circulating online.

The satellite imagery confirms that the UUV — named by the SBU as a Sub Sea Baby, a previously unknown type — detonated off the stern of the submarine, which was at a pier in the port of Novorossiysk. A substantial chunk of the pier itself was destroyed in the attack. This all aligns with video footage shot during the attack from a position on the ground nearby, which the SBU released yesterday.

The post-strike imagery shows that the Improved Kilo class submarine, also known as a Project 636.3 Varshavyanka class type, is in the same position as it was before the attack. Two other submarines that were moored nearby when the attack occured have moved. Other submarines and ships are still in the moorings, including on the outside edge of the damaged pier.

Some of the imagery available now suggests that the submarine that was attacked may now be sitting lower in the water, but that can’t be readily confirmed. Any damage below the waterline would also not be visible in the images. At the same time, there are also no clear signs of any emergency measures having been taken to keep it afloat, or to contain the leakage of oil or other potentially hazardous fluids, as one might expect to see if the damage was severe.

Based on the estimated length of what is visible of the submarine, some observers have noted that the epicenter of the explosion looks to have been less than 65 feet from the stern. The size and configuration of the Sub Sea Baby’s warhead, as well as other details about the UUV and its capabilities, remain scant.

It’s also worth noting that wider views of the port of Novorossiysk following the attack show four Project 636 submarines still present. There is nothing definitive to indicate that the targeted boat might have been replaced by another to conceal the extent of the damage.

For its part, the Russian Ministry of Defense had unsurprisingly denied that any damage was inflicted on the submarine or to any personnel at the port. The ministry has released a video that it claims shows the undamaged boat, but does not offer a view of the stern end. The background is also heavily censored. Even so, it does still reveal what looks like piles of broken concrete debris left on the pier after the explosion, which was clearly visible in the SBU’s video of the attack, as well as in the satellite imagery available now.

The press service of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which operates the submarine, also denies any damage to its vessels. This is also consistent with reports from various Russian naval monitoring channels on social media, but clear corroborating evidence has yet to emerge.

Overall, at this stage, we still cannot say with any authority what degree of damage, if any, the submarine may have actually sustained.

On the other hand, the attack does show Ukraine was at least able to slip a UUV into a heavily defended harbor, in daylight, and detonate its warhead only a few dozen or so feet away from a prized Russian submarine worth, according to the SBU, around $400 million.

At least one Ukrainian UUV was therefore notably able to penetrate past barriers erected at the mouth of the port, intended specifically to protect the vessels within. It’s worth noting, however, that the defensive barriers Russia has already built around ports were primarily put there in response to Ukraine’s uncrewed surface vessel (USV) campaign. This underscores the significance of the use of a UUV in this attack, as another example of the steady adaptation of weapons systems and tactics in response to countermeasures that has become a particular hallmark of the conflict in Ukraine.

With that in mind, Russia is likely to introduce new countermeasures against this particular mode of attack, one which Ukraine has spent some time developing.

The results of yesterday’s attack, while inconclusive for now, will likely spur further such developments in Ukraine, as well. Before SBU targeted the submarine in Novorossiysk, Ukraine had unveiled a UUV dubbed Marichka, designed to launch kamikaze attacks against ships and maritime infrastructure. At least one other Ukrainian UUV, known as Toloka, has previously been disclosed. It’s unclear if either of these has any relationship to the Sub Sea Baby.

Video of the Toloka UUV:

Furthermore, the attack confirms that the Black Sea Fleet is very much still a prime target for Ukraine. This applies especially to the submarines like the Project 636 types and corvettes that are able to launch Kalibr long-range cruise missiles. These weapons have been regularly used in Russia’s nightly barrages launched against targets across Ukraine.

Already, Ukrainian naval actions had forced the Black Sea Fleet to retreat from bases on the occupied Crimean Peninsula to Novorossiysk. Attacks in Crimea were also prosecuted against another Improved Kilo class submarine. In September 2023, the Rostov-on-Don was severely damaged during a combined missile and USV attack on Sevastopol. Ukraine later claimed it was destroyed.

At the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Black Sea Fleet had a total of six Project 636 submarines available.

Other navies around the world will likely have watched yesterday’s attack with interest.

As well as the United States, China and many other nations are developing their own UUVs for missions like this one.

UUVs are able to attack vessels and other targets at long distances and can be launched from submarines and motherships, further extending their range. They can also be used for surveillance and mine laying, among other duties. You can read more about these vessels in various TWZ stories here.

Ultimately, whether or not the Russian submarine was damaged, the attack has demonstrated once again that the war in Ukraine is a crucible for the development of new military technologies, especially uncrewed ones.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Aftermath Of Ukraine’s Underwater Drone Attack On Russian Submarine Seen In Satellite Imagery appeared first on The War Zone.

The 737 BBJ in question, a 737-8 model, currently has the U.S. civil registration number N471US. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) public database shows the jet has been registered with that number to a company called Valkyrie Aviation Holding Group, LLC, since October. The address given for Valkyrie in the database is an office in Arlington, Virginia, just across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C.

As seen in pictures at the top of this story and below, which were taken this past weekend at Washington’s Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, N471US currently has a red, white, and blue livery. “United States of America” is written prominently in large lettering on either side of the forward fuselage. “Independence” is also written in much smaller font on both sides of the fuselage, right under the cockpit, a spot where aircraft nicknames are often printed. A large American flag, depicted blowing in the wind, is featured on both sides of the tail.

As noted already, a relatively large DHS seal fitted to a bulkhead inside the cabin is visible through an open door in one picture. The jet’s exact internal configuration at present is unknown, something we will come back to later on.

As mentioned, N471US’s general external look is very much in line with what President Donald Trump had picked for the pair of forthcoming Boeing 747-8i-based VC-25B Air Force One aircraft during his first term. President Joe Biden subsequently reversed that decision, bringing back plans to paint those jets in the same iconic, Kennedy-era livery as the current VC-25A Air Force Ones. In August, the Air Force told Inside Defense it was “implementing a new livery requirement for VC-25B,” but did not elaborate.

Almost as quickly as it emerged at National Airport in D.C., N471US departed for points overseas, according to online flight tracking data. The jet arrived in Jordan’s capital Amman yesterday, having made at least one stop at Chania International Airport on the Greek island of Crete along the way. Chania International Airport also serves as an important hub for U.S. military forces operating in Europe and the Middle East, with facilities there under the oversight of the U.S. Navy’s Naval Support Activity Souda Bay.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s lone C-37B, a version of the Gulfstream G550 business jet, also departed from National Airport in D.C. on December 14 and arrived in Amman yesterday after stopping in Chania. That aircraft had arrived in both locations just ahead of N471US, lending credence to a direct connection between the two flights, and underscoring the 737 BBJ’s links to DHS.

The Coast Guard currently falls under the purview of DHS. The service’s C-37B, also known as a Long Range Command and Control Aircraft (LRCCA), is regularly used as a VIP transport for the Secretary of Homeland Security and other senior departmental leaders, as well as top Coast Guard leadership. The LRCCA is based at Coast Guard Air Station Washington, which is collocated with National Airport.

Flight tracking data shows N471US left Amman today and flew to Zayed International Airport in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The Coast Guard’s C-37B also made the same trip. Who has been flying on either aircraft since they left D.C. on Sunday, and why, is unknown. TWZ reached out to DHS yesterday morning for more information about N471US, but we have not yet received a response. We have also reached out to the White House.

N471US itself, which has the Boeing manufacturer serial number 61329, is a known quantity. The jet, which has been flying since July 2021, is curiously still listed for sale on Avjet Global’s website at the time of writing. Avjet’s site and an accompanying brochure show the plane in a previous taupe-over-brown paint scheme. It is also described as having “low hours with 672 TT [hours total time]” and “154 landings.”

Avjet’s brochure says the jet has a “5 zone VVIP cabin configuration” designed to accommodate 17 passengers. Accompanying pictures show an extremely luxurious interior layout that includes two suites with full-size beds and a master bathroom with a shower stall, among many other amenities. Whether any changes have since been made to the aircraft’s internal configuration is unknown, but there are no indications that it has. It would be expensive and time-consuming to make major changes to the core internal layout. Doing so would also call into question the basic rationale for any buyer to select this particular low-time VIP aircraft rather than a 737 in a more basic configuration, to begin with.

The 737 BBJ, then flying with the civil registration number N702F, was tracked flying from Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada, to Dallas Love Field in Texas, between September 23 and 24. It then flew to Ardmore Municipal Airport in Oklahoma, to the north of Dallas. It has been pointed out that Ardmore is home to a branch of King Aerospace, which has a long history of heavy maintenance and deep modification work, with a particular focus on the 737 family. King offers a variety of services related to VVIP 737s. The company also routinely secures U.S. government contracts for maintenance and other support for other 737-based aircraft with more specialized configurations.

The jet was not tracked again until October 31, when it flew with the N471US registration number from Ardmore to Chennault International Airport in Lake Charles, Louisiana. This airport has also been tied to the maintenance and repainting of U.S. government aircraft.

N471US returned to Ardmore on November 21. The aircraft conducted multiple local flights to and from the airport on December 10, according to Flightradar24. Observers have already noted this could have been for flight testing and/or crew training purposes.

Flight tracking data shows N471US flew to Joint Base Andrews just outside Washington, D.C., home to the VC-25A Air Force One jets and other members of the Air Force’s VIP aircraft fleets, on December 11. It is worth noting here that the U.S. Air Force, as well as the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps, operate militarized 737 variants as personnel transports, which are often used by senior leaders, as well as Congressional delegations.

On December 12, N471US then made a circuitous trip to the Grissom Aeroplex in Peru, Indiana, by way of the St. Louis, Missouri, area, much further to the west, where it did not land. The Grissom Aeroplex is collocated with Grissom Air Reserve Base, a major hub for Air Force Reserve aerial refueling tankers. It then returned to the Washington, D.C. area on December 13, where it was spotted at National Airport.

Altgoether, there are clear signs that N471US is now flying as a VIP transport for one or more entities under the DHS umbrella, possibly as part of a contractor-owned and/or operated arrangement. The U.S. federal government as a whole has historically operated a mix of government and contractor-owned and operated aircraft to support the travel demands of senior officials.

It had emerged earlier in the year that the U.S. Coast Guard was looking to replace its older Gulfstream V-based C-37A jet, which the service has been flying since 2002. Like its C-37B, the Coast Guard also refers to its C-37A as a Long Range Command and Control Aircraft (LRCCA), and performs the same general slate of missions. The service received the C-37B second-hand from the Air Force in 2022 after a deep refurbishment.

DHS subsequently confirmed plans to supplant both of the Coast Guard’s C-37s with newer Gulfstream 700-series jets modified with the requisite secure communications suite and other systems needed for their VIP mission. The total price tag for both of those aircraft has been pegged at between $170 and $200 million. DHS, and particularly Secretary Kristi Noem, has faced criticism for these plans for various reasons, including disputes over funding and for entering into the contract to buy the jets during the recent government shutdown. DHS has pushed back on that criticism, saying that acquiring newer jets is critical to meeting current and future mission requirements, and doing so safely and reliably. DHS’s top leadership does have particular demands to travel with access to specialized and secure communications, given the role the department has in larger continuity of government plans. The U.S. government has various measures in place to ensure it can continue to function in the event of any number of severe contingency scenarios, including major hostile attacks or severe natural disasters.

As a general observation, complaints about the misuse of U.S. government aircraft are leveled at senior federal officials, as well as members of Congress from both parties, with some regularity.

There have been no reports previously of DHS plans to acquire a 737 to further expand its VIP transport capacity. However, DHS confirmed to The Washington Post just last week that it had recently entered into a $140 million contract with a company called Daedalus Aviation for the purchase of six 737s to support ICE deportation activities. This followed a report from The Wall Street Journal in November that ICE attempted to buy 10 737s via Spirit Airlines for this purpose earlier in the year. That plan is said to have fallen through when it became apparent that Spirit did not actually own the aircraft in question, which also had no engines.

More broadly speaking, President Donald Trump’s administration has faced intense legal and other scrutiny, as well as broader criticism and controversy, over how it has been carrying out deportation flights, as well as its overall immigration policies. Public polling in the United States has consistently shown general support for stauncher measures against illegal immigration, but not necessarily for how the Trump administration is proceeding at present.

What connection Daedalus Aviation may or may not have to Valkyrie Aviation is unknown, but the latter company did reserve seven other N numbers (N473US, N474US, N475US, N476US, N477US, N478US, and N479US) on October 27, according to the FAA’s database. A search of entries tied to Valkyrie in the database also turns up N472US, a Gulfstream G650 business jet, which is now said to be registered to a company called Vigilant Aviation Holdings LLC with an address in Lewes, Delaware. Valkyrie also interestingly reserved N702F, the registration number previously applied to N471US, on November 13.

Overall, observers have already pointed out that N471US looks to have a configuration ill-suited to conducting deportation flights, just from a practical perspective, and a VIP role for that jet still seems far more likely. At the same time, rolling it in with the acquisition of a fleet of less luxurious 737s intended primarily to serve in the deportation role would not necessarily be surprising. Whatever deal DHS may have with Valkyrie could also be an entirely separate arrangement from the one it has with Daedalus. Regardless, all of this could easily fuel new criticism around DHS’s recent aviation acquisition efforts.

In the meantime, N471US is continuing its trip overseas on what looks to be its first major flight in its present role, and more details about the plane and how it is being utilized may now start to emerge. From what we’re seeing now, it certainly looks like DHS’s new 737 fleet includes at least one aircraft fully equipped as a luxurious VIP transport.

Special thanks to David Lee for sharing pictures he took of N471US at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport this past weekend with us.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Mystery Surrounds Luxury 737 That Appears To Be Flying For Department Of Homeland Security appeared first on The War Zone.

A product of the Shaanxi Aircraft Corporation, the Y-30 (the alternative Y-15 designation has also been proposed) is expected to be a partial replacement for the same company’s Y-9 four-turboprop transport. Video and photos of the new aircraft began to circulate on social media for the first time today. The aircraft is reportedly flying from the Xi’an Aircraft Corporation (XAC) airfield in the city of Xi’an in central China, with XAC having been absorbed by Shaanxi.

While a new Chinese medium/heavy airlifter had been anticipated for some time, there was speculation that it would be powered by a pair of turbofan engines: The result would have been something like a scaled-down Y-20, with a shorter fuselage and a new wing, somewhat similar in concept to the Kawasaki C-2. In the event, the so-called Y-30 is powered by four turboprops, meaning it looks much more like the Airbus A400M, although it would appear to be in a different class to the European transport.

Other features in common with the A400M include the wide fuselage, offering useful internal volume, especially compared to the Y-9, a rear loading ramp, and heavy-duty landing gear, which should make it suitable for operating out of short, poorly prepared landing strips. Like the Airbus transport, the Y-30 has a T-tail empennage, but its high-lift wing is not swept. The wingtips of the Chinese design additionally feature winglets, which improve fuel efficiency by reducing drag and increasing lift. There is a suggestion that the aircraft might also have asymmetric fuselage-side sponsons, a feature of the C-17 that you can read about here; on the other hand, this may just be a feature of the AI-enhanced version of one of the images.

The Y-30 is reportedly powered by either WJ-10 or WJ-16 turboprops, which are said to develop 6,800 horsepower or 5,140 horsepower each, respectively. While the A400M’s engines drive distinctive eight-bladed ‘scimitar’ propellers, the Y-30, at least at this stage, has more conventional six-bladed props.

Both the WJ-10 and WJ-16 are notably less powerful than the 11,000-horsepower Europrop TP400-D6 engines used in the A400M, suggesting an aircraft that is smaller overall and with a more limited load capacity, closer to the C-130J Hercules. This would make sense, since the A400M, as you can read about here, was designed as a gap-filler between the C-130 at the smaller end of the transport segment, and the larger C-17 Globemaster III at the other end.

With China already building the Y-20 as a broad equivalent to the C-17, the Y-30 is likely intended to be more of an equivalent to the C-130/Y-9, probably slightly larger than the Hercules, rather than being a ‘mid-market’ transport like the A400M.

Unconfirmed accounts suggest the Y-30 will have a payload capacity of around 30 metric tonnes (around 66,000 pounds), which compares with around 145,000 pounds for the Y-20, 82,000 pounds for the A400M, 55,000 pounds for the Y-9, and 47,000 pounds for the C-130J-30.

In keeping with its test status, the Y-30 seen in the imagery available so far features a long air-data boom on the nose. This boom is used to obtain data on air pressure, temperature, and airflow direction, etc., vital for flight-testing. There is no sign of an aerial refueling probe, although this may well be added in the future, as was the case with certain variants of the Y-9.

In fact, the Y-30 first appeared in model form at the Zhuhai Airshow, back in 2014, after which the project went quiet.

Currently, according to Western estimates, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) operates around 24 Y-9s in a transport role, together with 80 of the older Y-8 four-turboprop transports.

The PLAAF is rapidly introducing the Y-20, which is expected to eventually replace the roughly 26 Soviet-designed Il-76 Candid transports that remain in use. Indeed, by now, Y-20 numbers already eclipse those of the hard-worked Il-76.

Meanwhile, should the Y-30 prove successful, it will presumably supplant the Y-9 and allow the retirement of the aging Y-8 fleet.

While the Y-20 offers truly strategic range to support PLA operations (and humanitarian missions) around the globe, a modern turboprop-powered transport like the Y-30 would be especially well-suited to operations from more dispersed and even austere bases. For example, the new airlifter could fly troops and equipment in and out of China’s island outposts, as well as conduct airdropping as part of any future effort to retake Taiwan; it would also be of notable value during a conflict involving India.

As well as its core transport role, it might be expected that the Y-30 could eventually be adapted for special missions, as has been the case with the Y-8 and Y-9. Between them, dozens of electronic warfare, maritime patrol, and airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft have been produced for the PLA on these airframes, in numerous different sub-variants. On the other hand, with the Y-9 now well-proven as a special missions platform, it could be the case that continued production of this type will fulfill these niche roles, while the Y-30 production run is dedicated to transports.

It is worth noting that the PLAAF’s ability to conduct airborne assault operations is a relatively recent addition to its core missions. It was only in the 1990s that the Airborne Corps was transformed into a division, and its overall strength was boosted. At the same time, the first Il-76 transports were delivered, but for a long time these remained the extent of the PLAAF’s rapid-reaction transport force. Paratroopers operating as part of a combined-arms force are also a relatively new addition and part of the PLA’s wider modernization.

In terms of airlift capacity, the Y-20 has more recently spearheaded this continued transformation, and the Y-30 looks set to continue the process.

Like other Chinese designs, the Y-30 also has the major advantage of being immune to the tight export restrictions that typically apply to Western designs in the same class. Beijing would be likely to grant export licenses for the transport to countries that might be prohibited from buying a Western design, something that was the case with the Y-9, exported to Myanmar and Namibia, for example. Meanwhile, other markets could also provide an opportunity for the Y-30, as China becomes a more relevant competitor to the West across the military aviation segment.

Overall, the appearance of the Y-30 tops off a remarkable year for China’s military aircraft industries. The last 12 months have also seen the flying debuts, at least in the public realm, of two new combat jets, various collaborative combat aircraft (CCA)-type drones, at least three flying-wing type drones, a ‘drone mothership,’ an advanced jet trainer, a new AEW&C platform, as well as crewed and uncrewed tiltrotors, and coaxial helicopter concepts.

Given the rate at which new Chinese aircraft designs are appearing, it would be wise not to bet against further revelations before this year is out.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post China’s ‘Y-30’ Turboprop Airlifter Spotted For The First Time appeared first on The War Zone.

Multiple reports indicate that India and Oman have come to a deal that will put an undisclosed number of former Omani Jaguars into Indian hands. Starting in 1977, the Royal Air Force of Oman (RAFO) received a total of 27 British-made Jaguars, comprising 20 single-seaters, five two-seaters, and two ex-U.K. Royal Air Force aircraft used as attrition replacements. At least 13 of these were involved in various accidents, which would leave a maximum of ‘intact’ airframes at 14 for India. Potentially, some further components could also be harvested from Omani aircraft that were written off while in service.

As for the IAF, the service selected the Jaguar for its Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft (DPSA) in 1978 and received 18 aircraft from U.K. Royal Air Force stocks as ‘interim’ equipment, 40 ‘flyaway’ aircraft direct from British Aerospace (BAe), plus around 128 more that were license-built in India under a transfer-of-technology agreement with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).

The ex-Omani jets won’t be inducted into IAF service but will be broken down into spare parts to support the aging but still in-demand Indian Jaguar inventory. TWZ contributor and IAF historian Angad Singh told us that the jets will be dismantled in Oman and then shipped to India for ease of transport.

The IAF’s demand for increasingly hard-to-find Jaguar spares saw India turn to France in 2018–19. France, which retired its last Jaguars in 2005, shipped 31 complete airframes plus various spare parts to India, with New Delhi paying only for the cost of transport.

These airframes and spares are being used to support the IAF’s current six Jaguar squadrons, each of which has between 18 and 20 aircraft on strength. However, the fleet is being slowly eroded by attrition, with three Jaguar losses this year alone.

The last new Jaguar to be built in India came off the HAL production line in 2008; British and French production had long since ceased by this date. Since then, obtaining spare parts and components, including new or refurbished engines, has become much more complex. Already, India is reportedly having to cannibalize some aircraft to keep the others in the air.

Further evidence of the importance of the Jaguar to the IAF’s plans comes from the continued efforts to upgrade the jets, the oldest of which are now around 45 years old.

At the center of this effort is the Display Attack Ranging and Inertial Navigation (DARIN) modernization program for the Indian Jaguars, which first began in the 1980s and which has since progressed through three rounds of upgrades.

The first of these, DARIN I, kept the Jaguar’s original ‘chisel’ nose profile but added a new Sagem navigation/attack system, a combined map and electronic display, and a head-up display and weapon-aiming computer. A new Mil Std 1553B databus was added, making it easier to integrate new weapons and sensors. This would pay dividends during the 1999 Kargil War with Pakistan, during which Jaguars employed laser-guided bombs.

