Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Bunker Talk: Let’s Talk About All The Things We Did And Didn’t Cover This Week

 

at 11/6/26 4:06pm

Welcome to Bunker Talk. This is a weekend open discussion post for the best commenting crew on the net, in which we can chat about all the stuff that went on this week that we didn’t cover. We can also talk about the stuff we did or whatever else grabs your interest. In other words, it’s an off-topic thread. This weeks caption reads: The control room of the Project Mercury Mission Control Center, at Cape Kennedy Air Force Station in Cape Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida, 1961. (Photo by NASA/FPG/Archive Photos/Getty Images) PRIME DIRECTIVES: If you want to talk politics, do so respectfully and know that there’s always somebody that isn’t going to agree with you.  If you have political differences, hash it out respectfully, stick to the facts, and no childish name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. If you can’t handle yourself in that manner, then please, discuss virtually anything else. No drive-by garbage political memes. No conspiracy theory rants. Links to crackpot sites will be axed, too. Trolling and shitposting will not be tolerated. No obsessive behavior about other users. Just don’t interact with folks you don’t like.  Do not be a sucker and feed trolls! That’s as much on you as on them. Use the mute button if you don’t like what you see.   So unless you have something of quality to say, know how to treat people with respect, understand that everyone isn’t going to subscribe to your exact same worldview, and have come to terms with the reality that there is no perfect solution when it comes to moderation of a community like this, it’s probably best to just move on.  Finally, as always, report offenders, please. This doesn’t mean reporting people who don’t share your political views, but we really need your help in this regard. The post Bunker Talk: Let’s Talk About All The Things We Did And Didn’t Cover This Week appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: News & Features, Bunker Talk] [Link to media]

— Operational F-15EXs Have Started Flying With Conformal Fuel Tanks

 