Starting in the early 2000s, DARIN II changed the nose profile, with a new Thales laser targeting and designation system fitted. Other new additions included an Israeli-made Elbit head-up display, an inertial navigation/GPS system, and a multifunction display in the cockpit. Self-protection was enhanced with an Israeli-made Elta EL/L-8222 jammer, locally made Tarang radar warning receivers, and new countermeasures dispensers. New weapons included the ASRAAM air-to-air missile and the Textron CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapon.

In a category of their own are India’s Jaguars tasked with maritime strike. These were originally fitted with a radar nose accommodating an Agave radar, used in conjunction with Sea Eagle anti-ship missiles. Under DARIN II, these items were replaced with the Elta EL/M-2032 and the AGM-84 Harpoon Block II, respectively.

The most significant of the upgrades is DARIN III, begun in 2008, which includes a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, the Israeli-made Elta EL/M-2052. The Jaguar became the first Indian combat jet to feature an AESA, and you can read more about the upgrade here.

The DARIN III program, led by HAL and informed by the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft program, saw the first flight of an upgraded Jaguar in 2012, but thereafter it suffered significant delays. Issues included integration of the locally developed open-system-architecture mission computer as well as a re-engining effort, which planned to replace the original Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour afterburning turbofans with Honeywell F125-INs. Replacement engines were finally canceled in 2019, after they were judged to be too expensive.

Other advanced DARIN III features include a fully ‘glass’ cockpit with three multifunction displays, an engine and flight instrument system (EFIS) digital display, and a digital head-up display. Also new is the Elbit Display and Sight Helmet (DASH), which is used to cue the ASRAAM missile. The ASRAAM, like the Magic 2 before it, is carried on the Jaguar’s unique overwing missile pylons.

The DARIN III program is planned to extend the life of at least some of the Indian Jaguars until 2050. However, the initial phase-out of the aircraft will begin before then. As Singh explained, the oldest (British-made) jets will not undergo the full upgrade, meaning that at least two of the IAF’s six Jaguar squadrons are due to disband in the near future.

Even the India-made HAL jets are now getting long in the tooth, but with examples still going through the DARIN III upgrade, at least some of them will be able to see out another 10 years or more of service.

“The Jaguar is still useful as a strike aircraft, and has been kept relevant with upgrades to electronic warfare, nav-attack systems, standoff weapons, and so on,” Singh told TWZ.

The fact that New Delhi has pressed on with upgrades to the Jaguar is a testament to the rugged reliability and precision-attack capabilities of the jet, despite its age, but it also points to underlying problems in the IAF, especially in terms of the size of its combat jet fleet.

Faced with the dual threats of Pakistan and China, the Indian government has said that the IAF needs at least 42 squadrons of combat aircraft. Currently, it has just 29, meaning the service is operating its smallest combat force since it went to war with China in 1962. The retirement of the veteran MiG-21 Fishbed has not helped matters in this regard.

Meanwhile, India’s plans to buy new off-the-shelf fighters are going nowhere fast.

After buying 36 Dassault Rafales, India announced a requirement for 114 fighters, initially specifying single-engine types. Subsequently, the competition appeared to be wide open, with the F-15EX, for example, now also being offered to India, and with the Rafale and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet also in the running. If India decides to procure another single-engine fighter, after all, the Indian-specific F-21 configuration of the F-16 is also a viable candidate. But with no decision made, and with homegrown combat aircraft programs also proceeding slowly, the ‘squadron gap’ is only set to grow.

“The Indian Air Force is at 70 percent of its planned 42-squadron fighter strength — a number that was arrived at in the 1960s and will only be revised upward on any fresh assessment. Given this dire situation, the brass simply has no choice but to keep aircraft around, no matter how old,” Singh concluded.

Faced with this stark reality, it is less surprising that India is now searching far and wide for spare parts that will ensure its prized Jaguars can see out their service life as maintaining them becomes ever more of a challenge.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post India Can’t Give Up Its Jaguar Strike Aircraft appeared first on The War Zone.

The SBU released a video it says shows the submarine docked at Novorossiysk along with several other ships. The video pans from right to left and at about the 16-second mark, the submarine erupts in an explosion. That means the UUV, which is not visible in the video, was able to navigate a packed harbor to strike a specific vessel. While we cannot independently verify the SBU claim about the use of a UUV in the strike, they did confirm that assertion to us directly.

Russia, meanwhile, denies any damage was caused by the attack.

‘The information disseminated by special services of Ukraine about the alleged ‘destruction’ of one of the Russian submarines in the bay of the Black Sea Fleet’s Novorossiysk naval base does not correspond to reality,” the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) claimed on Telegram. “Not a single ship or submarine as well as the crews of the Black Sea Fleet stationed in the bay of the Novorossiysk naval base were damaged as a result of the sabotage. The watercraft serve normally.”

Today’s UUV attack appears to be the culmination of Ukraine’s development of these weapons and once again shows that the war-torn country is at the forefront of modern drone warfare innovation. Little is known about the Sub Sea Baby UUV, not to be confused with the highly adaptable Sea Baby uncrewed surface vessels (USVs) that have wreaked havoc on the Russian Navy.

Ukraine is developing several UUVs, at least that we know of. It released images in September 2023 of a UUV dubbed Marichka, designed to launch kamikaze attacks against ships and maritime infrastructure. That followed the announcement earlier that year of another UUV known as Toloka, which you can see in the following video.

Being able to operate underwater not only helps greatly in avoiding detection and destruction, but it can also potentially mitigate some defensive barriers Russia has already built around ports as a result of Ukraine’s uncrewed surface vessel (USV) campaign. This onslaught has already kept Russia’s Black Sea Fleet (BSF) at bay, forcing it to retreat from Crimea to Novorossiysk. Ukrainian USVs have also damaged enemy military facilities in occupied Crimea and the Kerch Bridge, You can see one Ukrainian USV being destroyed below.

The U.S., China and many other nations are developing their own UUVs for missions like the one that struck the Improved Kilo class submarines. UUVs can provide the ability to strike vessels and other targets at long distances and can be launched from submarines and motherships, extending their range. They can also be used for reconnaissance and mine laying, among other duties. You can read more about these vessels in our catalogue of stories here.

In the case of the Improved Kilo class boat, “the vessel suffered critical damage and was effectively put out of action,” the SBU claimed. “On board the submarine were four launchers for ‘Kalibr’ cruise missiles, which the enemy uses to strike at the territory of Ukraine.”

The submarine damaged by the Sea Baby UUVs is one of six Improved Kilo class boats that were operated by the Russian Black Sea Fleet, a retired Russian Navy officer who uses the @Capt_Navy X handle told The War Zone.

These submarines are quite capable and can be very hard to detect when dived and running on battery power. These submarines carry Kalibr long-range cruise missiles that have frequently been used to attack Ukraine.

The Sub Sea Baby UUV attack “was a joint operation of the 13th Main Directorate of Military Counterintelligence of the SBU and the Naval Forces of Ukraine,” SBU explained, adding that the estimated cost of one of the Russian submarines is about $400 million.

This incident also marks the second time an Improved Kilo class submarine in Crimea was attacked by Ukraine. In September 2023, the Rostov-on-Don was severely damaged during a combined missile and uncrewed surface vessel (USV) attack on Sevastopol. Ukraine later claimed it was destroyed. You can see the damage to that submarine below.

If today’s attack did damage the submarine significantly, Russia would be left with four examples operating as part of the Black Sea Fleet.

While much about the Sub Sea Baby UUVs remains a mystery, a proven ability to use them as weapons holds Russian vessels at even greater risk. Novorossiysk was seen as something as a relative safe haven for the Black Sea Fleet, although aerial and sea drone attacks have occurred there. But the idea that Ukraine can use underwater drones to strike ships in port there changes this calculus, if that is indeed the true method of the attack. As a result, we will also be seeing a change in Russia’s defensive posture at the sprawling port located on the northeastern edge of the Black Sea.

At the same time, if this attack was executed by a UUV, it would be another world first and is likely a harbinger of things to come. Hitting ships in port over great distances via underwater drone attack is an asymmetric capability. It’s also one that America’s adversaries are investing in heavily, and especially China.

With all this in mind, the attack on the submarine serves as another reminder that the war in Ukraine has become a conflict where theory and development are put into practice.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The post Ukraine Claims World’s First Underwater Drone Attack On Russian Submarine appeared first on The War Zone.

Army officials discussed current and future planned capabilities for Patriot with Secretary Pete Hegseth during a recent tour of Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, at which members of the media were also present. Hegseth had traveled to Redstone last week primarily for a ceremony marking the designation of the facility as the new headquarters for U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM).

For some immediate context, a current Army Patriot battery typically consists of eight M903 launchers, as well as an AN/MPQ-65 multifunction phased array radar and other fire control, communications, and support equipment. Each trailer-based M903 can be loaded with a mix of PAC-2 and PAC-3 series interceptors, the exact capabilities of which you can read more about here. The launchers have a degree of ability to traverse left and right, and fire interceptors at an upward angle in whichever direction they are pointed. Overall, the systems are deployed in static positions aimed in a largely fixed direction.

“So, the current [M903] launcher will slew,” Army Lt. Col. Steven Moebes, currently Product Manager for Lower Tier Interceptors, told Hegseth at the recent Redstone show-and-tell. “I will put in a plug that this year we’re starting a new interceptor program that will have longer range [and] higher altitudes.”

Moebes did not name the new interceptor program. However, the Army had indicated earlier in the year that it was looking to reboot the Lower-Tier Future Interceptor (LTFI) effort for Patriot, which we will come back to later on. “Lower-tier” in this context refers to the lower end of the ballistic missile defense spectrum. Patriot is otherwise in the upper-end of the Army’s current slate of air and missile defense capabilities.

The Lower Tier Interceptors Program Manager was also responding to a direct question from Hegseth, which is largely inaudible in the available video from the event that multiple outlets captured. The Secretary can be heard saying that the focus of his question is something of personal interest to President Donald Trump.

“All of our digital simulations are showing that with that new interceptor, we will have the ability for what we call [an] over-the-shoulder shot,” Moebes continued. “So, it will have the kinematic power to be able to launch and actually engage behind us.”

“It’s a software problem. On this system right now, the software does not allow us to fire behind,” Army Brig. Gen. Patrick Costello, head of the Fires Center of Excellence at Fort Sill, who was also present during Hegseth’s tour of Redstone, added. “The Common Autonomous Multi-Domain Launcher [CAML] that we’re developing … is going to be more vertical [in terms of launch profile], too.”

“Even if we’re doing over-the-shoulder launches, we lose some probability [of kill], we lose some lethality … [when the] missile’s wasting energy going forward and turning around,” Costello continued.

CAML is a planned family of different autonomous launcher vehicles, which the Army wants to use to fire a variety of offensive and defensive munitions, as you can learn more about here. The Army has said previously that it envisions the heaviest tier of CAML, or CAML-H, being able to launch Patriot surface-to-air missile interceptors, as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles.

As an aside, Lockheed Martin has already demonstrated the ability to fire the latest Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) variant of the PAC-3 interceptor vertically from a containerized launcher derived from the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) used on various U.S. Navy and foreign warships. That testing is part of a larger push primarily aimed at promoting PAC-3 MSE for naval applications, though it could be relevant to the Army’s future plans, as well.

It is also interesting to note here that many surface-to-air missile systems in service globally, including ones that are loosely comparable to Patriot, such as Russia’s S-400 and China’s HQ-9, already feature launchers that fire their interceptors vertically.

Details about the Army’s new Patriot interceptor program otherwise remain limited. As mentioned, the service has been talking about restarting the LTFI effort for some months now. Last year, the service had announced plans to cancel that program, ostensibly over high projected costs. While the estimated unit cost for LTFI is unknown, each PAC-3 MSE interceptor currently has a price tag in the $4.6 million range, according to Army budget documents.

“There are some aspects of the LTFI program that are still somewhat pre-decisional, but I believe that we will get support for the program, and I may be in a position this time next year to begin program-of-record execution,” Army Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, then Program Executive Officer for Missiles and Space, had said in October during a panel discussion at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual conference. “I think right now the glass is probably half full that we’ll get to run that program, and so we’re really in the planning process in figuring out what that’s going to look like moving forward.”

Lozano, who now has the title of Director of Hypersonic, Directed Energy, Space, and Rapid Acquisition, led the recent tour for Hegseth at Redstone.

Regardless, new interceptors and launchers that allow for over-the-shoulder shots would be an important, if not essential, capability boost for Patriot. The air and missile defense threat ecosystem includes a growing number of faster-flying air-breathing and ballistic threats, many of which also come along with more complex and/or erratic flight profiles.

Earlier this year, the U.S. military notably confirmed that “Russian tactical improvements, including enhancements that enable their missiles to change trajectory and perform maneuvers rather than flying in a traditional ballistic trajectory,” had created real challenges for Patriot systems supplied to Ukraine. This is a prime example of the threat picture the Army is already faced with.

In speaking at Redstone with Secretary Hegseth, Lt. Col. Moebes did highlight the immense role that Patriot has played to date in Ukraine, despite the aforementioned issues, especially as the country’s only real option for engaging incoming ballistic threats.

Patriot systems with expanded engagement envelopes, as well as launchers that do not need to slew to face the direction of the target before firing, would also offer benefits for responding to large volume strikes, especially ones where targets are incoming from multiple vectors simultaneously. A future Patriot launcher capable of firing different types of interceptors vertically would offer further advantages for addressing complex attacks that include varied threats with different performance profiles, as well.

Uncrewed launcher vehicles with high degrees of autonomy, whether loaded with Patriots or other munitions, offer additional benefits, including additional operational capacity without major demands for more additional personnel. The launchers also help reduce risk to human operators, even when pushed forward in higher-risk environments. This all creates new targeting dilemmas and different risks of pop-up threats for adversaries.

The Army is already working to expand Patriot’s ability to spot and track targets with new Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) radars that offer 360-degree coverage. This is a major improvement compared to the more limited, forward-facing field of view provided by the AN/MPQ-65. The new Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) network also gives Patriot systems significantly greater access to offboard tracking and targeting data. In addition to the aforementioned benefits, over-the-shoulder engagement and vertical launch capabilities would be critical to get the most out of LTAMDS.

All this being said, it is important to point out that the Army’s Patriot force overall is highly strained. A succession of crises in recent years, together with support to Ukraine, have underscored how the service’s capacity to provide Patriot support is worryingly inadequate to meet current operational demands, let alone those of a future high-end fight. These concerns extend to stockpiles of interceptors, as well as the total number of systems available. TWZ has been calling attention to these issues for years now.

The Army, together with Raytheon (the Patriot system’s prime contractor) and Lockheed Martin (the prime contractor for the PAC-3 MSE), has been trying to take steps in recent years to reverse these trends. This includes work to ramp up PAC-3 MSE production and plans to establish four new Army Patriot battalions in the coming years. However, questions remain about the speed with which any of that will actually arrive, especially given the demand for Patriot globally, which has grown in light of its performance in Ukraine. Earlier this year, deliveries of new Patriot systems to Switzerland were notably delayed to help meet the urgent demands of the Ukrainian armed forces.

What is clear is that the Army is now actively pursuing critical new capabilities to help prevent air and missile threats from slipping behind its Patriot batteries.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post New Patriot Interceptors To Allow For “Over-The-Shoulder” Shots At Passing Targets appeared first on The War Zone.

Video and stills released by Chinese state media today show the drone, for the first time, being prepared for flight, taking off, and landing. The video includes air-to-air footage of the CH-7 and, overall, the suggestion is that Beijing is making a notable effort to promote the progress of this program, especially in contrast to other, far more secretive flying wing drone programs.

It’s also notable that the CH-7 appears to have made its first flight from Pucheng Airport in Shaanxi province, which also saw the recent maiden flight of the Jiutian heavyweight jet-powered ‘mothership drone,’ which you can read more about here. The Pucheng facility is operated by the China Flight Test Establishment (CFTE), underscoring its growing importance as a drone ‘center of excellence.’

The CH-7 seen in the new imagery retains the yellow-colored coat of primer that was seen in video and stills of the drone on the ground, released by Chinese state media earlier this year. Yellow primer is frequently seen on Chinese aircraft during their test phase. The drone also has air data probes on the leading edges of the wing and nose, again consistent with it being a prototype or perhaps a pre-production machine. Overall, the CH-7 has a ‘cranked-kite’ planform, of the kind that we have seen on various other Chinese drones. There are also various measures to reduce the radar and infrared signature, including a slot-like low-observable platypus engine exhaust, with the nozzle fully concealed from most angles of view, and serrated edges on doors and panels.

Interestingly, the attachment points previously seen on the upper surfaces of the rear of the drone have been removed in the new official imagery. It seems these were used to mount vertical tail surfaces.

Unofficial imagery, captured from an observer on the ground, suggests that the CH-7 was initially flight-tested with outward-canted tailfins, presumably to ensure stability during initial sorties, or otherwise to test an alternative aerodynamic configuration.

Compared to the previous imagery, we now also get to see some other details of the CH-7, including a distinctive small teardrop-shaped fairing mounted below the fuselage. This enclosure is very likely an air-to-ground datalink used for line-of-sight control of the drone and is a common feature on larger drones, including the U.S. MQ-9 Reaper. This very unstealthy feature would be removed for most operational uses once the aircraft has entered service.

We now have a much better look at the series of antennas that runs in a line along the spine, flanked by two air scoops. There are also two prominent blade aerials, above and below the fuselage. Below the fuselage, immediately behind the nose landing gear, there appears to be a large radio frequency sensor aperture, and there could also be space for conformal arrays under the inner wings.

As we presumed, the previous prominent gaps inboard of the trailing-edge flaps, where the wing meets the blended body section, were a temporary configuration and have now been filled.

The CH-7 was previously assumed to have an internal payload bay. That is not immediately obvious in the new imagery, but there is a suggestion of a notably long and slender bay immediately inboard of the main landing gear on the right-hand side, presumably with a similar bay on the left-hand side, too. If these are indeed for weapons, then they would be able to accommodate smaller stores only. This could point to a secondary strike role, but that seems somewhat less than likely at this point.

The CH-7 has already gone through several different iterations since it was first revealed, as a full-scale mockup in 2018, with the design being progressively adapted. Earlier changes included a less sharply swept wing compared to at least one early model, as well as an apparent growth in overall size.

The CH-7 (or Caihong-7, meaning Rainbow-7) has been developed by the state-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), specifically by its 11th Research Institute. A high-altitude, long-endurance drone, it is generally understood to be optimized for penetrating into or very near hostile airspace. It achieves this through a combination of a low-observable (stealth) design and flying at high altitudes, leading it to operate for extended periods of time without being successfully engaged.

Published specifications for the CH-7 include a length of 10 meters (33 feet), a maximum takeoff weight of 10,000 kilograms (22,000 pounds), a maximum speed of 926 km/h (575 mph), and an endurance of up to 15 hours. Bearing in mind the various design changes, these figures should be considered very much as provisional.

Earlier this year, Chinese state-owned media reported that the CH-7 had completed testing and was scheduled to complete development in 2024. This would imply it had also completed the flight-test program by this date, which remains possible, and the new imagery may actually date back a year or so.

Regardless of the timeline, the CH-7 is a fascinating program.

It represents one part of China’s accelerated efforts to develop low-observable, long-endurance drones, and there is a general expectation that, once in service, it will be used for both ISR and as a UCAV. Official statements from Beijing claim that, as well as bringing back critical intelligence, the CH-7 should also be able to strike strategic targets.

When it was unveiled, the CH-7 was described as a high-altitude, long-endurance stealth combat drone. Its chief designer, Shi Wen, said the aircraft would be able to “fly long hours, scout, and strike the target when necessary.”

It should be noted, however, that the latest imagery doesn’t provide definitive evidence of an extensive internal payload capacity, which might throw some doubt on the strike role, at least as a primary mission.

Even if the CH-7 ends up being exclusively an ISR platform, it remains highly relevant within China’s growing portfolio of stealthy drones, especially since it is apparently tailored to penetrate into or very near hostile airspace at high altitudes. Flying ISR missions with this profile would be especially relevant for China in a naval context, with the drone potentially roaming far out into the Pacific, monitoring the movements of enemy ships and providing targeting data for ground-based long-range missiles, for example, as well as anti-ship missiles launched from warships and bombers. Other theaters of operation in which a drone of this kind would be valuable include around the islands of the South China Sea and along the border with India.

Furthermore, it seems that the CH-7 will be offered for export. This hypothesis might also be supported by the unusually open nature of the imagery that’s been released of the drone so far.

If the CH-7 were to be offered for foreign customers, it would come with advanced capabilities that no other country is currently pitching on the arms market. It would also come without the various restrictions that limit the sale of high-end U.S. and other Western defense products.

Not only is the United States not currently able to offer for export a stealthy long-endurance surveillance drone or UCAV, but it’s also possible that no uncrewed platform of this class is even under development in that country — the still-mysterious RQ-180 may have fit in this category, but its current status is unknown. The stark contrast between the U.S. and Chinese approaches to very stealthy uncrewed aircraft for independent strike missions is something that we have addressed before in this feature of ours.

At this point, we should remember that we don’t know exactly how far the development of the CH-7 has progressed and when it might end up being ready for service with China, let alone with export customers. It remains possible that they might have to wait for a downgraded or otherwise sanitized version of the drone.

Since the first appearance of the CH-7, two other, far larger high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) drones have emerged from China. There are, meanwhile, also several medium-sized flying-wing surveillance drones and multirole UCAV types, one of which appears to be already in operational service. All of this emphasizes just how much effort and investment China is currently putting into flying-wing-type drones, not to mention diverse other kinds of uncrewed aerial vehicles.

Nevertheless, the CH-7 program remains very much one to watch. Provided it fulfills its promise, it could provide China with a multirole low-observable drone family that could also be offered for export. For now, the CH-7 stands as more evidence of the huge strides that China is making in terms of drone technology, and the particular focus being placed on stealthy uncrewed aircraft.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post China’s Stealthy CH-7 Flying Wing Drone Has Flown appeared first on The War Zone.

The Army’s Dark Eagle, also known as the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), is a trailer-launched hypersonic boost-glide vehicle system that can travel long distances at hypersonic speeds (velocities in excess of Mach 5) while maneuvering erratically through Earth’s atmosphere. This makes it an ideal weapon for striking high-priority and time-sensitive targets that are extremely well defended. This includes critical air defenses, command and control nodes, and enemy sensor systems, among other targets. It is the first true hypersonic weapon slated for frontline U.S. service. The same missile architecture is being adopted by the Navy for sea-launch under the Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) weapon system.

During a show-and-tell of Army missile systems, Lt. Gen. Francisco Lozano, Director of Hypersonic, Directed Energy, Space and Rapid Acquisition, told Hegseth that Dark Eagle has a 3,500-kilometer range. Members of the media were also present at the event, which was captured on video by C-SPAN and other outlets.

Lozano further noted that he can hit “mainland China from Guam” with Dark Eagle. He also said it could hit Moscow from London and Tehran from Qatar. This isn’t the first official statement of range for Dark Eagle from the Pentagon. The weapon was previously said to have at least a 1,725-mile (2,775-kilometer) range. Based on Lozano’s comments today, its actual range is at least 2,175 miles. It isn’t clear if the Army’s own figures have changed based on the evolution of the weapon and its testing, or if the previous figure was ‘watered down’ intentionally, which is common when it comes to official metrics for missile systems.

Another Army officer at the event, who is not immediately identifiable, told Hegseth that Dark Eagle has a warhead “under 30 pounds,” which is relatively tiny for a long-range weapon — smaller in size than what’s found on an AIM-120 air-to-air missile, for instance. The officer stated the warhead is just to get its “projectiles out” and that it can deliver effects over an area about the same size as the parking lot they were standing on.

As we have repeatedly said, the kinetic punch this weapon provides would contribute more to its destructive power than a conventional warhead mounted in the tight confines of the conical boost-glide vehicle. Still, a blast fragmentation warhead, which was alluded to by the officer, would help with putting softer targets out of commission, like air defense batteries and radar arrays.

The officer also said Dark Eagle can cover its range in less than 20 minutes.

The mention of the warhead is of special interest as there had been concerns by Pentagon testers of Dark Eagle’s lethality as recently as last year.

We wrote about the Pentagon’s test assessment back in February, stating:

“In the meantime, the Navy has tested the warhead for the AUR, but independent of the missile. An arena test for the warhead was carried out in the first quarter of FY24, followed by a sled test in the second quarter of FY24. The Pentagon says that this sled test “included some threat-representative targets,” but also notes that results are still being processed.

Earlier sled and flight tests “did not include operationally representative targets and consequently provided no direct validation of the weapon’s lethal effects,” the Pentagon adds.

…

Ultimately, the Army “needs to incorporate representative targets and environments into flight tests and other live lethality and survivability tests,” this portion of the report concludes.”

Dark Eagle has had more than its share of development delays, but as of June of this year, the Army intended the weapon system to become operational by the end of Fiscal Year 2025. Where that schedule stands now isn’t clear. There is one battery already stationed at Fort Lewis, and another is supposed to arrive this year.

The importance of getting Dark Eagle up and running goes beyond tactical and strategic considerations, as the U.S. has lagged behind its peers in areas of hypersonic development, most notably when it comes to China.

It’s also worth mentioning that Hegseth asked about how many they are producing and how fast. The Army officer said one per month, but the goal is to increase that number to two per month, or 24 a year. Clearly, the ability to produce weapons in large quantities quickly is top of the mind for Hegseth as the U.S. struggles with its supply of combat mass. Some have argued Dark Eagle is a class of ‘silver bullet’ weapon that will be built in too few numbers and at too high a cost to have a major impact in a sustained conflict.

Regardless, now that we know more about the technical specifications of the weapon system, the Pentagon could be on the cusp of finally declaring it operational.

Author’s note: A big thanks to @lfx160219 on X for bringing this to our attention.

Contact the author: tyler@twz.com

The post New Dark Eagle Hypersonic Weapon Details Emerge appeared first on The War Zone.

“Their mission was in support of on-going counter-ISIS / counter-terrorism operations in the region,” Parnell wrote on X. “The soldiers’ names, as well as identifying information about their units, are being withheld until 24 hours after the next of kin notification. This attack is currently under active investigation.”

Video from the scene shows a U.S. Air Force F-16 flying low overhead in a show of force and either an MH-60 special operations Black Hawk or HH-60 combat search and rescue helicopter on the ground. Palmyra, a city of major historical significance, had been a stronghold of ISIS during the height of the group’s reign of terror.

The U.S. still has around a thousand troops deployed in eastern Syria as part of a coalition fighting the Islamic State group.

“Last month, Syria joined the international coalition fighting against the IS as Damascus improves its relations with Western countries following last year’s fall of President Bashar Assad when insurgents captured his seat of power in Damascus,” the wire service added.

Details about the gunman’s motives and affiliations are under investigation. We’ve reached out to the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command for more details.

This is a developing story.

Update: 11:05 AM Dec. 15 –

The Army announced the identities of the two soldiers killed during the ambush.

“The Department of the Army announced today the death of two Soldiers who were supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.  

 Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown, Iowa, died December 13, 2025, in Palmyra, Syria, of injuries sustained while engaged with hostile forces.

The incident is under investigation.  

They were assigned to 1st Squadron, 113th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division of the Iowa National Guard, Boone, Iowa.”

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The post Ambush In Syria Leaves Two U.S. Troops, Civilian Interpreter Dead (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

This week’s second caption reads:

25 July 2022, Hamburg: In front of an entrance to the Steintor underground bunker, yellow and black pressure doors can be seen. The inscription “Stand back from the door” can be read on the doors. The 140-meter-long and 17-meter-wide facility near the main train station had been built from 1941 to 1943. During the Cold War, it had been converted into a nuclear bunker and would have provided shelter for 2700 people in an emergency. Since 2007, the Hamburg Underworlds association has organized guided tours and cultural events in the underground bunker so that the history of this place is not forgotten. Photo: Julian Weber/dpa (Photo by Julian Weber/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Also, a reminder:

Prime Directives!

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

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

As we have previously reported, Ukraine carried out three attacks on Russian-connected oil tankers in the Black Sea in late November and early December. Reports emerged on Wednesday that they carried out a fourth one, which you can read more about later in this story.

“This attack was the first retaliation,” Joshua Hutchinson, a former Royal Marine commando now serving as the company’s Managing Director of Risk and Intelligence, told us Friday afternoon.

Video emerging on social media showed several angles of the attack. One showed the Shahed flying over the port of Chornomorsk before the CENK-T‘s bow became engulfed in flames.

Early reports on this incident from both Ambrey and Russian media claimed Russia used an Iskander-M ballistic missile to carry out the attack, but the video clearly shows otherwise. While it’s possible another strike occurred using a ballistic missile, we have seen no evidence of it at this time.

A separate video showed different views of the 606-foot-long Panamanian-flagged vessel in flames following the strike. One view appeared to be across the harbor, while another was a closer view, dockside, with the ship burning and people running from the scene. The strike injured at least one person, according to Ambrey.

In addition to the CENK-T being hit, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said several other targets in the Odesa region were attacked in a volley of missile and drone strikes. Though Russia has frequently attacked Ukrainian ports, this incident marks an escalation to the Black Sea shipping wars, increasing the danger to commercial vessels regardless of nation of origin, Hutchinson told us.

“We are heading to an uncharted time,” he explained. “We are now seeing two state actors attacking commercial shipping.”

While Russia has hit Ukrainian ports before, strikes on ships have been largely incidental. A concerted campaign against vessels would make shipping companies think twice before sending vessels into this area due to the risks to ships and crews. We saw that play out when the Houthis were attacking Red Sea shipping and a large percentage of companies opted to avoid the region. This would be very problematic for Ukraine.

The CENK-T was reportedly bringing in a shipment of generators, which Ukraine badly needs as Russia attacks its energy infrastructure. As we noted earlier in this story, on Dec. 2, Putin threatened to attack the shipping of nations helping Ukraine. We reached out to the vessel’s owner, CENK RoRo, for more information about the attack and how it will respond.

Zelensky decried the attack, saying it was another sign Russians aren’t interested in peace.

“Today’s Russian strike, like many other similar attacks, had, and could not have, any military sense,” the Ukrainian leader stated on X. “A civilian ship in the Chornomorsk port was damaged. This once again proves that the Russians not only do not take the current chance for diplomacy seriously enough, but also continue the war aimed at destroying normal life in Ukraine.”

The Russians have not officially commented on the CENK-T strike; however, Russian media acknowledged that it was in response to the attacks that damaged the four Russian ships and that the tempo could increase.

“Earlier, Vladimir Putin directly stated that the strikes by the Russian Armed Forces on Ukrainian ports are a completely justified response to Kyiv’s actions,” the Russian Readovka media outlet suggested. “At the same time, the sinking of just 10-15 ships in one port could paralyze its operations.”

The most recent of those took place on Wednesday when Sea Baby drones from Ukraine’s state security service (SBU) attacked the Serbian-flagged crude oil tanker Dashan in the Black Sea. Video of that attack showed the drones approaching the ship, which erupted in flames.

The Dashan attack, as we noted in our previous coverage, was preceded by others. On Dec. 2, a Ukrainian aerial drone struck the Russian-owned oil tanker Midvolga-2 about 80 miles north of the Turkish city of Sinop. A few days earlier, oil tankers, Kairos and Virat, were struck in quick succession off Turkey’s Black Sea coast by Ukrainian Sea Baby drones. These vessels are reportedly part of Russia’s “shadow fleet” that evades sanctions.

Ukraine, as we have frequently reported, is waging a campaign against Russia’s energy infrastructure involving numerous attacks on refineries, ports and other supply hubs inside Russia. The attack on the Dashan is a further indication that Ukraine is taking this fight to Russian vessels at sea.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has reportedly signaled its support for the Ukrainian attacks on Russian vessels.

The Atlantic suggested that while the Biden administration feared escalation and opposed attacks on Russian vessels in international waters, Trump has taken the opposite tack. The publication reported that not only did the Trump administration not object to strikes, but in a number of cases, approved the transfer of intelligence to Kyiv, which was used to hit oil infrastructure facilities in Russia. The War Zone cannot independently verify that claim.

In the wake of today’s attack, Ambrey issued a warning to all ships making Black Sea port calls. These vessels “are advised to conduct comprehensive voyage threat assessments,” the company stated. “The crew is advised to remain within the designated Safe Muster Point (SMP) during missile attacks on infrastructure. The SMP should be located above the waterline, amidships and low-down in the superstructure.”

The coming days will tell if both parties continue to prosecute commercial shipping targets and what that could mean for maritime access to Ukraine.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The post Russian Retaliation Strike Raises Stakes In Black Sea Shipping War appeared first on The War Zone.

Navy Secretary John Phelan had announced the cancellation of Constellation just over two weeks ago. The Navy had awarded the first contract for a fleet of at least 10 of those warships in 2020. The service picked a design based on the existing Franco-Italian FREMM frigate, with the expectation that only relatively minor changes would be needed, and that this would help keep the program on track. However, over the past five years, the Constellation design morphed into almost a completely different vessel with only 15 percent commonality with its ‘parent.’ As of April, construction of the future USS Constellation was only around 10 percent complete, and the delivery timeline had slipped to 2029.

Finally deciding to axe Constellation, though driven by harsh realities, is the latest addition to now decades-long struggles the Navy has had in bolstering its surface fleets. As noted earlier, the frigate debacle follows on from the acquisition of two chronically underperforming classes of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and the decision to slash purchases of Zumwalt class stealth destroyers (also known as DDG-1000s) down to just three hulls. The service currently relies heavily on its Arleigh Burke class destroyers and Ticonderoga class cruisers, the last of the latter of which are set to be retired in 2029. As such, the service has a very pressing need for additional smaller, but more capable surface combatants, as well as more surface warships overall.

“We believe the future frigate can be in the water in 2028,” Jason Potter, the official currently performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, told attendees at the U.S. Naval Institute’s annual Defense Forum Washington on Wednesday, according to Breaking Defense.

“We will be building a frigate. It will be based on an American design,” Phelan had said last weekend at the Reagan National Defense Forum, according to Defense One. “It is something we can build that we think, actually, will be done before the old Constellation.”

Phelan also said the follow-on frigate effort was part of a larger naval force structure and shipbuilding plan the Navy has been crafting under the current Trump administration, referred to as the “Golden Fleet.”

In addition, Breaking Defense reported that Phelan recently told individuals at a private dinner that the Legend class National Security Cutter, developed by U.S. shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), would be the basis of the new frigate, citing two unnamed sources. That outlet said the Navy and HII declined to confirm or deny any connection between the National Security Cutter design and the post-Constellation frigate plans.

TWZ has also reached out for more information. In response to our queries, HII declined to speak to the Navy’s current frigate plans.

Starting with the National Security Cutter, 10 of which were built for the Coast Guard between 2005 and 2024, would not necessarily be a surprising choice. HII notably entered a variation of its Patrol Frigate concept, derived from the National Security Cutter, into the Navy’s FFG(X) competition that led to the Constellation class, something we will come back to later on.

As TWZ has explored in the past, the 4,600-ton-displacement Legend class ships are themselves modern and capable, and are intended for open-ocean ‘blue water’ operations. In Coast Guard service, the cutters have often operated far from America’s shores and regularly integrate with elements of the Navy and other branches of the U.S. military.

At the same time, the National Security Cutter design would have been modified significantly to meet Navy mission requirements for a frigate. The primary armament of each one of the Coast Guard’s Legend class cutters consists of a single 57mm gun in a turret on the bow. They also have a Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) with a 20mm Vulcan cannon, and mounts for crew-operated machine guns at various points around the ship. The possibility of arming them with Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles has come up in the past, but there has been no actual movement to integrate that capability.

In comparison, the Constellation class frigate design, with a displacement approaching 7,300 tons (at least per the original target), included a 32-cell Vertical Launch System (VLS) intended to fire SM-2 Block IIICs and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM). These are both surface-to-air missiles. Some of those VLS cells were also expected to be loaded with a vertically-launched anti-submarine warfare weapon, likely a member of the RUM-139 Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (VL-ARSOC) family or a follow-on design. All variants of the VL-ARSOC carry lightweight anti-submarine torpedoes as their payloads. There had been talk of integrating SM-6 multi-purpose missiles and Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles onto Constellation in the future.

There had been much discussion in the past about whether even the 32-cell VLS was sufficient for the Constellation‘s expected combination of anti-air, anti-surface warfare, and anti-submarine mission profiles, as you can read more about in detail in this past TWZ feature.

Beyond the VLS, each Constellation class frigate was set to be armed with launchers for 16 RGM-184 Naval Strike Missile (NSM) cruise missiles (which have anti-ship and land-attack capabilities), a single launcher loaded with RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM) for close-in defense, a 57mm main gun, and mounts for multiple crew-operated machine guns.

Navy requirements for sensors and other systems missions, as well as other design features, would also differ from what the Coast Guard has laid out for the Legend class, which would require significant changes to the existing design. As one example, the Constellation class frigates were expected to feature a version of the Aegis Combat System, a key capability not found on the Coast Guard’s cutters.

There is also the matter of the Navy’s distinct shipbuilding and survivability standards for surface warships. Power generation, cooling, and even tweaks to propulsion could be needed.

It is important to remember, as mentioned, that a central factor in the collapse of the Constellation class program was the excessive changes between that design and the Franco-Italian FREMM (which stands for Fregata Europea Multi-Missione, meaning European Multi-Mission Frigate in English), from which it was derived. The Navy had expressly intended to reduce risks for that program by starting with a proven, in-production warship.

As mentioned, HII has already done significant design work on the Patrol Frigate concept over the past decade or so. HII has put forward multiple variations of that design, including ones with 12 and 16-cell VLS arrays, as well as various other weapons and mission systems beyond what are found on the Legend class configuration.

“Regarding the original frigate competition, we did bid a variation of the NSC [National Security Cutter] that was lethal, low risk, and affordable,” an HII spokesperson had told Breaking Defense when asked about Phelan’s reported comments. “We look forward to partnering with the Navy on designs for the ships they need.”

There is also a question of whether the Navy might be able to more directly leverage the Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter program in its new frigate plans. In June of this year, HII confirmed to USNI News that it had stopped work on what was expected to be the 11th member of the Legend class, set to be named the USCGC Friedman, following the settlement of a contract dispute with the Coast Guard. How far along work on that ship was at the time, and whether it would be feasible to complete it in a new Navy-specific configuration, is unclear. Fabrication of the future Friedman had started in 2021. In addition, Congress previously approved funding for the Coast Guard to purchase long lead time materials in relation to an option to buy a 12th Legend class cutter, which has never been executed.

The National Security Cutter’s career with the Coast Guard to date has not been entirely smooth sailing, either. The service has been open about the challenges it has been facing in operating and sustaining its Legend class ships.

“When a National Security Cutter pulls into port, we do a controlled parts exchange, which is a fancy term for cannibalizing our readiness,” Acting Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Kevin Lunday had said at the Navy League’s annual Sea Air Space conference earlier this year. “You can only cannibalize your readiness and eat your own readiness for so long in that downward death spiral, and that’s where we’re at.”

Lunday made clear that this was reflective of broader readiness issues facing his service, compounded by budgetary challenges. The Navy fielding a fleet of National Security Cutter-derived frigates might help here by spreading cost burdens differently across a shared supply chain. The Navy already has a history of cooperating with the Coast Guard on major shipbuilding efforts.

Though the Navy’s plan to use the National Security Cutter as a starting place for a new frigate does remain unconfirmed, it’s unclear what other options there might even be for a new warship in this category that is “based on an American design.” The U.S. subsidiary of Australian shipbuilder Austal and Lockheed Martin did compete for FFG(X) with expanded versions of their respective Independence and Freedom class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). Lockheed Martin dropped out of the running early, reportedly because it could not rework the Freedom design enough to meet the Navy’s requirements. Austal USA had continued on, but the Navy passed on its offer, as well. Variations of the Freedom class LCS are still being built, including four Multi-Mission Surface Combatant (MMSC) derivatives for Saudi Arabia. The last Independence class LCS was delivered to the Navy earlier this year.

The FFG(X) effort was itself widely seen as a rebuke of the long-troubled LCS program. Independence and Freedom class ships have both suffered from a variety of major issues over the years that have called their basic utility into question, though the Navy has made certain strides in expanding their operational employment in recent years. This all underscores the Navy’s clear, continued desire for new frigates, despite Constellation‘s cancellation.

It should also be noted that there are several modern frigate designs available on the open market elsewhere in the world. Japan’s futuristic Mogami class stands out particularly in this regard, with examples of an expanded version with a larger 32-cell VLS array now being built and a historic export deal for additional hulls for Australia secured earlier this year. This means two U.S. allies in the Pacific are now set to have fleets of these ships, which could offer operational and sustainment benefits, especially in the context of a major conflict or other contingency that both nations might find themselves involved in. Finding ways to maximize that kind of commonality would also be advantageous for the U.S. Navy when selecting a new frigate.

There are two more frigate designs, the Type 26 and Type 31, in active production in the United Kingdom, and there are export orders for both on the order books already. There is also South Korea’s Daegu class, export versions of which are set to be built in Peru, and the F110 from Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, among others.

A version of the Type 26 now in development for Canada, called the River class, as well as the F110, both notably feature the Aegis Combat system, as well as versions of Lockheed Martin’s still very new AN/SPY-7 radar. It’s also worth pointing out that the Canadian armed forces also refer to the future River class warships as destroyers rather than frigates, reflecting a particular view of their expected capabilities and mission sets. In the context of the U.S. Navy’s new frigate plans, being able to leverage an existing design that already has key desired systems baked in, at least in certain subvariants, could be highly beneficial. Integrating Aegis, and the radar arrays that go along with it, in particular, is a major design driver for any warship, and having to modify an existing type to incorporate those features would come along with costs and complexities.

This all can only prompt questions about whether the Navy may be hamstringing itself now by centering its new frigate plans on an existing American design. The U.S. shipbuilding sector, overall, faces significant challenges at present, especially around workforce retention, after decades of contracting in size. This contributed to delays with Constellation, and continues to impact other Navy shipbuilding programs. These issues have become increasingly concerning from a broad national security perspective, especially given the huge gap now that exists in shipbuilding capacity compared to that of China, and the U.S. government has been trying to take steps to reverse the worrisome trends. The prospect of leveraging foreign yards to help build future Navy warships, as well as sustain existing fleets, has been raised. American authorities have also been courting foreign investment in the shipbuilding industry in the United States. A U.S.-South Korean trade agreement announced in November notably included a pledge by the latter country to pump $150 billion into America’s shipbuilding sector.

Given what happened with the Constellation class, any future Navy frigate program is likely to face significant scrutiny, including from Congress, in general, and be seen as a major test of the service’s ability to avoid past pitfalls. Since he was confirmed to the post in March, Navy Secretary Phelan has been consistently pledging to shake up how the service buys ships and submarines, especially when it comes to accelerating delivery timelines and cutting costs.

“The requirements are going to be put in and done before we start building the first one,” Phelan also said about the new frigate plans at the Reagan National Defense Forum this past weekend, according to The Washington Times. “When we start building the first one, any change order will have to be put through me.”

“The Constellation class frigate was canceled because, candidly, it didn’t make sense anymore to build it,” Phelan also said. “It was 80 percent of the cost of a destroyer and 60 percent of the capability. You might as well build destroyers.”

Locking in the design of any future class of frigates for the Navy, and doing so relatively quickly, will be absolutely key to avoiding what happened with Constellation. This, in turn, will require the service to accept the fact that frigates are not destroyers, and the tradeoffs and risks that come with that, especially when it comes to potentially employing the ships more independently in a higher threat environment.

How the Navy proceeds in its push now to right the wrongs of the Constellation class program, and have the first example of a still sorely needed class of new frigates launched by 2028, will be an area of keen interest going forward.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post U.S. Navy Now Wants A New Frigate And Fast appeared first on The War Zone.

Following a cabinet meeting, the Swiss government today said it had instructed the defense ministry to buy the highest possible number of F-35As within the previously agreed budget of six billion Swiss francs ($7.54 billion). Reports suggest that, while the Swiss government viewed this as a fixed price, the United States later refuted that and claimed it was a misunderstanding.