at 11/6/26 2:25pm

A pair of operational F-15EX Eagle II fighters assigned to the Oregon Air National Guard’s 142nd Wing are now flying with conformal fuel tanks (CFT). While F-15EX test jets have been flying with surplus CFTs for years, the U.S. Air Force did not originally feel that combat-coded jets needed them to perform their primary air-to-air missions. For the Eagle II, CFTs offer boosts in range and capacity to carry stores, especially air-to-ground munitions, and are another sign of how the jets mission requirements are evolving. Photographer Bill Shemley brought the CFT-equipped F-15EX Eagle IIs to our attention after spotting them operating recently at Portland International Airport. The airport is collocated with Portland Air National Guard Base, the home of the 142nd Wing. One of the jets in question is serial number 20-0012, part of the first batch of production Eagle IIs, which started being delivered to the 142nd in 2024. As of September, the Air Force had received 22 F-15EXs, including test jets, out of a planned fleet of 267 Eagle IIs. The service revealed earlier this year that the target fleet size had roughly doubled, up from the previously stated program of record of 129 aircraft. A stock picture of another F-15EX from the first production batch, serial number 20-0007, delivered to the 142nd Wing. Note the lack of conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) on this aircraft. USAF We are currently using conformals that we received from ACC [Air Combat Command] on two F-15EX Eagle IIs, SMSgt. Steve Conklin, a public affairs officer with the Oregon Air National Guard, told TWZ when asked for more information. We were given the opportunity from ACC and have flown the approved configuration for the last two weeks. We are still seeking additional details. The CFT that is visible in Shemleys picture notably has the insignia of the 366th Fighter Wing, which flies F-15E Strike Eagles from Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. In the past year or so, the 142nd has been sending Eagle IIs, pilots, and ground personnel to Mountain Home to conduct air-to-ground mission training. A close-up look at the 366th Fighter Wing insignia on the CFT, at left, and a full-color version of the insignia, at right. Bill Shemley/USAF The F-15EX is designed to use the same CFTs that are standard on the F-15E, as well as all other members of the extended Strike Eagle family. This includes the F-15QA for Qatar, on which the Eagle II was directly based. Each CFT can hold some 750 gallons of fuel and adds six additional pylons. Air Force personnel install a conformal fuel tank (CFT) onto an F-15E Strike Eagle. USAF A pair of CFT-equipped Qatari F-15QAs. USAF As mentioned, the Air Force did not originally plan to equip operational F-15EXs with CFTs. This decision was made despite the aircraft having the necessary provisions and initial testing having been done using jets fitted with them. Instead, the Eagle IIs were expected to fly with external drop tanks under their wings, just like the F-15C/D Eagles they were slated to replace. An F-15EX test jet with CFTs. USAF “The F-15EX program as funded from FY20-FY23 is a direct replacement for the F-15C/D in the air-to-air and homeland defense role,” an Air Force spokesperson explained to TWZ back in 2023. “The F-15C/D does not typically operate with CFTs, and the first operational F-15EX aircraft do not have CFTs funded.” A number of Air Force F-15C/Ds did fly with CFTs, also known as “FAST Packs,” during the twilight of the Cold War and its immediate aftermath. Those aircraft operated primarily from bases in Alaska and Iceland where long-range patrols and quick-reaction alert (QRA) missions were the norm. A late Cold War-era picture of an Iceland-based F-15C equipped with FAST Packs. USAF “The DAF [Department of the Air Force] is exploring options to resource a number of advanced capabilities for the F-15EX fleet, including both new and refurbished CFTs, in current and future budget submissions,” the spokesperson added at that time. Where things currently stand when it comes to equipping all operational F-15EXs with CFTs, including on Eagle IIs destined for forward-deployment in Japan, is still not entirely clear. The services Fiscal Year 2027 budget proposal, released earlier this year, did include an explicit request for funding for CFTs to go with all 24 Eagle IIs in the eighth production batch, or Lot 8. A ZZ tail-coded F-15EX destined to eventually be forward-deployed in Japan. USAF Back in 2023, TWZ did acknowledge the logic, at least up front, of eschewing CFTs on the F-15EX given the air-to-air mission focus for those jets. At the same time, we pointed out then that the omission of conformal tanks could still impact Eagle IIs operating in those roles. A 600-gallon underwing drop tank holds 150 gallons less fuel than a CFT and takes up a hardpoint that could be used to carry other stores. Drop tanks also impart far greater drag, reducing fuel economy and range in certain flight profiles. CFTs do still have their own effects on speed and maneuverability. Unlike drop tanks, they cannot be jettisoned in flight, either. F-15C/D pilots that TWZ has spoken with in the past have talked about the benefits of being able to get an immediate boost in performance and instantly optimize their jets for air-to-air combat by dropping their underwing tanks. An F-15C carrying two underwing drop tanks. USAF A CFT-equipped F-15EX would still be able to carry underwing drop tanks, as well, if desired. Doing so would give the jets an impressive loadout of weapons and other stores while even further increasing their unrefueled reach. Even just within the context of air-to-air missions, CFT-equipped F-15EXs would be particularly beneficial for supporting future operations in the Pacific. The inherent geography of the region means access to bases on the ground and tanker support could easily be limited. With CFTs, Eagle IIs would be able to operate further forward of tankers and be able to do so for longer periods of time, helping to extend patrol distances and total on-station time. Not having to carry drop tanks would also translate to more ordnance capacity on those sorties. Since 2023, the operational landscape for the F-15EX has changed even further as the air-to-ground mission set has started creeping more and more into the jets repertoire. As noted earlier, the CFT seen on 20-0012 itself has a clear link to Mountain Home Air Force Base, where the 142nd has been honing its air-to-ground skills. In July, the Oregon Air National Guard announced that one of its F-15EXs had dropped training bombs for the first time ever while operating from Mountain Home. The first release of a live bomb from one of the 142nds Eagle IIs came during training out of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada in September. One of the 142nds F-15EXs with a live bomb on its centerline station seen at Nellis Air Force Base earlier this year ahead of a training sortie. USAF This has all been entirely unsurprising given the F-15EX’s inherently large payload capacity and ability to carry it over very long distances, all of which is only increased by the use of CFTs. The Eagle II, like the other members of the extended Strike Eagle family, can also accommodate outsized stores that it is simply not feasible for many other tactical jets to lug around. Prime contractor Boeing and the Air Force have been touting these capabilities as core features of the F-15EX for years now. These are the same attributes that make the F-15E one of the Air Forces most heavily in-demand platforms today. CFTs are not the only way in which the F-15EX design continues to evolve, either. The Air Force is also now moving toward adding a missile approach warning system (MAWS) to the Eagle IIs. This is another feature the aircraft was designed to accommodate from the outset, but that was skimped on. Its absence, however, has been more and more glaring, especially in light of recent combat experiences over Iran. Furthermore, the future of the Air Forces Strike Eagle fleet is only becoming more and more inseparable from plans for the Eagle II. The service has said explicitly that the doubling of the planned F-15EX fleet size is intended to help “begin to recapitalize the aging F-15E fleet.” A heavily armed F-15E Strike Eagle on a combat sortie. USAF In recent years, the Air Force has moved to retire all of the older F-100-PW-220-powered Strike Eagles, which represent roughly half of F-15Es currently in inventory. The service has argued this will also help free up resources for new and improved capabilities as part of larger modernization efforts. For the Air Forces F-15EX fleets, the two 142nd Wing jets flying now with CFTs underscore the continued evolution of these aircraft and their expected roles. Special thanks again to Bill Shemley for sharing his picture of F-15EX 20-0012 equipped with CFTs. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post Operational F-15EXs Have Started Flying With Conformal Fuel Tanks appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Air, Air Forces, F-15, Fighters, News & Features, U.S. Air Force] [Link to media]

— USS Theodore Roosevelt Arrives In Singapore; Last Stop Before Third Strike Group Reaches The Middle East

 