“Due to foreseeable cost overruns, maintaining the originally planned number of 36 F-35As is not financially feasible,” the government said in a statement.

It’s presently unclear how many jets the Swiss budget will cover, but it’s worth noting that Finland’s order for 64 F-35As, budgeted at $9.4 billion, worked out with an equivalent cost-per-jet of around $82 million. However, additional costs of infrastructure, weapons, maintenance equipment, spare parts, training, and other systems and services need to be factored in. In the case of the F-35, in particular, these costs are uniquely high.

The original Swiss budget for a new fighter was narrowly approved by the public in a 2020 referendum.

A referendum is an unusual quirk of Swiss procurement, with the most expensive arms purchases first having to win the backing of the country’s voters. In this way, the maximum spend of six billion Swiss francs was approved before the type had been selected.

The F-35 fought off competition from the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, and Eurofighter Typhoon.

After what was described as a “comprehensive technical evaluation,” Switzerland’s Federal Council announced in 2021 that it planned to recommend to the country’s parliament that it procure 36 F-35As as part of the Air2030 program. The package also includes five Patriot air defense systems from Raytheon, which will provide the Alpine nation with a new long-range ground-based air defense capability.

“An evaluation has revealed that these two systems [F-35A and Patriot] offer the highest overall benefit at the lowest overall cost,” the Federal Council explained in a statement. “The Federal Council is confident that these two systems are the most suitable for protecting the Swiss population from air threats in the future.”

The F-35 will replace the Swiss Air Force’s existing fleet of 30 ‘legacy’ F/A-18C/D Hornets, scheduled to be withdrawn in 2030, as well as its aging F-5E/F Tiger II jets, which are slated for retirement in 2027. The first new F-35As were once expected to arrive in the country from 2025, a date that has already been pushed back.

Ironically, Swiss media reports at the time suggested that the F-35 was selected as it offered the best value for money.

“According to insiders, Switzerland can buy a larger number of F-35s with the budgeted six billion Swiss francs [$6.53 billion] than would be the case with the three competitors,” Swiss broadcaster SRF reported, citing anonymous sources.

According to the Federal Council’s findings, as of 2021, the fleet of 36 F-35As would cost around $5.48 billion, well within the price cap.

Now, at the current exchange rate, the budget cap stands at 7.54 billion, which is no longer sufficient for 36 of the stealth jets.

Meanwhile, regardless of unit price, the cost of actually sustaining the jets once in service has long been a cause for concern.

There’s also the issue of the delayed Block 4 upgrade and the lack of clarity around how much customers will actually pay for this. Block 4 supports a brand-new radar and a host of other capabilities. Among them are increased missile capacity, new weaponry, advanced electronic warfare capabilities, and improved target recognition. 

As we pointed out in the past, Block 4 might only start to become available after the Swiss begin receiving their jets, which would require them to either upgrade or decide against getting that capability boost.

It’s also far from clear what will happen next in Switzerland’s F-35 procurement; a lot will depend on how many of the jets can actually be obtained within the stipulated budget.

In the past, Switzerland has not been averse to walking away from fighter procurements entirely.

A previous fighter competition that sought a partial replacement for the F-5 fleet saw the Saab Gripen E/F being chosen, with a decision to buy 22 examples, before the entire project was rejected by a referendum in 2014.

At the same time, it’s likely that at least some Swiss Cabinet members would prefer a European fighter, and critics of the F-35 have previously suggested another referendum to potentially overturn the decision to buy American. This issue has only become magnified since the Swiss decision, with European countries increasingly uncertain about buying U.S. defense products.

There’s also a big question over whether Switzerland needs such a sophisticated, low-observable multirole fighter, since its primary responsibility will be day-to-day air policing. The Swiss Air Force also sits outside of NATO, so it doesn’t make operational deployments outside of its borders.

Another option could see a push for a cheaper ‘complementary’ fighter, or light combat aircraft, to provide additional combat (and advanced training) ‘mass’ alongside a reduced fleet of F-35s. This would parallel the existing order of battle in which F-5s operate alongside F/A-18s.

There is also the possibility that Switzerland determines that it needs the full 36 F-35s. The Swiss government also recently said that the deteriorating security situation in Europe means that the Swiss Air Force could need between 55 and 70 new fighter jets.

If that becomes policy, another referendum might be required on the total budget. The question could be put to the Swiss public, with a decision again to be made independent of aircraft type.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Swiss Poised To Slash F-35 Order As Costs Mount appeared first on The War Zone.

Clearly, the Pentagon is moving into a posture in the region that is much better equipped for tactical air combat operations over hostile territory than it was just days ago.

Despite all this movement, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday afternoon that U.S. President Donald Trump does not want to see a protracted conflict in Venezuela.

“A prolonged war is something the president is not interested in,” she said, adding that Trump wants to “see the end of illegal drugs trafficked into the United States.”

On Thursday, Reuters published photos showing HC-130J Combat King II combat search and rescue (CSAR) planes and HH-60W Jolly Green Giant II CSAR helicopters on the ramp at Roosevelt Roads, the former U.S. Navy facility in Puerto Rico. These aircraft are stationed at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia, though the helicopters reportedly arrived from deployment to Kadena Air Base in Japan.

The deployment of dedicated CSAR aircraft to the region is a sign that the Trump administration could be about to drastically increase its pressure on Maduro and go after the cartels inland with strikes. The aircraft are needed for rapid rescues of any aircrews that are lost during military operations, specifically over contested territory. While the Marine aviation force from USS Iwo Jima and its escorts are also capable of this mission, as are helicopters from the USS Gerald R. Ford, to varying degrees, the unique capabilities and the highly specialized crews the HC-130J and HH-60W bring to the table are prized. This is especially true now that USAF tactical airpower in the form of F-35As is about to arrive in-theater.

The Stratotankers arrived in the Dominican Republic sometime around Sunday or Monday, according to the @LatAmMilMovements X account, an open-source tracker who has been closely following these deployments. They are now taking up a good portion of an entire runway at the airport.

Forward deploying the tankers reduces the amount of time needed to fly to the region and thus increases time on station and sortie rates. The presence of these jets in the Dominican Republic also represents a widening of the mission’s footprint, a U.S. official told us. The bulk of U.S. land-based operations are run out of Puerto Rico, and Roosevelt Roads in particular.

“This is an expansion of Southern Spear,” the U.S. official said of the Stratotanker presence in the Dominican Republic. “This is about capabilities and location. In case of any service support needed, you want to have that in a strategic area. The Dominican Republic is not too close, not too far and they have the capabilities to support a number of aircraft.”

The Dominican Republic presence, however, was not the first tankers operating forward in the region. They have been operating out of the U.S. Virgin Islands for months.

The KC-46s have been in the U.S. Virgin Islands since the middle of September, according to archived satellite imagery. This presence has grown steadily with now between five and six tankers being seen on the ramp there at any given time. The low-resolution satellite photo below was taken Dec. 9 and obtained by The War Zone via Planet Labs.

As the relatively sudden surge of assets to the Caribbean continues, the world waits to see what the Trump administration plans to do with all of it.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The post Combat Rescue Aircraft, Tankers Arrive In Caribbean As U.S. Military Buildup Accelerates appeared first on The War Zone.

“The ferry flight of this upgraded B-52 marks an important moment in our efforts to modernize the bomber force,” Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink stated in an Air Force press release. “This radar modernization ensures that the B-52 will continue to serve as a cornerstone of American airpower well into the future. We are committed to extending the life of this vital platform, allowing it to operate alongside next-generation fighter and bomber aircraft.”

The BUFF’s new radar is based directly on the AN/APG-79 that has equipped most F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and all F/A-18G Growlers, as well as nearly 100 F/A-18A-D Hornets still serving with the USMC. The F-15E Strike Eagle and F-15EX Eagle II’s AN/APG-82 also builds upon AN/APG-79 technology. At this point, it’s one of the Pentagon’s most proven fighter AESA just based on time served and production numbers.

That isn’t to say that things have been smooth going in adapting the radar to the B-52’s needs. The program has gone over budget and busted schedules, which led the USAF to inquire about alternatives. The price tag also rose high enough to trigger a deep, legally mandated review of the program’s core requirements and cost estimates. Flight testing of the first B-52 with the new radar was originally expected to start in 2024.

Just getting the new radar to fit physically in the B-52’s nose is known to be one of the challenges the program has had to overcome.

“The Air Force continues to refine the system radome design to, address aircraft integration issues. Depending on final radome design, radar performance may be impacted,” the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation noted in its most recent annual report, which was released earlier this year. “The program office should fully characterize performance with the final radome design to inform operational employment tactics.”

From the pictures that have been released now, the external shaping of the B-52’s nose looks to be largely unchanged following the installation of the AN/APQ-188. There is a relatively narrow off-color seam visible between the nose and the cockpit.

It’s worth noting that the AN/APG-79 variant installed in the BUFF is angled downward. This would reflect its unique placement in the B-52, basically in the lower deck of a massive radome enclosure. Its ability to look up is hampered by the bulkhead above it, something we will come back to later on.

The new radar installation on the B-52 also comes along with “two Display and System Sensor Processors as its mission computers to integrate the radar with B-52 systems, along with two large 8×20-inch high-definition touchscreens at the Nav and Radar Nav stations for radar imagery, control and legacy displays, and two fighter-like hand controllers for radar operation,” according to a press release from Boeing. “The system features upgraded cooling, providing liquid cooling for the radar and engine bleed-air heating for very cold conditions.”

Regardless of the issues the radar upgrade program has faced, the USAF appears to be sticking with the AN/APG-79-derived AN/APQ-188. A new AESA radar is really a must-have in order to keep the B-52 relevant for decades to come.

Simply put, giving the B-52 a modern multimode AESA provides a massive capability boost. As we have discussed in the past:

“In general, AESA radars offer greater range, fidelity, and resistance to countermeasures, as well as the ability to provide better overall general situational awareness, compared to mechanically scanned types. Increasingly advanced AESAs bring additional capabilities, including electronic warfare and communications support.

For the B-52, any new multi-mode AESA will improve the bomber’s target acquisition and identification capabilities, including when used together with targeting pods available for the bombers now. New radars for the bombers will also be helpful when it comes to guiding networked weapons over long distances to their targets and could provide a secondary ground moving target indicator (GMTI) and synthetic aperture radar surveillance capabilities. The radar upgrade could help defend B-52s from air-to-air threats, including through improved detection of incoming hostile aircraft.“

Beyond their tactical advantages, AESAs are generally more reliable, particularly due to their lack of moving parts. Without the need to move a radar dish rapidly in multiple directions, while the jet is under various g-loads and is rocked by turbulence and hard landings, the actual time the radar is available for use goes up. The aforementioned secondary electronic warfare capability also can’t be understated. The new radar will surely become a key and very powerful component of the B-52’s upgraded electronic warfare suite, which will be critical to its ability to survive in future fights.

As mentioned, the positioning of the AN/APQ-188 in the BUFF’s nose impacts its ability to look up. At the same time, this is also aligned more with air-to-surface tasks considering the B-52’s mission set. As a point of comparison, the AN/APG-79 as installed in the Super Hornet is angled upward. This is due, at least in part, to match the reduced observability (stealthy) features of the Super Hornet. In the Legacy Hornet, the array is nearly vertical, as there are no low-observable demands for that platform. In that case, space concerns may also be an issue. The B-52 is about as unstealthy as an aircraft can get, so the downward angle is clearly not dictated by observability design drivers.

The new radar is just one facet of the comprehensive upgrade program now in development for the B-52 that will end in the jet receiving the B-52J designation. Even more important than the new radar is replacing the BUFF’s antique TF-33 low-bypass turbofan engines with Rolls-Royce F-130 turbofans. That program is now well underway but is also behind schedule and over budget, with full operational capability not slated till 2033. So the fully featured ‘super BUFF’ won’t be plowing the skies anytime soon, but the hope is that once complete, the fleet of 76 jets can remain reliable and relevant through 2050, at least, serving alongside the drastically more modern B-21 Raider.

You can learn all about what makes up the B-52J and how it will be used in our video below.

As it stands now, the Air Force plans to put the B-52 with the new AN/APQ-188 through a series of ground and flight tests in the next year. An initial round of system functional checks was conducted before the plane was flown to Edwards, according to Boeing’s release.

Following the successful completion of the testing at Edwards, the Air Force will make a formal decision regarding the start of series production of the radars for integration on the rest of the B-52 fleet. The service has said most recently that it expects to reach initial operational capability with the AN/APQ-188 on the B-52 sometime in the 2028 to 2030 timeframe.

“This phase of the program is dedicated to getting it right at the start so that we can execute the full radar modernization program,” Troy Dawson, Vice President of the Boeing Bombers division, said in a statement.

A major step in that direction has now been achieved with the arrival of the first B-52 to feature the AN/APQ-188 at Edwards.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

The post This Is What The B-52’s New Radar Looks Like appeared first on The War Zone.

The official could not say how many, when they will arrive or where they will go, but suggested they will most likely fly to the former Roosevelt Roads U.S. Navy base in Puerto Rico which has served as a staging ground for aviation assets and troops gathered in the region.

As we previously reported, F-35s from the U.S. Marine Corps began arriving at Roosevelt Road in the middle of September. E/A-18G Growler electronic attack jets just arrived there yesterday as well, which is possibly the most glaring sign that the U.S. is preparing for airstrikes as any over the last few months. You can read more about that deployment and its significance here.

On Wednesday, Vermont media outlets reported that wing assets were being prepared for a deployment but didn’t say where.

“Lt. Col. Meghan Smith confirmed to Vermont Public on Wednesday that the 158th Fighter Wing ‘has received a federal mobilization order,” the Vermont Public news outlet reported. “While we can’t discuss specific timelines or locations, our Airmen train continuously to ensure they are fully prepared to support federal and state missions whenever and wherever they are needed,” Smith said in an email.

Republican Gov. Phil Scott told Vermont Public on Wednesday that he did not know where the jets are going.

“Scott said during his weekly media briefing Wednesday that the Pentagon issued the mobilization orders under Title 10, the federal statute that allows the president to place National Guard troops under federal command,” according to the news outlet. “There isn’t much I can share because I don’t know a lot about any of the mission,” Scott said. “Everything from my understanding is coming out of either the National Guard or the Pentagon at this point.”

F-35A deployed to the Caribbean — the first USAF tactical jets to do so — would offer the ability to drop 2,000lb-class guided bombs on targets deep inside Venezuelan airspace. The F-35Bs currently deployed to Puerto Rico are limited to 1,000lb-class weapons. They also have significantly less range and reduced agility. No F-35s are deployed aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford, it only carries Super Hornets and the USS Iwo Jima is currently carrying a small contingent of AV-8B+ Harriers.

Taking all this into account, the F-35A deployment is a major signal of what type of operations could be on the horizon.

This is a developing story.

Update: 8:29 PM Eastern –

In addition to the F-35As, more aviation assets are being deployed for Operation Southern Spear, including combat search and rescue (CSAR) aircraft and refueling tankers. You can read about that in our story here.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The post F-35A Joint Strike Fighters Deploying To Caribbean (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

The Jiutian’s manufacturer, the state-run Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), announced the drone’s first flight, which took place earlier today in Pucheng County in China’s central Shaanxi Province. The drone was first shown publicly at the 2024 Zhuhai Airshow, and it has also been referred to as the SS-UAV. What the “SS” stands for in that acronym remains unclear. The name Jiutian (also sometimes written Jiu Tian), or “The Ninth Heaven,” refers to the highest level of the heavens in traditional Chinese mythology, but is also commonly translated simply as “High Sky.”

Jiutian is some 53.6 feet (16.35 meters) long and has a wingspan of around 82 feet (25 meters), per AVIC. In addition to its maximum takeoff weight, the company says it has a maximum payload capacity of nearly 13,228 pounds (6,000 kilograms), a ferry range of approximately 4,349.5 miles (7,000 kilometers), and can stay aloft for up to 12 hours. The drone’s stated maximum operational ceiling is 49,212.5 feet (15,000 meters), and it can fly at speeds up to 378 knots and as low as 108 knots.

In terms of its general configuration, Jiutian has a high-mounted wing with a very minimal sweep and small winglets at the tips, as well as an H-shaped tail. It has a single jet engine mounted in a nacelle on top of the rear fuselage. Its tricycle landing gear includes main units that retract into sponsons under the wings. As TWZ has noted in the past, these features together give the drone the outward appearance of something of a mashup of the A-10 Warthog and OV-10 Bronco attack aircraft. There is also a resemblance to rugged De Havilland aircraft, with its landing gear looking especially tough, which could point to being able to operate out of rougher fields.

Jiutian is notably large compared to many other armed uncrewed aircraft designs currently on the market globally. For instance, the jet-powered Wing Loong-10 drone (also known as the WZ-10) in Chinese service now, produced by AVIC’s Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (CAIG) subsidiary, has a maximum takeoff weight of around 3.5 tons (3,200 kilograms). CAIG’s Wing Loong 3 pusher-propeller-driven armed drone, the largest member of that design family to date, has a maximum takeoff weight of around six tons. As another point of comparison, the stated maximum takeoff weight of newer extended-range versions of the U.S. MQ-9 Reaper, which are also notably smaller overall, is just under six tons.

AVIC has described the Jiutian as a “general purpose” design capable of performing a wide range of missions, and its modular payload section has drawn particular attention since it was first unveiled. At the 2024 Zhuhai Airshow, that section had a Chinese phrase printed on the side reading “ascension of the beehive mission module,” according to a machine translation. It also said “Isomerism Hive Module” in English, which appeared to be a mistranslation. A term typically used in chemistry, isomerism refers to the potential existence of isomers, which are molecules or ions with identical molecular formula, but that differ in the physical and chemical arrangements of their atoms. AVIC subsequently confirmed that the intent was to communicate a drone swarm launch capability, according to Chinese state media.

As TWZ wrote last year:

“China’s interest in swarming capabilities and the ability to launch them from various platforms, including high-altitude balloons, is not new. For military purposes, swarms have a number of inherent benefits, including the ability to rapidly fan out across a broad area to carry out various missions depending on how they are configured, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), electronic warfare, and kinetic strike. Individual drones in a swarm can also be equipped with different payloads to give the entire grouping a multi-mission capability. Large numbers of uncrewed aerial systems operating closely together also present significant challenges for defenders who could easily find themselves overwhelmed or otherwise confused about how to best respond to the incoming threats.”

“The War Zone previously laid out a case for giving exactly this kind of drone swarm launch capability to reconfigured P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol planes, which you can read more about here. Drones launching other drones offers a way to push these capabilities further forward while reducing the risk to crewed platforms.”

Having a platform capable of delivering a swarm of drones within hundreds of miles of a particular area would offer huge advantages, especially for attacking ships at sea, island outposts, and other distributed or dispersed target sets. Even the most modern warships in service in the United States and elsewhere today notably lack any real ability to defend against a high-volume attack of this kind. This is something TWZ previously highlighted in a detailed case for arming U.S. Navy warships with their own swarms of drones to bolster their defensive and offensive capabilities, which you can find here.

As mentioned, Jiutian has been displayed in the past with four pylons under each wing loaded with various munitions, as well. This has included PL-12 radar-guided air-to-air missiles, TL-17 land-attack cruise missiles (an export variant of the KD-88), and precision-guided bombs.

Jiutian has a sensor turret under its nose of the kind typically fitted with a mix of electro-optical and infrared cameras. It could also contain a laser designator for employing munitions using that type of guidance.

The drone also has a dome on top of the nose in line with a beyond-line-of-sight communications array and a nose radome. The latter has pointed to at least provisions for the installation of a radar. That could be used to help spot and target aerial threats using weapons like the PL-12, as well as for other targeting purposes, and just to assist with navigation and provide additional situational awareness. Jiutian could use air-to-air weapons for self-defense or to actively hunt flying targets.

The modular payload section is large enough to serve a host of other potential purposes, as well. It could accommodate additional sensors, such as a side-looking airborne radar (SLAR), as well as electronic warfare suites and communication arrays. Jiutian’s ability to fly high and for extended periods at relatively low speeds could make it a particularly ideal platform for more general surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as acting as an airborne communications node. China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had already been expanding its fleet of high-altitude, long-endurance drones and increasingly employing them on routine surveillance and reconnaissance missions, over land or water, around its borders. Many of those existing designs can also carry air-to-surface munitions, but with nowhere near the same capacity as the Jiutian.

AVIC itself has highlighted how Jiutian’s internal space could be utilized for carrying cargo, and it could be a relevant addition for providing logistics support to far-flung locales. The PLA has pronounced needs in this regard with an ever-growing array of remote and austere operating locations, such as its highly strategic island outposts in the South China Sea and its bases spread across the Himalayan Plateau along its disputed border with India. As mentioned earlier, the Jiutian’s landing gear could point to its ability to perform any of its missions while forward-deployed at sites with more limited infrastructure to perform.

Uncrewed platforms could also offer cost benefits compared to traditional crewed cargo aircraft for conducting routine resupply operations to those areas, where the latter may not even be able to operate at all. At the same time, this all seems likely to be at most a secondary mission set for the Jiutian. AVIC and other Chinese aviation firms have already been developing a growing array of larger drones expressly designed primarily for logistics roles.

AVIC and the PLA have also been heavily touting Jiutian’s potential to perform various non-military missions. “Its modular payload system enables roles ranging from precise deliveries of heavy cargo to remote regions, to emergency communication and disaster relief, to geographic surveying and resource mapping,” according to a post today from the China Military Bugle account on X, an official mouthpiece for China’s armed forces.

More broadly, Jiutian is reflective of China’s increasingly dominant position in the uncrewed aviation space globally. AVIC and other firms in China have been steadily unveiling new designs, large and small, in recent years, and getting many of them at least to first flight. Just this year, TWZ has been the first to report on the emergence of multiple new Chinese uncrewed aircraft with flying wing-type designs, an area of development that has become particularly pronounced in the country. Just last month, the PLA announced that it had put its first flying wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV), the GJ-11, into operational service, as you can read more about here. There has been a notable surge in Chinese military aviation developments, in general, since last year, which also includes the emergence of significant new crewed types, such as the J-36 and J-XDS stealth fighters.