at 11/6/26 2:17pm

USS Theodore Roosevelt moored at Changi Naval Base in Singapore last night just before midnight Eastern Time, her final stop before continuing on to the Middle East. The Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group (CSG) will join the George H.W. Bush and George Washington CSGs, which are both now prepared, locked, and loaded should the commander in chief follow through on threats to renew military action against Iran after Tuesdays midterm elections. Roosevelt and the three escorting warships will transit the Strait of Malacca next before heading west toward the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR), a journey that will likely take one to two weeks. Meanwhile, the U.S. quietly launched strikes on Irans Qeshm Island on Monday, according to a report first published by The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. officials cited by The Journal said the strikes were reactive and for defensive purposes, but the paper notes they were the latest in a series of limited strikes Washington has secretly carried out against the country in recent weeks. However, its possible that CENTCOM began shaping operations to prepare the battlefield if the go order is given. The U.S. military did not announce the strikes publicly, a noteworthy deviation from past operations that were typically disclosed, but U.S. President Donald Trump told Fox on Tuesday it was just a minor attack on a recently built anti-aircraft facility. Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring and visualizing America’s flattop fleet, including deployed CSGs and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), using publicly available open-source information. Check out last week’s report here. A high resolution graphic visualizing the status and location of Americas fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. TWZ/IAN ELLIS-JONES How Fast Can The Theodore Roosevelt CSG Get To The Middle East? The Theodore Roosevelt CSG completed combined exercise Keen Sword 27, which involved four other allied navies, on October 29. After being topped off by fleet replenishment oiler USNS Tippecanoe the following day, Roosevelt and her three escorts – guided-missile cruiser USS Chosin and guided-missile destroyers USS Paul Hamilton and USS Decatur – entered the South China Sea via the Luzon Strait and steamed southwest toward Singapore. A U.S. official told Axios that the group will spend a few days in Singapore but wont reach CENTCOMs area of responsibility before mid-November. USS Theodore Roosevelts transit on November 5 into Singapore. Source: MarineTraffic/KPLER (Reprinted with permission) According to MarineTraffic, Roosevelt switched on her Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponder about 100 nautical miles east of Malaysia at 11:25 Eastern Time on November 5, broadcasting a precise position publicly for the first time since departing Yokosuka on October 19. The flattop moored at Berth 3/4 at RSS Singapura–Changi Naval Base approximately 12 hours later, followed by the other three warships over the next few hours. The next leg of Roosevelt’s transit to the CENTCOM AOR runs north through the narrow Strait of Malacca and west across the vast Indian Ocean. In August, USS George Washington completed the journey from the Strait to the Arabian Sea in just over one week. A few days in port and a roughly 10-day cruise support the reporting of a mid-to-late November arrival. USS Theodore Roosevelt conducts a replenishment-at-sea with Royal Australian Navy oiler HMAS Stalwart in the South China Sea. U.S. Navy photo Elements of the Makin Island ARG, which is also reportedly bound for the Middle East, were still in Yokosuka, Japan, as of publication. The three-ship amphibious group, packed with more than 2,200 Marines, will likely replace the Boxer ARG, which is approaching eight months deployed and due for relief. The fleet of amphibious warships is stretched thin, with only 31 in the fleet, but Navy and Marine leaders believe at least 40 are required. Which Carriers Are On Station If The U.S. Launches Post-Midterm Strikes Against Iran? USS George Washington, with Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 5 embarked, and USS George H.W. Bush, with CVW 7 aboard, are both operating in the Middle East. The composition of both CSGs is fluid as CENTCOM frequently rotates destroyers and cruisers assigned to strike groups with those on independent deployments. Imagery posted on DVIDS, the militarys content-sharing platform, shows Bush launching and recovering F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers on November 4, and Washington conducting a fueling-at-sea evolution alongside fleet replenishment oiler USNS Oscar V. Peterson on November 3. An EA-18G Growler attached to Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 140 launches from USS George H.W. Bush. U.S. Navy photo Washington left Yokosuka, where she is forward-deployed, 167 days ago on what was expected to be a routine three-month patrol in the Western Pacific. However, the flattop was redirected to the Middle East to relieve the battle-worn USS Abraham Lincoln, leaving the roughly 5,000 Sailors aboard unprepared for an unexpected, and potentially extended, combat deployment. Bush, whose crew knew what their mission was upon departure, has been deployed for 220 days. Neither carrier has broadcast AIS since arriving in theater. USS George Washington prepares for a replenishment-at-sea evolution with fast combat support ship USNS Arctic. U.S. Navy photo An author on the WSJ article referenced above, Shelby Holliday, embarked on Washington in mid-October and provided a firsthand account of life aboard the carrier in a series of must-watch videos on YouTube and Instagram. Sailors spoke candidly about the deployment, and some hinted at what could come next. Hollidays interview with the Gun Boss, Cmdr. Brian Garcia, showcased AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response) air-launched cruise missiles and GBU-31(V)4/B JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) bombs equipped with BLU-109 bunker-buster penetrators. Were getting more of these weapons right here, and a couple other items that they feel were going to need for whatever the mission set sets forward in the future, Garcia said. When asked what the magazine room looks like before an escalation, he responded, This is it right here. This is the preparation that were ready for; we dont need to ramp up because were already prepared. Where Is The Rest Of The American Aircraft Carrier Fleet? On the West Coast, USS Ronald Reagan returned to her homeport in Bremerton, Washington, on November 3 after departing San Diego the week before. Reagan was completing flight deck certification and carrier qualifications following a lengthy maintenance availability. USS Abraham Lincoln, which will conduct a homeport shift from San Diego to Bremerton by the end of the year ahead of a Drydock Planned Incremental Availability, remains moored at Naval Air Station North Island. Also pierside in San Diego, USS Carl Vinson has not been at sea since completing a 25 days of Tailored Ships Training Availability and Final Evaluation Period in September. On the East Coast, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower returned to Naval Station Norfolk yesterday after a one-day underway, according to AIS data. USS Nimitz has been operating at an undisclosed location in the Atlantic Ocean conducting Carrier Air Traffic Control Center certifications with CVW 1, as well as carrier qualifications, since October 27. Three carriers are currently offline in various states of maintenance: USS John C. Stennis, USS Gerald R. Ford, and USS Harry S. Truman. Stennis is at the tail end of a yearslong Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH), while Truman just began an RCOH. Ford began a post-deployment availability in July, and work is expected to be finished by March 2027. The future USS John F. Kennedy, the Navys second and newest Gerald R. Ford class supercarrier, returned to Norfolk on November 5 after 13 days at sea conducting Aircraft Compatibility Testing with Super Hornets and Growlers. In mid-October, an F-35C assigned to the Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 made the first arrested landing on and launch from a Ford class. Kennedy, still considered a Pre-Commissioning Unit, is expected to enter the fleet in spring 2027, around the same time Nimitz will begin the process of deactivation. Flight ops aboard USS Ronald Reagan. Navy photo Future USS John F. Kennedy underway. Navy photo T-45 C Goshawk on USS Nimitz. Navy photo The Big Deck Fleet At A Glance Overall, three U.S. carriers are deployed, three are working up in various states of readiness, three are in maintenance, one is post-deployment preparing for an upcoming availability, another is being used primarily for training before deactivation, and the next to be commissioned will be delivered to the fleet in 2027. Two amphibious assault ships are deployed, one is forward-deployed, two are getting ready for upcoming deployments and currently in port, and four are in maintenance. The status and location of Americas fleet of 11 aircraft carriers and 9 amphibious assault ships. TWZ/IAN ELLIS-JONES Note: Positions are general approximations. Non-deployed LHA/LHD amphibious warships are not shown on the graphic. Contact the author: ian@twz.com or @ianellisjones The post USS Theodore Roosevelt Arrives In Singapore; Last Stop Before Third Strike Group Reaches The Middle East appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Sea, Carrier Tracker, Carriers] [Link to media]

— Russian Mi-28 Attack Helicopters Are Now Firing Cruise Missiles

 

at 11/6/26 10:30am

Russia’s Defense Ministry has released footage showing a Mi-28NM Havoc attack helicopter firing a small, low-cost cruise missile, supposedly during combat operations in Ukraine. The video provides the clearest official indication yet that Russia is exploring a non-traditional, new launch platform for its emerging family of relatively inexpensive standoff weapons. One missile is seen being fired from a pylon beneath the helicopter’s left-side stub wing; the helicopter returns after the mission with an unfired missile still hanging under the right-side stub wing. The Defense Ministry has not provided a date, precise location, or details about the target. Nor has it identified the weapon, which could be either the S8000 Banderol or the Dan-T, two closely related and visually very similar Russian missile developments. Russians published footage of the launch of the loitering munition “Banderol” (“Dan-T”) from the attack helicopter Mi-28NM. pic.twitter.com/rDQskSRmim— MilitaryNewsUA (@front_ukrainian) November 6, 2026 A close-up of the Mi-28NM and the missile seen below the left-side stub wing. Russian Ministry of Defense/screencap The footage is not entirely unexpected. Earlier this year, photographs began circulating showing a Mi-28NM on the ground, carrying what appeared to be the same missile. There had also been unconfirmed reports from Ukraine in August that Russia was using the helicopter as a launch platform for Banderol, including firing the weapons from over the Sea of Azov against targets around Odesa. An S8000 “Banderol” (“Dan-T”) small cruise missile mounted on a Russian Mi-28NM attack helicopter. pic.twitter.com/Xcx3MmFK3B— OSINTWarfare (@OSINTWarfare) September 6, 2026 The Banderol, developed by Russia’s Kronstadt company, was first detailed by Ukrainian military intelligence (GUR) in the spring of 2025. According to GUR, the missile is approximately 16.4 feet long, has pop-out wings, and is powered by a small turbojet engine. It reportedly flies at around 310 miles per hour, has a range of up to 310 miles, and carries a warhead weighing approximately 110 pounds. GUR’s analysis also provided a detailed rundown of the foreign components it identified in the weapon. Its production involves “around 30 companies” supplying “more than 20 key components,” with potentially additional parts that have yet to be identified. Among the components reportedly used are a small commercial Chinese SW800Pro turbojet and a Russian-made Kometa digital antenna for satellite navigation. The weapon also makes extensive use of components sourced from foreign manufacturers, including in the United States. An infographic prepared by Ukraine showing the Banderol missile and some of its foreign-sourced components. GUR photo The other possible candidate is the Dan-T, apparently derived from the Dan-M target drone, but with a roughly 300-pound warhead added. It is also reported to have a range of around 310 miles, while costing approximately 35 percent less than the Banderol. The Banderol first emerged publicly through Ukrainian intelligence reporting, but Moscow eventually began acknowledging the weapon. Russian state television showed it beneath the wing of a Kronstadt Orion drone in July 2026, when it was first officially presented, albeit heavily obscured. Russia has revealed an Orion (Inokhodets) UAV carrying the S8000 Banderol air-launched cruise missile, marking the clearest Russian footage yet of the weapon integrated with the drone. #Russia #Orion #CruiseMissile #Defense pic.twitter.com/yLHb7h1oW9— Drone Wars (@Drone_Wars_) July 13, 2026 Ukrainian reporting indicates that the weapon has already seen operational use. Between mid-May and mid-July, the Ukrainian Air Force recorded 16 strikes involving Banderol. It reported five launches in a single barrage on July 16. There are also indications that the Dan-T could ultimately become the more widely procured weapon. Reports from Ukraine suggest that Russia’s Aerospace Forces may have decided to focus procurement on the Dan-T, with plans to acquire tens of thousands of the missiles. Unlike the Banderol, the Dan-T is also reportedly intended for launch from combat aircraft and ground-based launchers. In September, Russia was already pitching the weapon for export at the El Alamein International Airshow in Egypt. Dan-T displayed at the El Alamein International Airshow in Egypt. Rostec The use of a helicopter to launch a weapon of this type is particularly unusual. A relatively slow- and low-flying platform like the Mi-28 would be much more vulnerable to enemy air defenses than a fixed-wing tactical aircraft. However, the reported range of the Banderol and Dan-T would allow the helicopter to launch well away from the intended target, potentially from across the border while remaining in Russian airspace. For comparison, the maximum range of the Kh-38 (or LMUR) missile — which is otherwise the farthest-reaching Mi-28 weapon — is a little over nine miles. For many months now, Russia has been seeking to expand its arsenal of weapons capable of striking Ukrainian targets from standoff distances. Mounting