It’s worth pointing out that AVIC’s heavy focus on non-military missions for Jiutian underscores the significant overlap between the military and commercial ends of China’s aerospace industry, as well as the role that ostensibly civilian research institutions often play. This is something TWZ routinely highlights. These kinds of dual-purpose relationships are also prevalent in the country outside of the aviation realm.

When it comes to the Jiutian design, specifically, more insights into its capabilities and expected roles may now begin to emerge as the drone is now in flight testing.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post China’s High-Flying Swarm Mothership Drone Has Flown appeared first on The War Zone.

A provision explicitly about the MASC program is contained in the most recent draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act, which the House Armed Services Committee released this past weekend. The legislation, which is a compromise between previous House and Senate versions of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2026, could now be put to a vote as early as this week.

The MASC provision contained in the current version of the bill is brief but to the point. It stipulates that “the Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work, including priced or unpriced options, for the construction, advance procurement, or long-lead material for Modular Attack Surface Craft Block 0 until the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that such vessels will be purpose-built unmanned vessels engineered to operate without human support systems or operational requirements intended for crewed vessels.”

The Navy laid out a host of details regarding its plans for MASC this past summer, including initial requirements for a baseline design, as well as high-capacity and single-payload types, all of which you can read more about here. As mentioned, the Navy is primarily looking to configure MASC drone ships to conduct surveillance and reconnaissance and strike missions. The service has also expressed an interest in unspecified capabilities to counter adversary intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting activities. As TWZ has previously noted, stated power generation requirements could also be particularly relevant for any plans to integrate laser or high-power microwave directed energy weapons, as well as electronic warfare suites, onto future members of the MASC family.

For years now, the Navy has been using optionally crewed vessels to help lay the groundwork for future fleets of medium and large uncrewed surface vessels (MUSV/LUSV). This has included the test-firing of a containerized missile launcher from one of those ships, as seen in the video below.

The MASC program reflects a larger shift in focus away from those previous efforts, which were defined primarily by very rigid length and displacement requirements. Modular, containerized payloads, rather than specific hull designs, are central to the new MASC concept.

The Navy has also been fielding a growing number of speed boat and jet ski-type USV designs through programs separate from MASC.

As mentioned, USVs that are designed from the outset to only sail in an uncrewed mode offer benefits when it comes to development, production, and operational employment. They do not need berthing space, galleys, toilets, or any other features needed to support human personnel on board. All of this, in turn, can allow for more radical design decisions optimized for the performance of the missions, as well as help reduce overall complexity and cost. This can further translate into USVs that are faster and easier to produce in larger quantities.

With all this in mind, the Navy has already been openly talking about moving away from optionally-crewed designs for MASC.

“When you introduce that capability to operate with people on board, it creates a lot of other requirements and cost and complications,” Navy Capt. Matt Lewis, program manager of the Unmanned Maritime Systems program office within Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), told USNI News on the sidelines of an event back in August. “The [MASC] solicitation that went out for industry… it was open, and we are eager to get proposals as we review them, to look at the proposals that don’t have people on board.”

“We definitely want unmanned. Period. I mean, it’s that simple,” Navy Capt. Garrett Miller, commander of Surface Development Group One (SURFDEVGRU), also said at that time.

SURFDEVGRU is currently a focal point within the Navy for work on operationalizing USV capabilities and has two unmanned surface vessel squadrons assigned to it. The Group also oversees the two Zumwalt class stealth destroyers that the Navy has in service now. The third ship in that class, the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson, is also set to be assigned to the unit.

Larger USVs intended to sail for protracted periods without even a skeleton crew on board to provide immediate maintenance and other support do also present certain challenges. These vessels have to be highly reliable and be capable of at least a certain degree of safe autonomous operation in areas that could be full of other ships. How force protection might be ensured, especially during more independent operations, is an open question, too.

Underscoring all of this, the recently release draft NDAA for Fiscal Year 2026 includes a separate provision that would prevent the Secretary of the Navy from awarding “a detail design or construction contract or other agreement, or obligate funds from a procurement account, for a covered [medium and large USV] program unless such contract or other agreement includes a requirement for an operational demonstration of not less than 720 continuous hours without preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance, emergent repair, or any other form of repair or maintenance,” for a variety of key systems. It would also block the Navy from accepting delivery of any “articles” produced under any such contract or agreement before the successful conclusion of that operational demonstration.

The Navy has already been cooperating with the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on a program specifically intended to prove new USV capabilities with a demonstrator designed from the start to operate without humans ever being on board. The Defiant drone ship that was developed for DARPA’s Manning Required Ship (NOMARS) effort, also known as the USX-1, kicked off an extended at-sea trial in September that has included a demonstration of its ability to be refueled at sea using a system that does not require personnel to be present on the receiving side. You can read more about the Defiant, which prime contractor Serco also developed to be a lower-cost and readily producible design, here.

The stated plan is for Defiant to be transferred to SURFDEVGRU after DARPA’s testing with the ship wraps up. The Navy has said that it sees the vessel, which is also designed around carrying containerized mission payloads, as a key technology ‘feeder’ into the MASC effort. Prime contractor Serco has already been developing an enlarged derivative, currently called the Dauntless, as well.

Other companies are already lining up to compete for future MASC contracts, including Eureka Naval Craft with its Bengal-Module Carrier, or Bengal-MC.

U.S. shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) unveiled its own plans for a new line of USVs, called ROMULUS, in September. HII says ROMULUS designs will be highly modular and capable of carrying containerized payloads, which is all in line with the Navy’s current vision for MASC.

In November, Anduril announced a partnership with HD Hyundai Heavy Industries in South Korea to develop a new family of what the company is calling Autonomous Surface Vessels (ASV), including a version explicitly intended to meet the Navy’s MASC requirements. An initial ASV prototype is set to be built in Korea, but Anduril has plans to establish its own production capacity within the United States at a revamped shipyard in Seattle, Washington.

There are other U.S. companies, especially ones like Leidos that are already very active in the USV space, which could join the race to meet the Navy’s MASC needs. The marketplace for larger USVs, and particularly designs built around readily interchangeable containerized payloads, is growing globally, as well. This includes several designs that have emerged in China in recent years.

A widening and ever more worrisome gap in U.S. shipbuilding capacity versus China has been a key driver behind the surge in the Navy’s interest in USVs in recent years, to begin with. Distributed fleets of USVs configured for a variety of missions, including strike and ISR missions, could be critical to bolstering existing fleets of traditional crewed warships, especially in a future large-scale conflict across the broad expanses of the Pacific. With a high degree of autonomy, those uncrewed vessels could operate more independently of their crewed companions, creating new operational possibilities, but also introducing new risks.

The Navy has also highlighted how MASC USVs being readily reconfigurable could create targeting challenges and other dilemmas for opponents who would not know what payloads they might be carrying at any one time. MASC drone ships could also be sent first into higher-risk areas or otherwise help reduce risks to crewed assets.

The plans for MASC are still very much evolving. However, the Navy’s vision looks increasingly set to eschew optionally-crewed designs, something Congress now looks intent on further compelling the service to do by law.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Crew Optional Designs Could Be Barred By Law From Navy’s Drone Ship Program appeared first on The War Zone.

The Marines are sponsoring a test of the LUCAS drones at the U.S. Army’s Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), the Army stated. The move comes as the Corps is working to increase its own one-way attack drone capabilities and the Pentagon is pushing for more drone use across the military in the wake of their ubiquity in the Ukraine war. The Pentagon is hoping that the LUCAS drones can be quickly and cheaply built and delivered at scale.

“Harkening back to the Liberty Ship production model that rapidly produced thousands of cargo ships during World War II, testers hope that the LUCAS will eventually serve a similar function in the new era of warfare,” Col. Nicholas Law, Director of Experimentation in the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Research & Engineering, said in a release. “It’s not a single manufacturer: it’s designed to go to multiple manufacturers to be built in mass quantities.”

We laid out this exact concept months ago, along with our in-depth case for rushing mass production of American Shahed-136 copies, that you can read in full here.

Law envisions these drones as ultimately able to be used on dynamic targets, such as vehicles on the move or targets of interest that the drones find themselves with a degree of autonomy.

“Once we start weaponization and automated target recognition, we can have a target that is a representation of a real target,” he explained. Law didn’t provide any specifics, and we have reached out to the Army and Marines for more information.

You can read our deep dive on how artificial intelligence will revolutionize lower-end drones like LUCAS in exactly this way in our special feature linked here. But the fact that LUCAS can be equipped with a satellite datalink means that it could hunt for and find targets of interest over great distances all on its own, while still allowing a human operator to approve a strike.

In addition to strikes, LUCAS drones equipped with nose-mounted gimbal cameras can also be deployed to provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). With an estimated price tag for the platform itself of about $35,000, these LUCAS variants could provide an affordable, attritable platform for ISR. The LUCAS drones we have seen also have swarming capabilities — the ability to work cooperatively as a team — which can make them especially effective at attack operations and acting as decoys to confuse enemy air defenses.

The one detail Law provided about the drones being tested at YPG is that they are not yet equipped with warheads.

“The warhead that will eventually be integrated into LUCAS isn’t constructed yet, but it will also be low-cost and mass produced by multiple manufacturers,” Law posited. “Evaluators are currently testing LUCAS with inert payloads.”

CENTCOM declined comment on whether its LUCAS drones currently deployed have kinetic payloads and referred us to statements previously made that they have been deployed as one-way attack drones. It’s possible that they feature more improvised, less powerful warheads at this time. They can also just fly into their targets to damage them — especially fragile ones like radar arrays.

As we noted in our original piece on the topic, CENTCOM stood up Task Force Scorpion Strike (TFSS), the military’s first one-way attack drone squadron, to operate the LUCAS drones. Roughly 10 feet long with a wingspan of eight feet, was developed by Arizona-based SpektreWorks in cooperation with the U.S. military primarily as a target drone to emulate a Shahed-136-like threat, but also as a weapon in its own right.

There are, however, other companies involved in providing LUCAS variants. For instance, Griffon Aerospace has been pitching a Shahed-like drone called the MQM-172 Arrowhead to America’s armed forces.

The company, which is building the air frames, has already provided them to the Pentagon for use as both strike weapons and targets, Griffon spokesman Dan Beck told us Wednesday. However, it is unclear whether they have been fitted with kinetic payloads or how widespread their testing and use is across the military. We have reached out to the Pentagon to learn more.

Beck said Kraken Kinetics is providing the payload for these LUCAS variants. We’ve reached out to them as well.

While Beck declined to provide many details of his company’s work with the Pentagon, he did offer us some insights about the Arrowhead’s specifications.

Considered a long-range LUCAS version, the Arrowhead can carry a payload of up to 100 pounds as far as 1,500 nautical miles, Beck told us. That’s akin to the Shahed-136 drones produced by Iran and modified by Russia for its use against Ukraine. The current LUCAS models deployed to the Middle East are smaller and have significantly less endurance and about half the payload capacity.

While the general concept has existed for decades, similar delta-winged one-way attack munitions are steadily emerging globally among allies and potential foes alike, including in China. Russia is also said to be assisting North Korea in establishing its own domestic capacity to produce Shahed-136s, or derivatives thereof, as part of an exchange for Pyongyang’s help in fighting Ukraine.

Beck also told us that Griffon has been “flying these airplanes very frequently” and have been launched pneumatically and from trucks. There are plans to use rocket-assisted takeoff (RATO), but that hasn’t been tested yet, he added. Asked about whether these have been tested with kinetic payloads, Beck declined comment.

Though these types of weapons have a long development history, Iranian officials mocked the U.S. for copying their design.

“There is no greater source of pride and honor than seeing the self-proclaimed technological superpowers kneel before the Iranian drone and clone it,” Brig. Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi boasted to reporters on Tuesday.

The reality is that Iran didn’t really come up with this configuration, it dates back decades to a western design and Israel largely pioneered the operational use of the long-range one-way attack munition.

With LUCAS’s sudden deployment to the Middle East as a kinetic weapon and now the Marines testing the concept to see if it fits their needs, the future of America’s Shahed-136 knock-off looks remarkably bright. And we could be seeing just the budding of what will become a mass produced staple weapon that will be deployed en-masse across Europe and the Pacific.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The post American-Made Shahed-136 Kamikaze Drone Clones Being Tested By Marines appeared first on The War Zone.

“Ukraine is already using the Neptune, the long-range Neptune, the Palyanytsya, the Flamingo. And also, the Sapsan, I’ll be honest — we’ve begun using it,” Zelensky told journalists. The Ukrainian president added that he would not disclose how many of these weapons have been deployed, or what they targeted.

“Because for now we don’t want the enemy to know all the precedents and all the details,” Zelensky added.

As well as the Sapsan, Zelensky referred to four domestically produced weapons that we already knew had been used operationally. These are the land-attack version of the Neptune anti-ship cruise missile, the extended-range version of the same weapon, known as the Long Neptune, the Palyanytsya jet-powered missile/drone hybrid, and the very long-range Flamingo cruise missile.

It’s clear, too, that Zelensky wants to promote confusion among Russian authorities as to which of these weapons are being used in any given strike.

“There are many cases when our enemy believes a strike was carried out with a Neptune… And let them continue thinking that,” he added.

With that in mind, we should also consider the possibility that the Sapsan has not actually been used in combat. So far, there doesn’t seem to be any confirmed evidence of wreckage from impact sites in Russia, although the Russian Ministry of Defense has previously claimed that it successfully shot down examples of Ukrainian ballistic missiles over Crimea.

On the other hand, using the Sapsan in combat would certainly make sense, given Ukraine’s extensive efforts to ramp up domestic arms production, with a particular focus on the ability to hit targets deeper inside Russia.

As well as the aforementioned long-range missiles, Ukraine has also made use of an extensive array of domestically produced long-range kamikaze drones, as well as other munitions that blur the line between those weapons and traditional cruise missiles, like the Peklo ‘missile drone’.

As for Ukraine’s domestic ballistic missile program, the results remain much less clear, but we have been waiting to see a weapon of this kind deployed for a long time now. Perhaps, its development has also been accelerated by help from Western partners.

In August of 2024, Zelensky announced the first successful test of a new domestically developed ballistic missile, now understood to be the Sapsan.

While details of the Sapsan remain scarce, the missile is closely related to the Hrim-2 (also written Grim-2 and which translates as Thunder-2 in English).

In fact, the Hrim-2 was developed as an export version of the original Sapsan, which had been intended for Ukrainian use.

The origins of the Hrim-2 and its immediate predecessors date back to the late 2000s, with development apparently accelerated after Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014. A rocket motor test associated with the design occurred in 2018, and the two-round, 10-wheeled transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) for the missile, or at least a mockup, appeared at a parade that same year.

You can read more about what is known about the Hrim-2 and its development in this past War Zone piece, which followed speculation that Ukraine might have employed some of those missiles in an attack on Russia’s Saki Air Base in 2022.

While we don’t know what the Sapsan missile looks like, it is likely broadly similar to what we’ve seen of the Hrim-2 and preceding related designs, which, in turn, bear a superficial resemblance to Russia’s Iskander-M.

In terms of performance, the Hrim-2 reportedly has a range of at least 174 miles (280 kilometers) and possibly up to 310 miles (500 kilometers), and the same could well hold true for the Sapsan.

On the other hand, in 2023, Ukraine’s then-Minister of Defense Oleksii Reznikov also said that the country had a new long-range missile in development that could have a range of up to 620 miles (1,000 kilometers). This could also have been a direct reference to the Sapsan.

Regardless, it would seem highly likely that the Sapsan is in the category of short-range ballistic missiles (SRBM), which are traditionally defined as having maximum ranges of no more than 620 miles (1,000 kilometers).

Since the full-scale invasion, Ukraine has had only limited access to ballistic missiles, and none of these have come from domestic production.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces have been employing Soviet-era Tochka-U SRBMs, as well as even older Tochka types, both of which have the NATO reporting name SS-21 Scarab. These only have maximum ranges of 43 miles (70 kilometers) and 75 miles (120 kilometers), respectively, a fact that spurred the original development of the Sapsan/Hrim-2.

Furthermore, Ukraine has been receiving small numbers of ATACMS from the United States, which it has used to good effect.

However, in common with additional types of ground and air-launched standoff munitions supplied to Ukraine by the U.S. government and other foreign partners, there are strict limitations imposed on the use of those weapons on targets deeper inside Russia.

Putting all this together, the utility of a ballistic missile of domestic production becomes very clear, as part of a multi-pronged effort to strike key targets outside of Ukraine’s borders (as well as further beyond the front lines, in Russian-controlled territory).

As we have noted in the past, a new source of ballistic missiles that are more capable and longer ranged than the Tochka family, and that are not subject to any Western restrictions like ATACMS, would be a key breakthrough for Ukraine.

While long-range drones, cruise missiles, and drone/missile hybrids are valuable, ballistic missiles offer the advantage of very high speeds in the terminal phase of flight. This makes them much harder for enemy air and missile defenses to defeat. Ballistic missiles with unitary high-explosive warheads can also burrow down deeper into hardened targets or impart greater force on reinforced structures above ground, like bridges, thanks to that speed.

While we don’t know how Ukraine has employed Sapsan so far, provided that it has, a likely scenario would see the ballistic missiles combined with other types of missiles and drones in complex attacks to make it even harder for enemy forces to deal with. This would follow the same pattern that Russia routinely uses in large-scale attacks on Ukrainian targets.

If Ukraine is able to produce the Sapsan in meaningful numbers, and provided that it works to its full potential, the results could be significant, if it’s anything like the precedent set by Ukraine’s employment of American ATACMS.

Even with the restrictions imposed by the U.S. government, Ukrainian ATACMS strikes have led to major changes in Russian operating procedures, especially at airbases within range of those missiles. It has also forced Russia to move additional air and missile defenses to the theater, including the S-500, the most advanced surface-to-air missile system in the country’s inventory today.

At this point, we still need to await independent verification of the Sapsan ballistic missile being used in combat. However, the value of such a weapon for the Ukrainian military is unquestionable, providing a powerful new vector for launching standoff strikes into Russia without any foreign restrictions. Provided it is being used operationally, we likely won’t have to wait too much longer for positive confirmation of this.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post If Zelensky’s Claim Of Using Homegrown Ballistic Missile For First Time Is True, It’s A Big Deal appeared first on The War Zone.

The EA-18Gs now in Puerto Rico are critical force multipliers. Their deployment is indicative of what one would see in the lead-up to a kinetic operation centered heavily on strikes on targets in inland areas, such as ones the United States might carry out in Venezuela in the future. Growlers could provide electronic warfare support for platforms launching standoff attacks or penetrating through enemy air defenses to get closer to their objectives. The jets could also help ensure the survivability of standoff munitions themselves.

Other mission sets, including the insertion and/or extraction of special operations forces or other ground units, as well as combat search and rescue, would benefit from Growler support. In the context of Venezuela, as TWZ has previously explored in detail, the elements that currently make up that country’s air defense network do present varying degrees of threats that U.S. mission planners would have to take into account in any such operations.

Just yesterday, TWZ highlighted the role that Growlers could play in future operations aimed at Venezuela after a pair of those jets took part in a new major show of force off the coast of that nation. As part of that mission, two F/A-18 Super Hornets flew right into the middle of the Gulf of Venezuela, which is bounded on three sides by that country’s national territory. You can read more about those sorties in our previous reporting here.

There had already been signs that a deployment of EA-18Gs to Puerto Rico was in progress earlier in the week. Online flight tracking data and other open-source information had pointed to U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tankers ‘dragging’ a group of Growlers from Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island in Washington State toward the Caribbean. Video said to show those aircraft touching down at the former Naval Station Roosevelt Roads base, also now known as Jose Aponte de la Torre Airport, appeared on social media late last night. Reuters subsequently published a picture, seen earlier in this story, offering further visual confirmation that these aircraft are indeed Growlers. The paint job on one of the jets points more specifically to the aircraft belonging to Electronic Attack Squadron 132 (VAQ-132). TWZ has reached out to the Navy and U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) for more information.

The picture from Reuters shows some of the EA-18Gs now in Puerto Rico are carrying new AN/ALQ-249(V)1 Next Generation Jammer-Mid Band (NGJ-MB) electronic warfare pods under their wings. Other Growlers in the contingent have older AN/ALQ-99 types. With the transition from the ALQ-99 to the ALQ-249 still underway, this mixture of pods is commonly seen among deployed Growler units.

NGJ-MB, with its new active electronically scanned array (AESA) antennas and modular open-architecture design, represents a significant leap in capability over its predecessor. It offers “increased jamming capability at higher power and longer ranges than the AN/ALQ-99 Tactical Jammer System, as well as the ability to rapidly update hardware and software to counter rapidly evolving threat capabilities,” according to a report the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) released earlier this year.

NGJ-MB, with its new active electronically scanned array (AESA) antennas and modular open-architecture design, represents a significant leap in capability over its predecessor. It offers “increased jamming capability at higher power and longer ranges than the AN/ALQ-99 Tactical Jammer System, as well as the ability to rapidly update hardware and software to counter rapidly evolving threat capabilities,” according to a report the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) released earlier this year.

The new pod “is designed to improve EA-18G capabilities against modern, advanced RF [radiofrequency] threats, communications, datalinks, and non-traditional RF targets,” a previous DOT&E report had also explained. The ALQ-249 is designed “to deny, degrade, or deceive the enemy’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum by employing both reactive and preemptive jamming techniques while enhancing the friendly force’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum.”

The Growler’s electronic warfare suite also allows for the collection of intelligence data that can be used to help glean insights into adversary capabilities and to create so-called “Electronic Orders of Battle” outlining the disposition of their forces in a given area. The latter information is especially useful for mapping out air defense networks and communications nodes as part of planning for future strike operations.

The EA-18Gs can also directly attack enemy air defense assets, as well as other targets on the surface, using AGM-88-series anti-radiation missiles. The Navy jets are also able to carry AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), primarily for self-defense. All of this underscores the specialized capabilities the Growlers provide, which do not fall directly in line with the demands of current enhanced counter-narcotics operations in the region. The centerpiece of those efforts so far has been controversial strikes on small boats alleged to be involved in drug smuggling.

As noted, EA-18Gs Electronic Attack Squadron 142 (VAQ-142), also based at NAS Whidbey Island, was already in the Caribbean before yesterday. Those jets arrived in November along with the rest of the air wing aboard the Navy’s supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford. A typical Growler squadron consists of five to seven jets, including when embarked on a carrier, meaning the number of these jets now in the region has effectively doubled. It is also worth mentioning here that EA-18Gs regularly operate from bases on land.

Ford and its air wing are just a part of the significant array of forces the United States has already amassed in the region, with a host of other surface warships, crewed and uncrewed aircraft, and ground forces being present, as well. Marine F-35B Joint Strike Fighters and other aircraft have already been operating from Puerto Rico for months now. In total, there are some 15,000 American military personnel forward-deployed across the Caribbean, which also includes a major special operations component.

All this being said, whether or not U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration decides to pursue direct military action in Venezuela remains to be seen. American authorities have made it no secret that a maximum pressure campaign against Maduro’s regime is very much underway. U.S. and other foreign officials have called for him to step down. The Venezuelan leader is also alleged to have ties to an entity referred to as the Cartel of the Suns, which is now also designated as a terrorist organization, and has been under indictment in the United States on narcotics and other charges since 2020. American authorities are currently offering a $50 million bounty for information leading to his arrest.

“His [Maduro’s] days are numbered,” President Trump said yesterday during an interview with Politico‘s Dasha Burns when asked if he would like to see the Venezuelan leader out of power.

In that same interview, Trump declined to say how far the U.S. government might be willing to go to achieve that aim, but also declined to rule out the possibility of a ground invasion or other military action. TWZ has previously explored what American ground operations and/or strikes against targets inside Venezuela might entail.

With the new contingent of Growlers now on the ground in Puerto Rico, it may not be long before it becomes more apparent what role they have to play in operations in the region.

Update, 4:05 PM EST:

In another new development regarding the U.S. maximum pressure campaign against Venezuela, President Donald Trump has confirmed the seizure today of an oil tanker off the coast of the South American country.

“We’ve just seized a tanker on [sic] the coast of Venezuela,” Trump told members of the press at the start of a meeting with business leaders. “And other things are happening. You’ll be seeing that later.”

Trump did not name the ship or otherwise elaborate. Reuters had earlier reported that the U.S. Coast Guard had led the interdiction of the tanker, citing unnamed U.S. officials. A British maritime risk firm, Vanguard, told that outlet that the vessel in question is believed to be named Skipper. The seizure is said to be ostensibly linked to U.S. sanctions on the trade of Iranian oil.

Politico has reported that the seized tanker was bound for Cuba, citing an unnamed source.

Update, 7:15 PM EST:

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has shared video footage, seen below, of the seizure of the tanker off the coast of Venezuela today. Personnel are seen rappelling onto the deck of the ship from a Navy MH-60S Seahawk helicopter.

“Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and the United States Coast Guard, with support from the Department of War, executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran,” Bondi wrote in an accompanying post on social media. “For multiple years, the oil tanker has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations. This seizure, completed off the coast of Venezuela, was conducted safely and securely—and our investigation alongside the Department of Homeland Security to prevent the transport of sanctioned oil continues.”

CBS News has also now reported that the Navy helicopters used in the operation, which also included U.S. Marines, launched from the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post EA-18G Growlers Deploying To Puerto Rico An Indicator Of What’s To Come (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

In a statement on X, the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces confirmed that talks regarding the exchange of MiG-29s are underway.

“The transfer of these aircraft is related to the fact that they have reached their target service life and there are no prospects for their further modernization in the Polish Armed Forces,” the statement says.

The General Staff states that no final decision has been made, but notes that the donation of the fighters is in line with NATO policy of supporting Ukraine and maintaining security on NATO’s eastern flank.

The statement adds that tasks of the MiG-29 aircraft being withdrawn from service will be carried out by Polish Air Force F-16 fighters and FA-50 light combat aircraft.

Interestingly, the talks also involve the transfer of “selected drone and missile technologies” to Poland.

“The aim is not only to compensate for the equipment, but above all to acquire and jointly develop new defense and industrial capabilities,” the General Staff emphasizes.

Discussions around the possible transfer of Poland’s last MiG-29 jets to Ukraine began back in July 2024.

As of now, the Polish Air Force has 14 Fulcrums, comprising 11 single-seat MiG-29 fighters and three two-seat MiG-29UB combat trainers.

Polish Fulcrums came from a variety of sources, as you can read about here. As well as original deliveries from the Soviet Union, Poland acquired former Czechoslovakian MiG-29s inherited by the Czech Republic, as well as upgraded examples that had previously been flown by the German Luftwaffe (and, before that, by East Germany).

The remaining Polish aircraft are very much still active on the front line and in support of NATO.

On two occasions in late October of this year, for example, Polish MiG-29s intercepted a Russian Il-20 Coot intelligence-gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea.

In March 2023, Warsaw announced it would transfer the first batch of 14 MiG-29s to Ukraine. The first four of these MiG-29s are reported to have arrived in Ukraine the following month.

They were preceded by MiG-29s provided by Slovakia, which confirmed its donation soon after Poland. The Slovakian government approved the transfer of 13 MiG-29s to Ukraine, and the first arrived there in March 2023 — the first tactical jets to be officially supplied to Kyiv since Russia launched its full-scale invasion. Ukraine has apparently also received MiG-29 spare parts from other sources, too, with speculation that former Moldovan Fulcrums acquired by the United States might have been involved.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, additional fighters are in great demand, with steady attrition since the conflict began.

Ukraine started the war with around 50 MiG-29s in operational service, assigned to two regiments. According to the Oryx open-source tracking group, since the start of the current conflict, 33 Ukrainian MiG-29s have been confirmed destroyed, and more damaged. The actual figure is almost certainly higher, as Oryx only tallies losses that are confirmed with visual evidence.

The situation as regards the Su-27 Flanker is even more serious, with the Ukrainian Air Force having begun the war with around 32 operational examples, at least 19 of which have been confirmed as destroyed — the most recent one earlier this week. Unlike the MiG-29, there is no potential source to help replace Flanker losses.

It’s worth noting that additional examples of both these types have also been brought back to airworthiness after local overhauls. At least some of these were returned to action after long periods standing dormant or in storage.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has introduced more modern and capable F-16s and Mirage 2000s, but it’s significant that the MiG-29, in particular, remains a highly prized asset. This is a fact reflected in its continued adaptation to carry new weaponry, both Western-supplied and locally developed. With significant stocks of spares, weapons, and well-trained maintenance crews, the MiG-29 is regarded as easy to maintain and adapt. It is also well-suited to more austere operations, with the Ukrainian Air Force regularly moving the jets around between different operating locations, making it harder for the Russians to target them.

Kyiv’s need for more MiG-29s, from whatever source, was underscored by the appearance of at least one former Azerbaijani example earlier this year. As you can read about here, this was likely one of three Azerbaijani MiG-29s that were undergoing repair in Ukraine and were left stranded there after the full-scale invasion began.

Should the final 14 Polish MiG-29s be supplied to Ukraine, which would appear to be a formality, the last source of NATO-owned Fulcrums is Bulgaria, which operates around a dozen examples.

In the past, the Bulgarian Ministry of Defense ruled out a transfer of the jets to Ukraine, stating that such a move “would lead to a deficit of capabilities.”

Now that the Bulgarian Air Force has started to receive the 16 F-16C/D Block 70 fighters that it has ordered, that situation could change.

Returning to the Polish Air Force, once the last MiG-29s have gone, it will be left with a combat fleet spearheaded by 47 F-16C/D Block 52+ fighters, which will be upgraded to the F-16V configuration, as you can read about here.

These are bolstered by 12 South Korean-made FA-50GFs that were delivered to Poland between July and December 2023. Another 36 of the more advanced FA-50PL aircraft are also on order.

Starting next year, the first operational Polish fifth-generation fighter squadron is due to be established, with 32 F-35As on order and training already underway in the United States.

There is also the possibility that Poland might further increase its fighter inventory, adding another new type in the shape of the F-15EX, the latest version of the Eagle.

Boeing made an announcement about its pitch to sell an unspecified number of F-15EXs to Poland in 2023, as we wrote about at the time.

Exactly what kinds of drone and missile technologies might find their way from Ukraine to Poland is unclear.

However, the Polish Air Force is currently on something of a drone push, introducing the Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 uncrewed aerial system, as also used by Ukraine, and these will ultimately be joined by three MQ-9B SkyGuardian drones, providing much expanded capabilities.

As well as a wide variety of homegrown drones of different sizes and capabilities, including suicide drones and loitering munitions, Ukraine’s counter-drone expertise could be of particular interest to Poland, which has faced multiple Russian drone incursions.

Long-range cruise missile or even ballistic missile technologies could also be involved in the technology-transfer talks.

Whatever the case, the military relationship between Warsaw and Kyiv looks set to deepen further, both on a strategic level and, more immediately, with the likely transfer of badly needed MiG-29s for the Ukrainian Air Force.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Poland’s Last MiG-29 Fulcrums Being Lined Up For Transfer To Ukraine appeared first on The War Zone.

GDLS also recently released a photo showing the launch of one of the loitering munitions from a pop-up canister mounted on the tank’s turret, where it replaces the standard loader sponson box.

These disclosures follow the demonstration of the PERCH system, which integrates the Switchblade 300 and Switchblade 600 loitering munitions into the M1A2 Abrams SEPv3, the latest variant of the tank in U.S. Army service. PERCH can also be integrated on Stryker 8×8 infantry carrier vehicles, and potentially other platforms. The launcher can hold three Switchblade 300s and one 600 at the same time.

PERCH was developed by GDLS and AeroVironment, which produces the Switchblade, and it was demonstrated from October 26-30 at the Army’s Machine Assisted Rugged Sapper (MARS) event at Fort Hood, Texas. MARS was spearheaded by the 36th Engineer Brigade and III Armored Corps, and focused on soldiers using autonomous technology to complete breaching operations, reducing the overall risk they were exposed to.

As a modular system, PERCH is designed to be simply bolted onto an armored vehicle; in the case of the Abrams, it is fixed in place using existing attachment points. In the MARS event, PERCH was operated via a tablet interface, although GDLS says that future iterations will be fully integrated with existing vehicle computer systems.

By utilizing the Switchblade, PERCH provides the vehicle with not only extended-range surveillance but also over-the-horizon lethality. In certain circumstances, this can even be extended to beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS), in which the loitering munition is used in an autonomous, preprogrammed mode to fly a route and/or hit a fixed target.

As we have outlined in the past, the Switchblade 300 is a relatively small loitering munition, a type of weapon also often referred to as a kamikaze drone, and can carry a four-pound high-explosive warhead. It has a maximum range of just over six miles and can stay aloft for around 15 minutes.

A camera in the nose allows the operator to see what the drone sees right up until near the moment of impact. The human at the controls can make course corrections and even wave off an attack entirely for any reason, up until the final moments of flight. During the final part of its terminal attack run, once locked onto its target, the loitering munition is controlled autonomously in order to hit its target even after losing connection with its controller while very low over the ground.

The larger and longer-ranged Switchblade 600 can provide long-range, higher-endurance reconnaissance and strike capabilities and is equipped with the same multipurpose warhead used in Javelin anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). While the -300 model can go after light vehicles and personnel, the -600 can kill armor and destroy structures.

Both versions of the loitering munition have seen notable service in Ukraine, including against Russian armor.

The flexibility of the Abrams/Switchblade combo was proven at the MARS event, which saw users complete a complex obstacle breach, with the loitering munitions used for extended-range reconnaissance and over-the-horizon targeting of high-value targets.

“PERCH allows units to deploy Switchblade loitering munitions far forward on the battlefield while remaining covered and concealed themselves,” explained Jim Pasquarette, vice president for U.S. strategy and business development at GDLS, in a subsequent press release. “We have seen a lot of soldier interest in this readymade, effective concept, and we look forward to future demonstrations.”

Providing combat vehicles with an easily mounted, combat-proven loitering munition system is a quick way of extending their reach — and therefore their survivability. In the case of the Abrams, PERCH allows the tank to deliver precise effects through indirect fire, including engaging targets from protected positions at long distances, in which it would be unable to use its main gun.

At the same time, hosting these loitering munitions gives the tank an organic extended-range surveillance capability, meaning it can scout ahead for potential threats or other hazards without having to rely on information provided by other units. Pairing the loitering munitions with a drone relay/receiver that could stay airborne above the Abrams (even tethered to it) would provide a further benefit, extending the line-of-sight connectivity significantly, especially in complex terrain. Such a system could also provide localized overwatch and enhanced situational awareness.

Overall, the appearance of PERCH is long overdue.

Adding drones of this kind to armor gives them a new standoff indirect fire capability and a critical scouting tool, all in one modular and easy to use package.

While the long-term future of PERCH with the Army is not yet determined, it is notable that, while the MARS event involved a demonstration that was funded by industry, the next phase of testing looks like it will be paid for by the Pentagon.

Last week, it was reported that GDLS was in talks with the Army to provide an upgraded version of PERCH for testing in the second half of next year.

Advances planned for the new version include making it easier to reload the loitering munitions.

A GDLS spokesperson told Janes that, if a deal is struck, the upgraded PERCH would be integrated into a tank as part of the 1st Cavalry Division, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team’s Pegasus Forge exercise in the latter part of 2026.

Provided that it is a success, the next evaluation could pave the way to more Army Abrams tanks getting a Switchblade loitering munition capability via the PERCH launcher.

Regardless of progress with PERCH, it seems ever more likely that loitering munitions will become a standard fit on armor on the battlefields of the future.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post M1 Abrams Tank Armed With Switchblade Drones Tested By Army appeared first on The War Zone.

Two Russian Tu-95 Bear turboprop bombers flew south from the Sea of Japan into the East China Sea, the Japanese Defense Ministry (MoD) said. After flying between west of Japan and southeast of South Korea, they joined two Chinese H-6 series bombers near Okinawa Japan.

“They then conducted a long-distance joint flight from the East China Sea to the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Shikoku,” according to the ministry.

The bombers were joined by four Chinese J-16 Flanker multirole fighter derivatives “when these bombers flew back and forth between Okinawa Island and Miyako Island,” the Japanese MoD noted. The Bear bombers later flew back along the same route north into the Sea of Japan while the Chinese jets flew back toward China.

In addition to those flights, the Japanese said one Russian A-50 Mainstay early warning and control aircraft and two Russian Su-30 Flanker fighters were also spotted north of Japan in the Sea of Japan, the MoD stated.

“In response, fighter jets from the Japan Air Self-Defense Force’s Southwest Air Defense Command and other units were scrambled,” the MoD explained, without providing details about where jets flew.

South Korea also sent fighters aloft as the Chinese-Russian joint flight briefly flew into its Air Defense Identification Zone (KADIZ), according to the Yonhap News Agency.

“Two Chinese military planes and seven Russian aircraft successively entered the KADIZ at around 10 a.m. prompting the military to dispatch Air Force fighter jets in preparation for a possible accidental situation,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said.

The JCS did not identify what kind of aircraft took part in the joint Chinese-Russian flight, but bombers and fighters “intermittently entered and left the KADIZ for about an hour before completely retreating from the air defense zone.”

Joint Chinese-Russian flights in this area are not new. Since 2019, the two countries have sent their military planes into the KADIZ once or twice a year during joint exercises, without prior notice, Yonhap explained.

The last such flight took place in November 2024 when “11 military planes from both China and Russia entered the KADIZ together,” Yonhap noted.

As we previously reported, the first such flight took place in June 2019 and resulted in South Korean jets firing about 360 20mm cannon shells in a series of warning shots after a Russian Mainstay violated airspace South Korea claims above a small group of islets, which it refers to as Dokdo. Japan also claims these as its national territory, calling them collectively Takeshima, and registered its own complaint at the time that the Mainstay had violated Japanese national airspace.

While this was the 10th joint flight, it came as China and Japan are locked in an intensifying dispute over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments that any Chinese attack on Taiwan would be considered an existential threat to Tokyo. Beijing considers the breakaway island nation to be part of China and has made it clear that it will take back Taiwan peacefully or through military means. Meanwhile, it sees growing militancy from Japan, whose armed forces are designed for self-protection in the wake of World War II, as an increasing threat.

The flareup manifested itself on Saturday, when Chinese J-15 fighters launched from the aircraft carrier Liaoning near Okinawa and locked radar on two Japanese F-15 Eagle fighters. While both sides acknowledge the incident took place, there is a dispute about who caused it and how it was handled.

Japan claims its fighters were targeted while flying a safe distance from the Liaoning and its escorts, which were conducting training missions in the area. China claims that the Japanese fighters were interfering with the training, which sparked the incident.

The issue carried into Tuesday, when China released what it says was a call between its carrier group and the Japanese warning them away. Japan had previously complained China did not answer a deconfliction hotline.

All this comes amid growing Chinese consternation about Japan’s plans to place additional weaponry on Yonaguni Island, located about 70 miles from Taiwan.

Last week, the Japanese MoD announced plans “to deploy an electronic warfare [EW] air-defense unit capable of disrupting aircraft communications on the island of Yonaguni in Okinawa prefecture,” the Japanese Nikkei news outlet reported. The publication did not identify what type of EW system. 

In November, we noted that Japan wanted to install an air defense system on Yonaguni that was likely the beginning of an increasing militarization of the island given its proximity to Taiwan. You can read more about that in our initial story here.

These flights are part of an increasing level of military cooperation between China and Russia. Last year, two Chinese H-6-series aircraft flew with a pair of Russian Bear bombers through a portion of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) around Alaska. It marked the first time Chinese H-6s of any kind have operated in this part of the world. Similar maritime flotillas have occurred at an increasing rate, as well.

While the joint Chinese-Russian bomber patrol near Japan and South Korea has become routine and is planned to continue, the growing tensions between Beijing and Tokyo show no signs of abating.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The post Joint Chinese-Russian Bomber Patrol Sends Japanese, South Korean Fighters Scrambling appeared first on The War Zone.

The two Super Hornets, callsigns Rhino 11 and Rhino 12, look to have remained in international airspace throughout the duration of their sorties in the Gulf of Venezuela today, though this remains unconfirmed. Spoofing aircraft in open-source flight tracking is possible and does happen, but in this case, considering what we are seeing, and the recent history of certain U.S. platforms making their presence very known off the coast of Venezuela, this seems unlikely.

Even flying tight orbits in the middle of the Gulf could easily have brought the jets close to the Venezuelan coast. The body of water is approximately 75 miles long, north to south, and 150 miles wide, east to west, at its longest points. The opening to the Gulf from the Caribbean Sea to the north is only some 52 miles across, with Venezuela’s national airspace extending 12 miles from either side. Venezuelan authorities have claimed the entire body of water to be internal to the country’s national territory, something the United States has openly challenged for decades.

In addition to the F/A-18s, a pair of Navy EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets, with the callsigns Grizzly 1 and Grizzly 2, were also tracked flying orbits in the Caribbean just north of the Gulf of Venezuela. One of the Navy’s MQ-4C Triton maritime surveillance drones also flew a mission further out in the Caribbean opposite Venezuela’s coastline at around the same time. It is highly probable that other U.S. military aircraft were also operating in the same broad area, but were not visible online. That the Super Hornets and Growlers were broadcasting their positions means they were intended to be seen, and to send a clear message to authorities in Venezuela.

Where the F/A-18s or EA-18Gs were operating from during their sorties has not been confirmed. However, these types of aircraft are among those currently embarked on the Navy’s supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford, which has been sailing in the region since last month.

Ford was recently observed leaving St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) also posted pictures of Super Hornets and Growlers operating from the carrier, all of which were taken back in November, on social media at around the time of today’s flights off the coast of Venezuela.

Super Hornets from Ford have also been spotted recently at Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport in Puerto Rico. Since September, Marine fighters and other aircraft have been operating from the former Naval Station Roosevelt Roads on the island in support of operations in the Caribbean, as well. TWZ has reached out to the Navy and U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) for more information about today’s flights near Venezuela.

The combination of F/A-18s and EA-18Gs, with the latter flying in a standoff position, is exactly what one would expect to see during actual strikes on targets in Venezuela. The Growlers would provide electronic warfare support to help cover the Super Hornets penetrating into the threat envelope of hostile air defenses on the way to their targets. Such a mission would also include a host of additional aircraft and other assets providing command and control, aerial refueling, surveillance and reconnaissance, and other support further away from the objective areas.

Whether or not the Venezuelan Air Force made any attempt to intercept any U.S. aircraft flying around the country’s borders today is unclear. The Gulf of Venezuela, as well as Lake Maracaibo, which lies immediately to the south, and the surrounding areas, are all highly strategic locales. Lake Maracaibo, in particular, is the country’s main oil-producing region. Tankers regularly sail in and out of the area, where key refineries are also situated.

As mentioned, this is not the first time that U.S. military aircraft have operated in this same general area, and with the explicit intent of testing and otherwise gathering intelligence about Venezuela’s air defenses. Those assets do present varying degrees of risk, as you can read more about here.

Back on November 20, Navy Super Hornets notably flew just north of the Gulf of Venezuela while a U.S. Air Force RC-135W Rivet Joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft monitored the situation from a station further out in the Caribbean. Air Force B-52 bombers, which also now regularly take part in shows of force aimed at Venezuela, were tracked in the area at around the same time. One of the main missions of the Air Force’s Rivet Joint fleet is to help in crafting so-called “Electronic Orders of Battle” of enemy or potentially hostile forces in a given area, especially air defense nodes. EA-18Gs can collect information to help with this, as well.

“They are normal operational training flights from the aircraft carrier USS Ford and platforms performing training exercises,” a U.S. official told TWZ about those sorties. “They are also testing Venezuelan sensors and responses, and it is part of the pressure campaign to show U.S. capabilities in the Caribbean.”

It should be noted here that there has been a significant buildup of U.S. forces in the Caribbean overall since August, with approximately 15,000 personnel in total now deployed in the region. This includes Ford and a host of other major naval assets, as well as various crewed and uncrewed aircraft, and supporting elements on the ground. Special operations forces are also now heavily deployed in the region. President Trump also previously confirmed he had authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela.