losses of Russian tactical aircraft to Ukrainian ground-based air defenses have underscored the need for weapons that can hit targets precisely at and well behind the front lines without exposing expensive aircraft to excessive risk. Most notably, Russia has fielded the UMPK, a fairly crude type of guided glide bomb that has caused considerable difficulties for Ukrainian air defenses since its introduction around early 2023. The UMPK series has since been followed by more refined winged precision-guided glide bombs. An early UMPK glide bomb strapped on a Su-34 Fullback strike aircraft. Russian Ministry of Defense However, these weapons are unpowered. The small turbojet engine fitted to the Banderol and Dan-T puts them in the cruise missile category, while their reported range of up to 310 miles is particularly significant, if accurate. That range comes at the expense of warhead size, especially when compared with larger Russian cruise missiles. The weapons’ navigation and electronic warfare protection systems are also important considerations. An inertial navigation system, combined with a jamming-resistant satellite navigation system, should provide a degree of resilience against the kind of electronic warfare jamming that is increasingly being employed by Ukraine. Satellite navigation can also help correct for accumulated drift, an important consideration given the accuracy limitations of inertial navigation systems over longer distances. Launch of the missile from the left-side stub wing. Russian Ministry of Defense/screencap In essence, the Banderol and Dan-T offer Russia a lower-cost, potentially higher-volume complement to its more sophisticated cruise missiles. As we noted previously: “The Banderol is particularly relevant in the context of the economics of the Ukraine conflict. Russian forces have increasingly used combinations of relatively inexpensive one-way attack drones and more expensive cruise and ballistic missiles. The drones can be produced in large numbers and used to complicate air-defense operations, while the more capable missiles provide greater speed, range, payload, or penetration capability. A small turbojet-powered weapon such as Banderol offers another point on that spectrum.” The ability to launch these weapons from non-traditional platforms, including drones, attack helicopters, and potentially ground-based systems, would also give Russia greater flexibility in how it employs them. Its bomber fleets and fixed-wing tactical aircraft could concentrate on their primary roles and make use of their established weapons, while other platforms take on some of the standoff strike mission. Mi-28NM in flight with the missile seen below the right-side stub wing. Russian Ministry of Defense/screencap For the Mi-28NM, meanwhile, the ability to employ a long-range cruise missile could provide a useful additional role, particularly after the helicopter fleet has suffered heavy losses during the war in Ukraine. According to the Oryx open-source tracking group, Russia has lost 21 Mi-28s since launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine four years ago. This figure could be higher because Oryx only tabulates losses it can confirm visually. Russia began the conflict with a force of around 110 Mi-28s of all versions. Other Russian battlefield helicopter types have suffered even heavier attrition, reflecting the level of danger that rotorcraft are exposed to when close to the front lines. Video of the destruction of the Mi-28 of the Russian Air Force using an FPV drone. The first recorded case pic.twitter.com/LWosDeX2Ah— MilitaryNewsUA (@front_ukrainian) August 7, 2024 Russia is not alone in exploring this concept. The U.S. Marine Corps is working to give its AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters a new long-range strike capability through L3Harris’ modular Red Wolf launched-effects family. The weapon, which has already been test-fired from an AH-1Z, is being developed under the Marines’ Long Range Attack Missile (LRAM) effort, with a reported range in the low hundreds of miles. Beyond its kinetic strike role, Red Wolf can also be configured for missions such as communications relay and electronic warfare and has also been pitched for U.S. Army helicopters and tiltrotors. The effort reflects a broader push to give rotary-wing aircraft the ability to deliver precision effects well beyond the range of their traditional weapons, while raising questions about where the boundaries between cruise missiles, drones, and other launched effects are increasingly drawn. In February 2025, NAVAIR released this image of a Red Wolf-armed AH-1Z, without identifying the weapon in question. U.S. Navy For the Kremlin, the appeal of such weapons lies not only in their relatively low cost, but also in the ability to field them across a wider variety of platforms, further complicating Ukraine’s efforts to deal with incoming attacks. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post Russian Mi-28 Attack Helicopters Are Now Firing Cruise Missiles appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Air, Air Force Munitions, Air Forces, Air-To-Ground, Helicopters, Russian Air Force] [Link to media]

— USMC Says It Needs Nine More Amphibious Warships To Carry Out Its Missions

 

at 11/5/26 4:08pm

Navy and Marine Corps leaders have recently come to the agreement that the Corps needs 40 amphibious ships to meet its goal of keeping three Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU) deployed at the same time. However, at the moment, the Navy has only 31 of these vessels, a minimum mandated by Congress, and now an effort is underway to convince lawmakers to increase the fleet. MEUs, made up of about 2,200 Marines, are typically embarked on Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), which usually consist of an assault ship, two transport docks or dock landing ships. Support vessels, surface combatants and in some cases a nuclear fast attack submarine can make up the larger Expeditionary Strike Group. U.S. Navy Landing Craft, Air Cushion 21, attached to Naval Beach Unit (NBU) 7, operates near San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships USS San Diego (LPD 22), left, and USS New Orleans (LPD 18) during a port visit to White Beach Naval Facility, Okinawa, Japan, Jan. 27, 2026. (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Cmdr. John J. Mike) Lt.Cmdr. John Mike Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith’s top priority is meeting what is called the 3.0 ARG/MEU presence, said Shon Brodie, director of Maritime Expeditionary Warfare at the Corps’ Combat Development and Integration (CD&I) Directorate tasked with modernizing the Marines.  Smith “believes that the best thing that we as a service can do for the nation is provide the highly trained Marine Expeditionary Units, one from the East Coast, one from the West Coast, and that one in Japan, persistently,” Brodie told a small group of reporters, including from TWZ, on Wednesday. To ensure that happens, Vice Chief of Naval Operations (VCNO) Adm. James W. Kilby and the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps (ACMC) Gen. Bradford J. Gering “have worked really close together to try to understand the number of ships it would require to achieve 3.0 based on current readiness,” Brodie noted.  “The two analytical arms of both services have come to the conclusion that it takes 40 ships. That’s 13 big decks and 27 LPDs,” the Maritime Expeditionary Warfare director explained. Big decks are the Navy’s Wasp class (LHD) and America class (LHA) amphibious assault ships. Their embarked Aviation Combat Elements (ACEs) can include F-35B Joint Strike Fighters, MV-22 tiltrotor aircraft, UH-1, AH-1 and CH-53 helicopters as well as Navy Seahawk helicopters. The LPDs are smaller [Amphibious Transport Dock ships], which also embark MV-22s and helicopters. The capabilities of MEUs have grown over the past decade, allowing them, in limited cases, to take on tasks that once required an aircraft carrier strike group. MV-22 tiltrotors, and, more recently, F-35Bs, which can be embarked in large numbers in the so-called “Lightning carrier configuration, have boosted the utility of these fighting units. Two U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II, attached to Fixed-Wing Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 211, land on the flight deck of Wasp class amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island (LHD 8), Sept. 29, 2026. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Apprentice Tomas Zuelke) Seaman Apprentice Tomas Zuelke The amphibious ship requirements, which had been in discussion for a while, were finally hammered out over the past few months by the new Amphibious Force Readiness Board (AFRB), stated Brodie. The AFRB is a joint Navy-Marine Corps effort created to better track the readiness of the amphibious fleet, which has been a huge issue as we have frequently noted. Right now, I have 31 amphibious warfare ships, stated Brodie. The biggest need at the moment, he added, is for additional amphibious assault ships. The law calls for the service to have 10, but currently it has only nine. That’s because the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) was sent to the scrapyard in 2021 after being ravaged by a fire in 2020. Brodie said the Marines want to increase the number of mandated amphibious assault ships from 10 to 13. “When I have a problem generating this force, it really revolves around the big deck,” he stated. PHILIPPINE SEA (June 13, 2021) The America Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) sail in formation. Clockwise from right: USS America (LHA 6), USS New Orleans (LPD 18), USS Germantown (LSD 42). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jomark A. Almazan) Petty Officer 1st Class Jomark Almazan The call for a fleet of 40 amphibious ships, and especially 13 big decks, is a sharp departure from the guidance former Commandant Gen. David Berger introduced in 2019 that led to his Force Design 2030 plan. In these documents, Berger called for fewer amphibious assault ships and more smaller vessels. Berger was concerned about the growing array of threats to these large, slow-moving vessels from anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, and that was before one-way attack drones became such an ubiquitous weapons of war. This strategy was seen as better suited for fighting in the Pacific in a modern context, not large scale beach landings of the past. He also wanted to return the Corps to its naval roots; small, dispersed stand-in forces working inside an adversary’s weapons engagement zone after two decades of ground pounding in Afghanistan and Iraq. A Marine holding a Stinger missile launcher stands in front of a Combat Rubber Raiding Craft on Ukibaru Island off the coast of Okinawa during Exercise Hagatna Fury 21. USMC Given how much of a sea-change this new plan represents, reaching a 40 amphibious ship fleet that includes 13 big decks is no small task.  “Ive got a sheet sitting right here in front of me that tells me how we get there,” Brodie added. “You cant get there tomorrow, right? The only way for me to realistically increase that inventory is for me to build new ships and do a service-life extension on some of the selective ships that I currently have in the inventory.” Brodie said that Kilby and Gering are going to approach Congress later this month to convey the need for more ships. There is no set timeline to reach the 40-ship goal, the Marines told TWZ. “We will have to await future congressional funding for these,” Lt. Col. Eric D. Flanagan, a USMC spokesman, told us., adding that there is a multi-ship procurement contract underway for several amphibious vessels. He was referring to HII being awarded a $9.6 billion multi-ship procurement contract in 2024 for the construction of three San Antonio class amphibious ships and a contract modification for the next America class large-deck amphibious ship.  “This combined procurement — the first of its kind for amphibious ships — begins the journey for the construction of LPDs 33, 34, 35 and LHA 10 for the U.S. Navy,” HII stated at the time. Aerial view of HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding division taken on Aug. 22, 2024 as USS Richard M. McCool, Jr. (LPD 29) departed from Ingalls to its commissioning site in Pensacola, Florida, while Bougainville (LHA 8) is shown under construction in the background. (HII) The request for additional shipbuilding funds will likely face far stiffer headwinds now that the Democrats have won control of both the Senate and the House. While the Trump administration continues to pursue a roughly $1.5 trillion defense budget for Fiscal Year 2027, which includes some $350 billion that would come from outside normal defense spending streams via the reconciliation process, a letter leaked yesterday from a top Democrat offers a glimpse into the challenges the new amphibious ship plan may face. The letter from Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington state Democrat who is in line to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, makes clear that many programs and policy issues, as well as defense spending writ large, are set to be put under the microscope when the Democrats take control of Congress in the new year.  “We must thoroughly review our national defense strategy and develop a more realistic and sustainable approach that does not require a defense budget in excess of $1 trillion or paid for through draconian cuts to critical domestic programs,” Smith wrote in his ‘dear colleagues’ letter. All of this comes at a time when the Navy has been struggling to meet operational demands for surface combatants with its existing fleet. This has been further exacerbated by shakeups in separate plans to acquire new frigates and larger uncrewed surface vessels (USVs), as well as rising costs associated with its workhorse Arleigh Burke class destroyers. On top of everything, conflicts in the Middle East have taken a toll on the Navy, incurring costs that need to be paid for. In August, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle estimated as a result of the Operation Epic Fury fight against Iran, the Navy needed between $6 billion and $8 billion more than what was budgeted for in the 2026 fiscal year “to be whole and solvent for [Fiscal Year] 26,” Navy Times reported. Overall, the U.S. military has spent over $47 billion so far to prosecute the war in Iran, more than 25% higher than the Defense Department’s estimate in July, according to Pentagon data obtained by Reuters last month. An F/A-18E Super Hornet, attached to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 151, launches from the flight deck of Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) during Operation Epic Fury, April 1, 2026. (U.S. Navy photo) NAVCENT Public Affairs In addition to not having enough ships to fulfill the mission, there is a big problem keeping the existing ones available. The Navys amphibious ship fleet had just a 47% combat surge readiness rate as of April, according to Kilbys Fiscal Year 2027 budget request statement. As we have pointed out previously, chronic maintenance delays, competing budget priorities, ill-planned early-retirement efforts that went forward without required congressional approval, scarce spare parts, shoddy contractor oversight and other issues have contributed to these problems. The Navy and Marines are working to change that and meet the requirements set out by the commandant, Brodie stated. This has involved getting a better handle on how long and how often ships need to be deployed and improving maintenance once underway. “Were at the very beginning stage of that, but the indications are, and the models tell us, that we will actually be able to shrink the days in maintenance and improve force generation by some percentage that will be helpful,” Brodie explained. “Without getting into numbers that are probably sensitive, but were marginally better than we were before, and the expectation is that we can increase beyond marginally better here over the next couple of maintenance cycles.” From right, Boatswain’s Mate 3rd Class Omari Packard and Seaman Braden McLelland, sailors assigned to the Wasp class amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD 5), perform shipboard maintenance by painting around a fueling station along the starboard side of the ship’s superstructure, Sept. 24, 2026. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Apprentice Jackson C. Rott) Seaman Apprentice Jackson Rott “Theres another factor here that sort of you cant model in your framework, and thats extended deployment,” Brodie added. “Youve got to bring the ship back on time, get it in maintenance on time. If you extend the deployments and youll find thats true with the whole Navy fleet if you extend the deployment, and you miss a maintenance cycle. It sort of blows that forecast that you had.” The problems created by extended deployments are something TWZ frequently highlights. When regular maintenance doesn’t happen, it creates a cascading series of problems that affect not just the ships and crews, but the facilities that have scheduled repairs and lined up workers to make them happen. The bottom line is that the longer these vessels stay out on cruise, the longer they have to stay in on deep maintenance, and past a certain point, the magnitude of this relationship skyrockets. Extra days out can turn into extra weeks in the yard, and so on. With yard facilities at a premium, especially those capable of dealing with a supercarrier and big deck amphibious vessels, critical schedules can quickly implode, with work stacking up across multiple vessels, resulting in them being sidelined much longer than planned. This is something we have discussed in great detail when it comes to aircraft carriers. While the Marines and Navy say they need 40 amphibious ships, whether they reach that level is still an open question that will have to be addressed in future budget cycles. There are a lot of competing needs and only so much money that can be allocated. Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post USMC Says It Needs Nine More Amphibious Warships To Carry Out Its Missions appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Sea, America Class, Amphibious Assault Ships, Big Deck Amphibious Assault Ships, Navies, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy, Wasp Class] [Link to media]