All of this is ostensibly in support of enhanced counter-narcotics operations, now dubbed Operation Southern Spear. The U.S. government accuses Maduro of being directly involved in drug trafficking in association with an entity referred to as the Cartel of the Suns, which is now also designated as a terrorist organization. Questions have been raised about those links. Maduro has been under indictment in the United States since 2020 on narcotics and other charges, and American authorities currently have a $50 million bounty out for information leading to his arrest.

The sorties today follow weeks of escalating shows of force, as well as reports that the Trump administration could be getting closer to launching strikes or conducting other direct action missions on targets inside Venezuela. U.S. operations in the Caribbean already now include routine strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats. Serious questions have been raised about the underlying intelligence behind those strikes, as well as their legality.

“I don’t want to say that,” President Trump said just today when asked about how far he might go to remove Maduro from office during an interview with Politico‘s Dasha Burns.

“His [Maduro’s] days are numbered,” Trump added in response to a follow-up question simply about whether he would like to see Maduro out of power.

He also declined to rule out a ground invasion of Venezuela or any other kind of military action, the potential prospect of which TWZ has recently explored.

If nothing else, today’s sorties in and around the Gulf of Venezuela make clear that the U.S. government remains committed to ratcheting up the pressure on Maduro.

Update, 7:00 PM EST:

There are indications that a new contingent of tactical jets, possibly EA-18G Growlers, has deployed from Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Washington State to the Caribbean. The aircraft may be headed to the former Naval Station Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico based on online flight tracking data. Land-based EA-18Gs, on top of the Growlers already in the region aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford, would not be a typical show of force, but would represent a key force multiplier for any future strike operations.

Update, 12/10/2025:

In response to our queries yesterday, the U.S. Navy directed us to U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). In turn, a SOUTHCOM spokesperson provided the following statement:

“We conduct routine, lawful operations in international airspace, including over the Gulf of Venezuela. We will continue to fly safely, professionally, and in accordance with international law to protect the homeland, monitor illicit activity, and support stability across the Americas.”

The deployment of a contingent of EA-18G Growlers to Puerto Rico has also now been confirmed, as you can read more about in our latest reporting here.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post F/A-18 Super Hornets Were Just Tracked Flying Deep Inside The Gulf Of Venezuela (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

According to the Investigative Committee of Russia, the country’s main federal investigating authority, the turboprop-powered airlifter went down near the village of Ivankovo. Eyewitnesses reported seeing the An-22 breaking apart in mid-air, with parts of the fuselage falling into a reservoir near the village. A video posted to social media purportedly shows a salvage team removing fragments of the aircraft from the Uvodskoye Reservoir.

The Investigative Committee of Russia has so far not disclosed how many people were on board, although the state-run TASS news agency puts the number at seven, and unconfirmed reports on social media provide names for each.

Russian state media quoted the Russian Ministry of Defense as saying that the An-22 was undergoing a test flight “following repairs” when it crashed, suggesting it was in the process of being returned to service.

The Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed that search crews were deployed to the crash site and an investigation was opened into the accident.

Citing anonymous sources, the Kommersant business newspaper reported that the accident was likely caused by a technical malfunction.

Back in August of last year, there were unconfirmed reports that Russia had finally ceased operations of its An-22 fleet altogether. At this time, it was suggested that the last example, registration number RF-09309, built in 1974, was flown from its home base of Migalovo in the Tver region of western Russia, to Yekaterinburg in the Ural Federal District on August 16, 2024. It was expected to be put on permanent display at the military museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma. However, no An-22 is visible in recent satellite imagery of the collection, suggesting those plans may have changed.

Potentially, RF-09309 is the same aircraft that crashed today, or it could have been one of the other four An-22s that were reportedly still active with the Russian Aerospace Forces’ 196th Military Transport Aviation Regiment as of June 2024.

At that point, Gen. Vladimir Venediktov, the commander of Military Transport Aviation, told Russia’s state-owned VGTRK broadcaster that the An-22 was headed for retirement before the end of that year.

That the An-22 survived that long, let alone that an example was still flying as of today, is somewhat remarkable.

As you can read about in detail here, the An-22 was designed and built by the Antonov company based in Kyiv, in what was then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The prototype flew on February 27, 1965, at which point it was the world’s heaviest aircraft.

In common with the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bomber, the An-22 was powered by four huge Kuznetsov NK-12MA turboprops, each rated at more than 14,805 horsepower and driving eight-blade contra-rotating propellers, more than 20 feet in diameter.

The powerplant gave the An-22 a distinctive mechanical roar, as heard in the video below.

In all, 68 An-22s were completed, including two prototypes, between 1966 and 1976.

Service entry with the Soviet military was in January 1969, and the aircraft was especially valued for its ability to accommodate outsized loads.

Up to more than 132,000 pounds of cargo could be carried. Alternatively, the An-22’s cargo hold had space for 151 paratroopers or 292 standard troops, carried on two decks. However, the main cargo hold was not pressurized, except for a forward cabin with seating for 29 personnel.

Items of cargo included complete missile systems, as well as large and heavy military vehicles, via the large loading ramp at the rear. The aircraft could also operate from austere airfields if required.

By the early 2000s, it already looked like the An-22’s career was nearly over, with just nine airworthy examples at Migalovo. It was now outnumbered by the far more capable, jet-powered An-124 Condor, which had entered service in the 1980s as the world’s heaviest production transport aircraft, capable of carrying a normal load of 300,000 pounds.

However, the Russian military chose to keep the An-22, even in limited numbers, since it was cheaper to operate than the An-124, but had a much bigger hold than the Ilyushin Il-76 Candid.

Plans to modernize the surviving An-22s failed, however, with the result that the active Russian Aerospace Forces’ fleet dwindled to five.

A sixth was still operated by the Antonov Design Bureau in Kyiv until it was reportedly damaged beyond repair during fighting at Hostomel Airport at the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion.

The fact that at least one An-22 was apparently being prepared to return to active service with the Russian Aerospace Forces appears to paint a bleak picture of its air transport arm.

While it still operates significant numbers of Il-76s, in terms of heavy transports, Russia has also failed to reinstate production of the An-124. The main problem has been a lack of suitable engines — the original D-18T turbofan is manufactured by Motor Sich at its plant in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine. Meanwhile, Motor Sich is also the only company capable of overhauling these engines, reducing the availability of the Russian An-124 fleet. This factor also may have driven the An-22’s planned return to service.

Plans to develop an all-new, all-Russian successor to the Ukrainian-designed An-124 have so far also failed to materialize.

Overall, the Russian transport aircraft fleet is aging fast, and this may also have contributed to other recent accidents.

In July of this year, a civilian-operated Antonov An-24 Coke twin-turboprop regional airliner crashed near Tynda in the Amur region of eastern Russia. All 42 passengers and six crew members on board died. The aircraft, long obsolete, had been manufactured in 1976.

In the same month, two people were killed after an An-2 Colt utility transport crashed in southern Russia’s Krasnodar region. The An-2 was first flown in 1947, and the Soviet Union and Russia have collectively failed to develop a suitable successor for a type that remains in widespread use.

There have also been other Russian transport aircraft losses that may or may not be connected to the conflict in Ukraine, as well as pinpoint attacks on these aircraft by long-range Ukrainian drone strikes.

At the same time, the fleet, in general, is likely suffering from the effects of sanctions, especially when it comes to readiness levels.

With the war in Ukraine still raging, the Russian military’s demand for heavy-lift air transport is only going to continue. Whatever the reason for today’s crash, it is a blow to the Russian Aerospace Forces. Apart from the slim possibility that a contractor might try and obtain the remaining aircraft to exploit their unique capabilities, it seems altogether unlikely that the An-22 will find a way back into regular service after this latest incident.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post There’s Likely No Way Back For Russia’s An-22 Turboprop Heavy Transports After Fatal Crash appeared first on The War Zone.

The AIM-120 shot, part of the ongoing Trial Kareela 25-4, took place on December 8, and the engagement saw the MQ-28 teamed as a loyal wingman with a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control (AEW&C), with “support” provided by an F/A-18F Super Hornet. A live AMRAAM was used to “successfully engage and destroy” an Australian-made Phoenix jet-powered target drone.

The MQ-28 was fitted with a single AMRAAM carried on a prominent external pylon mounted on the left-hand underside of the drone, directly below the engine air intake. In its current configuration, Ghost Bat lacks an internal weapons bay, something that may well be addressed in the future.

According to a media release from the Australian Defense Force, “This landmark demonstration proves that the MQ-28A is a world-leading Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) capability and underlines the MQ-28A’s growing potential to deliver an operational capability for the Royal Australian Air Force.”

Few other details of the engagement have so far been made available, but Boeing had previously said it would reflect “a tactically relevant scenario.”

At this stage, we don’t know how the drone found and tracked the target, i.e., whether it did this using its own sensors, or via datalink from another platform.

As we observed before, one option would have been to use the infrared search and track (IRST) sensor seen fitted in the nose of at least two MQ-28s. However, photos from Trial Kareela 25-4 don’t show the IRST — which is understood to be a Selex system — fitted. The MQ-28 is a highly modular design, meaning various munitions, sensors, and other payloads can be integrated; the entire nose can be swapped out to accommodate different payloads.

It is also worth noting that the MQ-28 used in the live-fire trial has a prominent radome with a serrated edge, something that we have seen on at least one of the drones in the past. The Ghost Bat is designed to be capable of housing an onboard radar, at least in future variations.

Using the MQ-28 as a loyal wingman to an E-7 in Trial Kareela 25-4 suggests that target telemetry may have been provided by the radar plane.

Boeing and the RAAF have already conducted some important collaborative work using these two platforms.

“We’ve been sort of testing out some of these capability demonstrations,” Parker said last month. “[The] Wedgetail has already controlled two live MQ-28s with a digital, virtual MQ-28 in the pattern, as well, [and] with a target. We’ve already been doing this. So, we’ve already been doing a bunch of multi-ship activities.”

Potentially, the target may have been handed over to the MQ-28 by the F/A-18F, with the drone very much seen as an adjunct to crewed fighters. In a statement after the live-fire test, Australian Minister for Defense Industry Pat Conroy said: “The Ghost Bat transforms a single fighter jet into a formidable team — capable not only of surveillance but also of engaging adversaries. This delivers a vital layer of protection for our aviators, who remain our most valuable asset.”

The plan to conduct the AMRAAM shot sometime in December was announced by Steve Parker, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space, and Security, at a media roundtable ahead of the 2025 Dubai Airshow last month, at which TWZ was in attendance. Boeing officials had said on various occasions earlier this year that the live-fire test could come in late 2025 or early 2026.

We had anticipated that the AMRAAM shot would be not only a first for the MQ-28, but also the first for any CCA-type drone, at least that we know about.

In any event, the Turkish Kizilelma uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV) reached this milestone first, using a Turkish-made radar-guided Gökdoğan air-to-air missile to destroy a target drone, as you can read about here.

The Australian government today also announced its latest tranche of funding for collaborative air capabilities, the centerpiece of which involves “transitioning the MQ-28A Ghost Bat into a fully operational war-fighting asset for the Australian Defense Force.”

The latest investment includes new contracts with Boeing Defense Australia (BDA) for six operational Block 2 MQ-28A aircraft and the development of an enhanced Block 3 prototype. In the past, there have been hints that the Block 3 version might include internal weapons carriage, which would ensure the drone retains its low-observable characteristics.

Australia has already acquired eight MQ-28s, all pre-production prototypes, also referred to as Block 1 aircraft. The service previously awarded Boeing a contract to deliver at least three more examples in the improved Block 2 configuration.

While the Block 2 drones are seen as a pathway to an operational capability, when that might actually materialize remains unclear.

Nevertheless, in its announcement today, the Australian government said that the new orders, once fulfilled, “will lay the foundation for an operational Air Combat Platform capability within the Royal Australian Air Force.”

The latest funds, roughly $930 million, constitute just a part of the Australian government’s investment in various different drones over the next decade, under the 2024 National Defense Strategy. This should amount to more than $6.6 billion in all, which will include at least $2.8 billion for uncrewed aerial systems.

Meanwhile, outside of the Australian Defense Force plans, Boeing has recently talked up the possibility of new customers for Ghost Bat, including the U.S. Navy and Poland. Overall, the MQ-28 would appear uniquely well placed for potential export, since it is not only the most mature (known) CCA of Western design, but it is also relatively independent of U.S. export restrictions.

In terms of U.S. Air Force involvement, Boeing was cut from its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drone program last year in a down-select. The company did take part in the initial stages of the first phase of that program, or Increment 1, and the Air Force has utilized at least one Ghost Bat in the past to support test work related to the CCA program. Since this is structured around multiple iterative development cycles, Boeing could return to compete in the next cycle, or Increment 2, perhaps with a version of the MQ-28 design.

For the time being, the MQ-28 is very much flying the flag for Australia, with that country now being one of the global leaders when it comes to the development of collaborative combat aircraft.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post MQ-28 Ghost Bat Has Fired An AIM-120 AMRAAM Missile appeared first on The War Zone.

“Both aircraft were recovered intact,” a Navy official told TWZ on Tuesday morning.

“All recovered aircraft components are being transported to a designated U.S. military installation in the Indo-Pacific region for detailed analysis,” the Navy’s 7th Fleet also said in a press release. Officials have not released details about exactly where in the South China Sea the aircraft went down and were subsequently retrieved.

The retrieval effort was conducted by Commander, Task Force 73 (CTF 73); Task Force 75; the Naval Sea Systems Command’s Supervisor of Salvage and Diving (SUPSALV); and CTG 73.6’s Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit, according to the Navy’s release. Task Force 73 is responsible for logistics activities within the 7th Fleet’s area of responsibility, while Task Force 75 oversees diving and salvage units and other expeditionary capabilities.

In addition, the Navy says it employed a “contracted Vessel of Opportunity, equipped with a government-owned, contractor-operated unmanned system, to lift and recover the aircraft.” The 7th Fleet release did not name that ship, and we have reached out for additional details. Contracted vessels have assisted in the recovery of U.S. military aircraft in the past, including in the South China Sea.

On Nov. 20, the Navy had told TWZ that the USNS Salvor (T-ARS 52), a Safeguard class salvage ship operated by Military Sealift Command, was “on-scene conducting operations in support of the recovery efforts.” It is unclear at the moment what role that ship might ultimately have played in retrieving the lost aircraft. It was seen docked in Singapore on Dec. 7, according to the MarineTraffic ship tracking website.

“This recovery was a true Navy team effort across CTF 73, SUPSALV, Task Force 75, HSM 73 [Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 73], VFA 22 [Strike Fighter Squadron 22], and our Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit,” Navy Lt. Cmdr. Christopher Andersen, the CTF 73 officer who led the salvage mission, said in a statement. “Everyone involved brought critical expertise ensuring we could safely and successfully bring these aircraft back under U.S. custody. This operation highlights the importance of naval integration, readiness, and the unmatched capability of our salvage and diving teams.”

As we have previously noted, the tense and contested nature of the South China Sea and its proximity to China would have put additional emphasis on ensuring the aircraft, or components from them, were not recovered by the Chinese. Like the United States, China has foreign materiel exploitation, or FME, programs aimed at recovering weaponry for intelligence analysis and developmental purposes. Both crashed Navy aircraft have a number of sensitive components that would be of particular interest to a major global competitor like China. You can read more about that here.

The aircraft from Nimitz that went down in the South China Sea were recovered a day after the Navy released results of investigations into the separate losses of three F/A-18s from the aircraft carrier USS Truman. Those incidents included one in which a Super Hornet was shot down by the Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser USS Gettysburg. Unlike the case of the Nimitz aircraft, those jets were never recovered, a Navy official previously confirmed to us.

The cause of the crashes of the Nimitz aircraft in October remains unknown. President Donald Trump previously suggested that the mishaps could have been caused by “bad fuel,” and you can read more about potential fuel issues in our initial coverage here. Navy officials have also previously confirmed to us that they believe there are no “nefarious” circumstances behind the crashes.

With the F/A-18F and MH-60R now recovered, the investigations into their crashes are continuing, the Navy said on Tuesday.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The post Navy Recovers Crashed Super Hornet, Seahawk From Bottom Of South China Sea appeared first on The War Zone.

The House Armed Services Committee released a new draft of the defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2026 Fiscal Year late yesterday. The draft NDAA is described as a “compromise” bill that follows significant negotiations between the House and the Senate to bring their respective versions of the legislation into alignment.

“None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2026 for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended— (1) to terminate the mid-tier acquisition rapid prototype contract for the E-7A aircraft; or (2) to terminate the operations of, or to prepare to terminate the operations of, a production line for the E-7A aircraft,” according to one provision within the draft legislation.

The draft NDAA also includes a separate provision that says “none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2026 for the Air Force may be obligated or expended to retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage or in backup aircraft inventory any E-3 aircraft if such actions would reduce the total aircraft inventory for such aircraft below 16.”

As noted, the Air Force only has 16 E-3s still in inventory in total, according to documents accompanying the service’s most recent budget request, which was released earlier in the year. This means the latest draft NDAA would effectively prohibit the retirement of any of the jets, at least through the end of the current fiscal year.

However, “if the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the congressional defense committees a plan for maintaining readiness and ensuring there is no lapse in mission capabilities the prohibition … shall not apply to actions taken to reduce the total aircraft inventory for E–3 aircraft to below 16, beginning 30 days after the date on which the plan is so submitted,” per this same section of the proposed legislation. In addition, “if the Secretary of the Air Force procures enough E–7 Wedgetail aircraft to accomplish the required mission load, the prohibition … shall not apply to actions taken to reduce the total aircraft inventory for E–3 aircraft to below 16 after the date on which such E–7 Wedgetail aircraft are delivered.”

Along with these two provisions, the new draft NDAA includes the approval of $647 million in additional funding for “continued development and procurement” of the E-7. This is in addition to nearly $200 million for Wedgetail that Congress already included in a bill that was passed last month to reopen the federal government following a protracted shutdown. Additional funding from the 2025 Fiscal Year originally intended for the procurement of aircraft was previously reallocated to ongoing research, development, test, and evaluation activities, as well.

The Air Force had formally decided to buy E-7s as replacements for at least a portion of its E-3 fleet in 2022, and had moved first to acquire two production representative prototypes. Those aircraft were to be used for test and evaluation purposes, and as a lead-in to the production of Wedgetails in a service-specific production configuration. The goal had been for production E-7s for the Air Force to begin entering service in 2027.

However, delays and cost growth had marred the Air Force’s E-7 program, factors the Pentagon cited in announcing its intention to cancel the program earlier this year. Concerns about the survivability of the Boeing 737 airliner-based aircraft, especially in future high-end fights, such as one against China in the Pacific, were also raised. It is worth noting here that versions of the Wedgetail are currently in service in Australia, South Korea, and Turkey. The United Kingdom is also working to acquire E-7s now. In November, NATO canceled its plans to purchase Wedgetails to replace a fleet of E-3s that the alliance operates collectively after the U.S. military separately withdrew from that effort.

As mentioned, the Air Force’s longer-term vision has been and remains to eventually have space-based assets provide the bulk of its airborne target warning sensor layer. From the outset, the service had described the E-7 acquisition effort as a ‘bridge’ to future capabilities in orbit.

For months now, members of Congress and other advocates of the Wedgetail program have been openly questioning the viability of using E-2s as an interim substitute, as well as the timeline for a realignment around space-based capabilities. Though the U.S. Navy and other E-2 operators have employed those aircraft from bases on land, the Hawkeye was designed around the unique requirements and constraints of carrier-based operations. Compared to the E-7, the E-2 is a lower and slower flying aircraft that would have to operate even closer to threat areas in order to provide similar surveillance capacity. The E-7 is also larger and more adaptable to expanded operations, especially when it comes to critical battle management and networking node capabilities, than the Hawkeye, as well. Previously stated survivability concerns would apply to any crewed airborne early warning aircraft in a future near-peer conflict.

The Air Force has also said it does not expect to have an operational ability to persistently track air or ground targets from orbit until the early 2030s at the earliest. Even then, the service expects traditional airborne early warning and control aircraft to remain part of the equation for years afterward.

In the meantime, the aging E-3s are already increasingly struggling to meet existing operational requirements, and the fleet would only be strained even more if a major sustained conflict were to erupt.

“I have been concerned. We have E-3 capability up north, of course, but we were all counting on the E-7 Wedgetail coming our way. We’re kind of limping along up north right now, which is unfortunate. And the budget proposes terminating the program,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, had said at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in June, where the E-7 cancellation plans first emerged publicly. “Again, the E-3 fleet [is] barely operational now, and I understand the intent to shift towards the space-based – you call it the ‘air moving target indicators’ – but my concern is that you’ve got a situation where you’re not going to be able to use more duct tape to hold things together until you put this system in place. And, so, how we maintain that level of operational readiness and coverage, I’m not sure how you make it.”

The House and the Senate do still have to pass a final version of the NDAA for the 2026 Fiscal Year, and President Donald Trump then has to sign it, before any of its provisions can become law. What timeline the Air Force might now be looking at for actually fielding operational E-7s remains to be seen.

Regardless, Congress looks increasingly set to halt the Pentagon’s plans to cancel the E-7 program, at least for another year or so.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post E-7 Wedgetail Radar Jet Program Cancellation Reversal Advances In Congress appeared first on The War Zone.

As it now stands, the Boeing 707-based E-6B is slated to be replaced by the E-130J aircraft, which Northrop Grumman will modify from C-130J-30s. A rendering of an E-130J appears at the top of this story.

It is important to note here that the current plan is for the E-130J to supplant the E-6B only when it comes to the TACAMO mission. How the Air Force will continue to meet its Looking Glass mission requirements is not entirely clear, though its future fleet of Boeing 747-based E-4C Survivable Airborne Operations Center (SAOC) might help meet those needs, at least to a degree. The E-4C — and the E-4B Nightwatch aircraft it is set to replace — are also ‘doomsday planes,’ but are configured to act as much more robust flying command centers than the E-6Bs.

The latest version of the defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2026 Fiscal Year, was released late yesterday by the House Armed Services Committee. The draft legislation reflects the results of extensive negotiations with its Senate counterparts. Different versions of the Fiscal Year 2026 NDAA from the House and Senate had to be aligned before it could be put to a vote, which could happen as early as this week.

The draft legislation includes a section outlining a “limitation on availability of funds pending [a] report on acquisition strategy for [the] Airborne Command Post Capability.”

The report appears to be required with a degree of urgency.

Under the relevant section of the proposed legislation, the House Armed Services Committee says that the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force will be permitted to spend only 80 percent of the allocated funds for travel expenses in Fiscal Year 2026, with the remainder withheld until the report is submitted. This is an unusual measure, but it does happen from time to time, and is an indicator of how forceful Congress is being on this.

As for the concerns about the future of the ABNCP, the questions that the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force (together with the Commander of the United States Strategic Command) needs to answer are twofold.

First, the draft bill seeks information on the potential for expanding production of the C-130J-30 Super Hercules “to provide additional airframes to preserve the Airborne Command Post capability.” The C-130J-30 subvariant, which is in common use around the globe, has a longer fuselage than the baseline type.

This indicates that, in the future, the ABNCP mission may be handled by specially modified C-130J aircraft, mirroring the Navy’s approach with the E-130J.

Second, NDAA calls for “an outline of the future relationship of the Airborne Command Post capability with the Secondary Launch Platform–Airborne effort.”

Secondary Launch Capability is the name for the command-and-control architecture that is planned to replace the existing Airborne Launch Control System (ALCS), currently installed onboard the E-6B. ALCS was tested on an E-4B Nightwatch aircraft, but the decision was ultimately made not to install it on these aircraft. 

ALCS provides a survivable alternate capability for launching the Minuteman III, connecting the E-6Bs with the missile fields as well as with the United States Strategic Command, Vandenberg Space Force Base, Hill Air Force Base, and other key nodes. In the future, the Secondary Launch Capability will also carry out this mission for the Minuteman III’s replacement, the LGM-35A Sentinel.

When the Secondary Launch Platform–Airborne (SLP-A) entered development, back in 2020, a spokeswoman for the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center told Aviation Week that the aircraft that will host the system “has not been determined at this time.” The spokeswoman added: “The SLP-A will be adaptable and modular to accommodate future airborne platform(s).”

The inclusion of these questions in the latest version of the defense policy bill is indicative of the fact that, so far, there has been no public description of a detailed plan for ABNCP after the E-6.

It is unclear when the E-130J might begin to enter service. In the past, Navy budget documents have laid out plans to order three of the aircraft in Fiscal Year 2027 and six more in Fiscal Year 2028.

It’s also worth noting that, earlier this year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) called into question the viability of using the C-130J as the basis for the Navy’s new TACAMO plane, something you can read about here.

Also of note here is the fact that, before the E-6 entered service, the Navy operated EC-130Q TACAMO aircraft based on the older C-130H variant of the Hercules. Those aircraft were not configured to perform the Looking Glass mission. It was only the arrival of upgraded E-6Bs in the 1990s that led to the consolidation of those two mission sets on a single aircraft.

Previously, it had appeared that the future of the Looking Glass mission might lie in other aircraft, like the Boeing 747-based E-4C Survivable Airborne Operations Center (SAOC) jets that the Air Force is now in the process of acquiring. The fact that five airframes have been earmarked for the E-4C program, compared to the four E-4Bs that they will replace, was taken by some as evidence that the new aircraft would take on an expanded role, including Looking Glass. The fleet of E-4Cs could also be expanded to as many as 10 aircraft, as well. Having E-4Cs take on some of the Looking Glass mission could still turn out to be the case, perhaps augmenting a fleet of specially adapted and far more efficient C-130s. With much of the development work being already paid for by the Navy for its very similar and nuclear-hardened EC-130, the USAF could piggyback onto that effort with its Looking Glass variant.

Either way, it’s certainly significant that there is now serious thought being given to migrating the ABNCP mission onto a C-130-based platform, especially with the Hercules never hosting it in the past.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Congress Wants To Know If The C-130 Hercules Could Be The USAF’s New ‘Doomsday Plane’ appeared first on The War Zone.

Given that under the Biden administration the U.S. provided nearly $70 billion in direct military aid to Ukraine, the NDAA’s allocations could even be considered something of a symbolic measure aimed at reassuring Kyiv that the U.S. has not completely abandoned it. It continues the Trump administration’s efforts to put the onus of support for Ukraine on European NATO members.

On Monday afternoon, a White House official told The War Zone that the administration supports the $900 billion policy measure, “and has been working diligently to formulate a plan that will bring a durable, enforceable peace to the war in Ukraine.” The Pentagon declined comment because it does not speak about pending legislation.

The bill calls for the Pentagon to include $400 million in both Fiscal Year 2026 and Fiscal Year 2027 for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). That’s a pool of money that Ukraine can use to obtain arms from U.S. defense contractors. In the past, the money has been used to allow Ukraine to purchase ammunition, air defense interceptors and other war materiel.

The NDAA’s call for continued USAI funding for Ukraine is a far cry from the nearly $33 billion allocated for the program under the Biden administration and will provide a very limited amount of weapons. 

Earlier this year, the White House announced the creation of the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), designed to sell weapons from U.S. stocks to NATO nations, which would then turn them over to Ukraine in $500 million tranches. In addition, the Trump administration has yet to authorize any arms for Ukraine under the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), which funds the replacement of arms shipped to allies directly from U.S. stocks. The Biden administration allocated more than $33 billion in PDA funding to Ukraine, but it does not appear likely Trump will use this authority to help Ukraine.

The NDAA also calls for the Pentagon to notify Congress within 48 hours if it plans to stop providing intelligence support to Ukraine, something that happened earlier this year. That notification would include justifying the cut-off, its planned duration and how it would impact “the ability of Ukraine to conduct effective military operations.”

The cutoff of U.S. intelligence “significantly impacts Ukrainian force protection of High Value Equipment’s shoot, move and scoot timelines, indications and warning of high-threat aircraft,” a retired high-ranking Ukrainian officer told us in March. “It significantly hampers the ability to target Russian forces and conduct long-range strikes against critical, mobile high-value targets.”

The lack of satellite imagery over Kursk also played a role in Russia’s ability to end Ukraine’s invasion of that region, the retired officer added.

However, as we noted in October, the United States agreed to provide Ukraine with targeting intelligence for its long-range strikes against Russian energy infrastructure. 

The bill also calls for “an accounting” of military aid to Ukraine provided by the U.S. and allies, including under the PURL and USAI programs.

Beyond Ukraine, the NDAA seeks to continue support for NATO allies. It calls on the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the commander of U.S. European Command to establish a $175 million ‘‘Baltic Security Initiative,” aimed at “deepening security cooperation with the military forces of the Baltic countries” (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania).

(The current head of the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, has replaced the word Defense with War when it comes to the name of the department he oversees. The NDAA, meanwhile, continues to use the terms Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense).

The goal, according to the document, is to “achieve United States national security objectives by deterring aggression by the Russian Federation; and implementing NATO’s Strategic Concept, which seeks to strengthen the Alliance’s deterrence and defense posture by denying potential adversaries any possible opportunities for aggression.”

In addition, the initiative seeks to enhance regional planning and cooperation among the military forces of the Baltic nations, particularly when it comes to long-range precision fires, integrated air and missile defense, maritime domain awareness, stockpiling large caliber ammunition, command and control, intelligence gathering and improving “resilience to hybrid threats.”

However, while calling for support for the Baltics, the spending measure also says it is the “sense of Congress” that these three countries match the spending by the U.S. on this initiative.

The bill also seeks protection against signficant cuts to U.S. forces in Europe. It requires the Pentagon, EUCOM and other relevant agencies to obtain Congressional approval before cutting the U.S. troop levels in Europe to less than 76,000 troops. 

The move comes after the U.S. began pulling forces out of the continent, where there are currently about 85,000 troops stationed. Earlier this year, the U.S. Army sent about 800 troops from Romania back stateside.

While the spending measure signals an enduring, if somewhat symbolic commitment to Ukraine, it also states that NATO allies must pay for the cost of the U.S. troop presence on the continent and for the Secretary of War to “take into account a NATO ally’s progress toward meeting the alliance’s commitment to defense spending at 5% of GDP when making decisions related to military basing and training.”

Meanwhile, the 33-page White House National Security Strategy document released by the White House last week seeks a speedy end to the nearly four-year-old full on war and better relations with Russia. It says Europe is facing “civilizational erasure” and does not cast Russia as a threat to the U.S. 

“It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine,” the NSS states. The goal is to “stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.”

European leaders have pushed back against the NSS while Russia seems to support it.

“The adjustments we’re seeing… are largely consistent with our vision,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Sunday. “We consider this a positive step.”

Amid all this, Trump’s diplomatic efforts to end the conflict continue to drag on with little progress while Russia continues to chew up Ukrainian territory.

The latest development is that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is meeting with European leaders in London “to discuss peace talks that have languished because of clashing views about how to end his country’s nearly four-year-old war with Russia,” The New York Times noted.

“Very important things for today are the unity between Europe and Ukraine, as well as the unity between Europe, Ukraine, and the United States,” Zelensky said Monday in a post on X. “Grateful to the leaders of Great Britain, Keir Starmer, France – Emmanuel Macron, and Germany – Friedrich Merz for organizing the meeting and the personal contribution of each on the path to establishing peace. We discussed in detail today our joint diplomatic work with the American side, agreed on a common position regarding the importance of security guarantees, reconstruction, and next steps. Separately, we talked about further defense support for Ukraine.”

Though the NDAA calls for only a tiny fraction of the Pentagon’s budget to be earmarked for Ukraine, there is still a tremendous amount of debate ahead before it becomes law. The state of play on the battlefield will likely have a role in the future of this legislation.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The post Shift In Ukraine Support In Congress’s Proposed Pentagon Budget appeared first on The War Zone.

Additional clarifying information has emerged since this story was published. See the update at the end of the piece for the latest details.

The latest version of the defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2026 Fiscal Year from the House Armed Services Committee, released late yesterday, reflects the results of extensive negotiations with its Senate counterparts. The House and Senate had to bring their respective versions of the Fiscal Year 2026 NDAA into alignment before it could be put to a vote, which may now come as early as this week.

The draft legislation “authorizes over $38 billion for the development, procurement, or modification of aircraft” that includes “full funding for the Air Force’s F-47 and Navy’s F/A-XX 6th Generation Aircraft programs,” according to a House Armed Services Committee factsheet.

Exactly how much funding the F/A-XX program could now be set to receive in Fiscal Year 2026 is unclear. In July, the Senate Appropriations Committee had advanced a version of the separate 2026 Fiscal Year Defense Appropriations Bill that included $1.4 billion for F/A-XX. That figure was in direct alignment with a call for additional funding for the next-generation naval fighter program that the Navy had reportedly included in its annual Unfunded Priority List (UPL) to Congress.

As noted, the Pentagon had previously moved to gut F/A-XX in its Fiscal Year 2026 budget request, asking for a comparatively paltry $74 million to complete ongoing design work. The plan was to then shelve the program indefinitely. Boeing and Northrop Grumman have been competing to build the Navy’s next-generation carrier-based fighter. In March, Breaking Defense reported that the Navy had eliminated Lockheed Martin from the competition. Boeing is also the prime contractor for the F-47.

“We did make a strategic decision to go all in on F-47,” a senior U.S. defense official told TWZ and other outlets back in June. This is “due to our belief that the industrial base can only handle going fast on one program at this time, and the presidential priority to go all in on F-47, and get that program right.”

The new draft NDAA shows that Congress has its own questions about the F-47 with its request for a detailed report on the program and its future outlook into the first half of the next decade.

“Not later than March 1, 2027, the Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the F–47 advanced fighter aircraft program” that contains “a description of the F–47 aircraft program, including system requirements, employment concepts, and projected costs, schedule, and funding requirements over the period covered by the program objective memorandum process for fiscal years 2028 through 2034,” per the proposed the legislation.

The report also has to include details about “the acquisition strategy for the F–47 program of record, including consideration of implementing a middle tier acquisition pathway or major capability acquisition pathway.” Legislators want “a proposed fielding strategy” for the jets that covers “estimated force structure requirements; strategic basing considerations; an estimate of military construction requirements; an estimate of personnel training requirements; and a strategy for integrating units of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve into F–47 fighter aircraft operations, including planned force structure, association, training, and mobilization models,” as well.

The Air Force has said in the past that it plans to acquire at least 185 F-47s, which would allow for a roughly one-for-one replacement of the service’s existing F-22 Raptors. This is in line with the original vision of the F-47 as an ostensible F-22 successor. At the same time, questions have been raised about whether the projected size of the F-47 fleet may already be evolving.

The estimated unit price of the F-47 is also unclear. The Air Force has previously projected each one of the sixth-generation jets to cost three times the average price of an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or around $300 million, based on publicly available information.

“Current projected procurement profiles” and “production specifics” for the F-47, as well as a host of other platforms, are classified, according to a report on long-term fighter force structure plans the Air Force sent to Congress back in the fall. The service itself described that report, which calls for a significant increase in the overall size of its tactical aviation fleets over the next 10 years, as highly aspirational.

When it comes to F/A-XX, Navy leadership has been very open and outspoken about the desire to continue with the program as planned, putting it in an unusual position of being very publicly at odds with the Pentagon.

“It’s my job to inform the secretary of war’s team about that imperative,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle, the service’s top uniformed officer, told members of the press at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum this weekend, according to Breaking Defense. “I’m part of those discussions, but my job is to pressurize that decision because the warfighting imperative, I think, is there, and I’m trying to build a compelling case to get that decision made quickly.”

“I see threat curves are in some domains I’m diverging from where I’m being overmatched,” he added. “In no world will what flies off of [an aircraft carrier] shouldn’t be the highest-end platform possible to penetrate deep into a weapon engagement zone and have confidence with longer-range munitions that it can close that kill chain.”

“Does it need to be done at [sic] a cost-effective way? Does it need [to] be done [in a way] that doesn’t clobber our other efforts? Does it need to be done so it actually delivers in the relevant time frame? Yes,” Caudle also said at the forum, according to Aviation Week. “So hopefully some of this acquisition reform and production improvement can help us get those decisions.”

Navy Vice Adm. Daniel Cheever, commander of Naval Air Forces, and more commonly referred to as the service’s “Air Boss,” also told TWZ he was still “eagerly awaiting” the selection of the winning F/A-XX design back in August.

In October, Reuters reported that the Pentagon was poised to pick a winner of the F/A-XX competition, which had also pointed to a potential reversal of the stated plans to shelve the program. However, any public announcement of that decision has yet to be made.

The Navy could still take a wait-and-see approach to F/A-XX, watching to see how the F-47 program progresses, and leveraging that effort to help further buy down risk. However, doing so would delay how long it takes to get the next-generation carrier-based fighter into operation, and the threat ecosystem, especially emanating from China, is increasingly pressing, as the service itself has been keen to highlight.

“I do think there’s a commitment for us to deliver this capability,” Michael Duffey, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, said separately at the Reagan National Defense Forum, per Aviation Week. “There’s an interest to make sure that we can, from our standpoint, [ensure] that the industrial base is able to support it, and I think we’ll be working through that question as quickly as we can.”

Earlier this year, Steve Parker, President and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, notably pushed back on the assertion that the U.S. industrial base could not handle work on F-47 and F/A-XX simultaneously.

“I will tell you, we, Northrop Grumman, are ready to execute F/A-XX,” Tom Jones, President of Northrop Grumman’s Aeronautics Systems sector, told TWZ and other outlets in response to a question about industrial base capacity in relation to the program last week. “We’re looking to try and make sure that the customer community knows that we believe that we’re ready to go and we can execute it.”

Jones’ comments came as an aside to the unveiling of the Project Talon drone from Northrop Grumman and its subsidiary Scaled Composites, which you can read more about here.

It is important to stress here that the House and the Senate still have to vote to pass the current version of the NDAA, and that President Donald Trump would still then need to sign it into law, before any of its provisions can come into effect. Actual funding for F/A-XX and any other aspects of the defense budget for Fiscal Year 2026 will also still need to be appropriated separately.

However, the newest draft NDAA does show that legislators are pushing ahead with plans to reverse the Pentagon’s decision to put F/A-XX on ice, which would help pave the way for the service to finally pick a winning design.

Update, 6:55 PM EST:

Breaking Defense has now reported that the version of the Fiscal Year 2026 that the House Armed Services Committee released yesterday still only includes $74 million in funding for F/A-XX. TWZ had also reached out earlier for clarification about the exact funding level for the program in the draft legislation, but has not yet received a response. At the time of writing this update, the fact sheet the House Armed Services Committee previously released saying the F/A-XX program would receive “full funding” under the latest draft of the Fiscal Year 2026 NDAA remains unchanged.

It remains to be seen whether Congress might still move to increase funding for F/A-XX for Fiscal Year 2026. As noted in our original story, the Senate Appropriations Committee had separately moved earlier in the year to truly restore full funding for the program in the current fiscal cycle.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post In Limbo F/A-XX Naval Fighter Gets ‘Full Funding’ Nod From Congress, But There’s A Catch (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

In a statement, the RTAF said it had struck Cambodian “military targets” in several areas along the roughly 500-mile border. At the same time, it accused Cambodia of mobilizing heavy weaponry and repositioning combat units. A Thai military official told Reuters that the targets included long-range artillery positions. The Thai military also released imagery that it said showed airstrikes against a Cambodian military position, as seen below.

The RTAF has a relevant fleet of F-16s, comprising 36 single-seat F-16As and 14 two-seat F-16Bs. These are the survivors from a total of 52 F-16A/Bs that were delivered by the United States under four separate orders plus seven more F-16A/Bs that were donated by Singapore.

TWZ has approached the U.S. government for clarity on whether Washington approved the use of the F-16s against Cambodia. Thailand is a major U.S. ally in the region.

In terms of Cambodian heavy weaponry, Thailand has highlighted the presence of what it says are Chinese-made PHL-03 multiple rocket launchers, only six of which are understood to be in use. These systems are within range of a provincial airport and a state-run district hospital, according to Thai Ministry of Defense spokesman Rear Admiral Surasant Kongsiri. He added that Cambodia had also deployed Soviet-era BM-21 multiple rocket launchers.

“Based on our intelligence as well, there have been attempts … to lock on the coordinates of these facilities,” the spokesman added, without providing evidence of how this was determined.

Thailand’s military said the latest airstrikes were launched after one of its soldiers was killed and another four were wounded in fighting along the tense border this morning.

Earlier today, there were unconfirmed reports that a Thai Army unit had taken control of the village of Pairachan/Prey Chan in the disputed zone. Security-camera imagery purportedly from the area showed the Royal Thai Army moving in M113 series armored personnel carriers.

Other footage showed a Royal Thai Army Scorpion light tank opening fire on Cambodian positions.

For its part, the Cambodian Ministry of Defense blames Thailand for the escalation, accusing Thai forces of launching attacks on its troops on Monday. The ministry said that Cambodia had not retaliated, despite “provocative actions for many days.”

The latest clashes have also seen the deaths of four Cambodian civilians. They were killed in Oddar Meanchey and Preah Vihear provinces, according to Cambodia’s information minister, Neth Pheaktra.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people have been forced to flee their homes in the border region.

Based on statements from Thai authorities, more than 385,000 civilians have been ordered to evacuate from border areas across four provinces. Of those, around 35,000 people were registered at shelters as of Monday morning, they added.

People have also fled villages on the Cambodian side of the border. The Cambodian Ministry of Information says that 1,157 families have been evacuated to safe areas.

There is now an escalating war of words on the political side.

In a statement, Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul said the country did not want violence and refuted claims that his country had initiated the conflict. “However, Thailand will not tolerate violations of its sovereignty and will proceed rationally and with due regard for the principles of peace, security, and humanity,” he said.

The former prime minister of Cambodia, Hun Sen, who remains a very influential figure, called upon his country’s forces to exercise restraint, but blamed Thailand for trying to “pull us into retaliation.”

“The red line for responding has already been set. I urge commanders at all levels to educate all officers and soldiers accordingly,” Hun Sen said in a Facebook post.

The fighting between Thailand and Cambodia was one of the “eight raging conflicts” that were “settled” by the Trump administration, according to the newly released National Security Strategy.

The ceasefire came after a previous spike in tensions in May, including an exchange of fire between troops in a contested area, which left one Cambodian soldier dead. Then came a series of tit-for-tat actions by both governments, including airstrikes, leading to a full-blown conflict over five days in July. This killed at least 48 people and forced another 300,000 to flee their homes.

Tensions have remained high despite the ceasefire agreement, with both sides accusing each other of violations, and Thailand announcing in November that it was suspending the deal.

Trump then intervened, and a ceasefire was agreed around six weeks ago. Washington applied pressure by threatening to suspend trade talks unless a peace deal was brokered. Malaysia and China also both pushed for a settlement.

The U.S. president said he’d “stopped a war” through the use of tariffs and said, “I think they’re gonna be fine.”

However, the ceasefire never looked particularly strong, and last month Thailand said it was suspending the deal. In stepping away from the settlement, Thailand accused Cambodia of laying more landmines along the border. One of these wounded a Thai soldier, Bangkok said.

The border dispute has a long history, dating back to the period of French colonial rule, at the beginning of the 20th century, when a boundary was drawn up to separate Cambodia, which it ruled until 1953, from Thailand. Since then, there have been periodic tensions between the two countries, resulting from disagreements over where the border should lie.

Anwar Ibrahim, the prime minister of Malaysia, who helped broker the original ceasefire, called upon Thailand and Cambodia to avoid further escalation. He said the latest violence risked “unravelling the careful work that has gone into stabilizing relations between the two neighbors.”

“We urge both sides to exercise maximum restraint, maintain open channels of communication, and make full use of the mechanisms in place,” Anwar said.

So far, Trump has not responded to the renewed fighting.

For now, however, both sides show little interest in appeasement.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Thai F-16s Bomb Targets Along Disputed Cambodian Border appeared first on The War Zone.