— A Guide To China’s Expanding Fleet Of Military Helicopters

 

at 11/5/26 3:25pm

China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) operates an increasingly diverse fleet of helicopters spanning everything from basic pilot training and battlefield transport to airborne early warning, anti-submarine warfare, and dedicated attack missions. The force reflects decades of development, often beginning with helicopters acquired from France and later produced under license, before transitioning to increasingly indigenous designs. The result is a mix of older aircraft that have undergone extensive modernization and newer platforms designed around the requirements of China’s expanding military, including its growing carrier and amphibious assault fleets. A Z-10 attack helicopter. Photo by VCG/VCG via Getty Images The Z-8 family, originally derived from the Cold War-era French Super Frelon, is a particularly good example of this evolution. It has spawned a wide range of specialized variants, including search and rescue, transport, electronic warfare, and airborne command post helicopters. Meanwhile, the Z-20 — frequently alluded to as a Sikorsky S-70/H-60 clone — has emerged as a modern medium-lift platform with land-based, naval, and assault variants, while the Z-10 and newer Z-21 represent China’s growing emphasis on dedicated attack helicopters. A PLAN Z-8C conducts an aerial assault demonstration at the Zhuhai Air Show in Zhuhai, south Chinas Guangdong province, in 2024. CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images This guide examines the principal helicopter types operated by the PLA, their development, and the roles they are expected to perform. At the same time, it should be noted that, as it now stands, the PLA remains heavily reliant on foreign-sourced helicopters for a wide variety of applications. Russian-built helicopters give the PLA a mix of transport and specialized naval capabilities. The Mi-17/171 Hip family supports troop and cargo movement, search and rescue, special operations, and select high-altitude or mission-specific roles. At sea, the Ka-28 Helix provides anti-submarine warfare, while the Ka-31’s radar supports airborne fleet surveillance. These aircraft remain in service where their established capabilities continue to meet operational needs. However, they are increasingly supplemented by Chinese designs, including certain designs that have been tailored to provide direct replacements. The most advanced Hip helicopter operated by the PLA is the Mi-171Sh used for combat search and rescue. It features extensive self-protection equipment and armament. Photo by Sun Lin/VCG via Getty Images Utility, Training, and Light Helicopters HC-120 The HC-120 is a light utility helicopter derived from the EC120, a design co-developed by China, France, and Singapore during the 1990s. The type entered service with PLA Army Aviation in 2005, providing a modern platform for primary helicopter training and replacing the aging SA316 Alouette III in that role. The HC-120 is powered by a single Turbomeca Arrius 2F turboshaft engine. Its introduction represented an important step in modernizing the Army Aviation training fleet, giving pilots experience with a more contemporary helicopter before transitioning to larger operational types. An HC-120 in the colors of the Army Aviation Training School. via Chinese internet Z-11 The Z-11 is a light utility helicopter developed by Changhe Aircraft Industries Corporation (CHAIC) and the 602 Research Institute. The design is based on the French AS350BA Écureuil, examples of which were acquired for Army Aviation. Deliveries of the Z-11 to Army Aviation began in 1998. The helicopter is powered by a single WZ-8D turboshaft engine and is primarily used for training, liaison, and other light utility duties. A scout and armed reconnaissance derivative, designated as the Z-11WB, was developed with a nose-mounted electro-optical (EO) turret and external weapon pylons capable of carrying rockets, missiles, and gun pods. Its operational status remains unclear, although it provided the basis for the unarmed Z-11A training helicopter used by the Army Aviation Academy. A demonstrator for the Z-11WB scout and armed reconnaissance helicopter. via Chinese internet The Z-8 Family: From French Origins To A Modern Helicopter Lineage Z-8J The Z-8 was developed from the French SA321Ja Super Frelon, 13 examples of which China purchased during the late 1970s. Changhe Aircraft Industries Corporation subsequently developed an indigenous version during the 1980s. Powered by three WZ-6 turboshaft engines, the original Z-8 became the foundation for a broad family of helicopters serving the PLA Navy (PLAN), Army Aviation, and People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). The Z-8J is the naval transport variant, with a boat-like hull. For anti-submarine warfare (ASW) missions, the helicopter can be equipped with a surface-search radar, a French HS-12 dipping sonar, and Whitehead A244S or ET52 torpedoes. Several specialized derivatives were developed from the Z-8J: Z-8S: A naval search and rescue (SAR) version with upgraded avionics, a searchlight, a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) turret, and a rescue hoist. Most Z-8Js have reportedly been upgraded to this configuration. Z-8JH: A medical evacuation and SAR variant. The Z-8J and Z-8JH have both been used aboard Chinese aircraft carriers, providing transport and support capabilities for embarked naval forces. A Z-8JH on the PLAN replenishment ship Kekexilihu at Qingdao Port, Shandong Province of China, in 2023. Photo by Fu Tian/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images Z-8C The Z-8C represents a substantially improved successor to the original naval Z-8J series. The helicopter was first reported in 2016 and incorporates a number of changes intended to improve its performance and operational versatility. The most visible differences include a redesigned nose with a chin-mounted weather radar, a FLIR turret, and a pilot night-vision system (PNVS) mounted above the cockpit. A searchlight is also fitted, while the longer engine compartment accommodates the WZ-6C turboshaft engine. The Z-8C is operated by the PLA Marine Corps, while the Z-8CJ serves as a training variant with the Naval Aviation University. The helicopter has become a principal transport platform for the Type 075 amphibious assault ship, supporting the movement of troops and equipment between ships and shore. Z-8C helicopters conduct aerial display training for the upcoming Airshow China in Zhuhai, Guangdong Province of China, in 2024. Photo by Chen Xiao/VCG via Getty Images Z-8K/KA The PLAAF introduced the Z-8K in 2007 as a dedicated search-and-rescue helicopter. The related Z-8KA is configured for combat search and rescue (CSAR), including the recovery of personnel from hostile or contested environments. Both versions feature a FLIR turret, searchlight, radar-warning receiver (RWR), chaff and flare dispensers, and a rescue hoist. Some aircraft are also equipped with small terrain-following radars beneath the nose to support low-level operations. Selected helicopters have received satellite communications (SATCOM) antennas on top of the tail boom, improving their communications capabilities over longer distances. A further derivative, the Z-8KH, was developed for the PLAAF garrison stationed in Hong Kong. This version is distinguished by chaff and flare dispensers integrated into its flotation equipment. A Z-8KA helicopter during the 2022 Changchun Air Show at Changchun Dafangshen Airport, Jilin Province of China. Photo by VCG/VCG via Getty Images Z-8B The Z-8B entered service with PLA Army Aviation in 2011 as an improved transport helicopter. It shares several characteristics with the Z-8KH but lacks the latter’s flotation equipment. The Z-8B incorporates a glass cockpit and has become a major component of the Army Aviation transport fleet. Some aircraft have subsequently had flotation equipment reinstalled, reflecting the type’s continuing evolution. An optional auxiliary fuel tank can be installed inside the cabin to extend its range. Other upgrades have included SATCOM antennas on the tail boom and, on some aircraft, WZ-6C engines, an EO turret, and a terrain-following radar beneath the nose. A specialized operations variant has also been identified. These helicopters incorporate RWR, laser-warning receivers (LWR), and missile-approach warning system (MAWS) sensors, alongside flare dispensers and ceramic armor protection. A still from a CCTV video shows a Z-8B equipped with RWR, LWR, and MAWS sensors, as well as countermeasures dispensers. via Chinese internet Z-8G Lacking the boat-like hull of the Z-8B, the Z-8G is expected to replace that type in Army Aviation service. The helicopter was evaluated from 2014 and was specifically optimized for operations at high altitudes, including in Tibet. Unlike earlier Z-8 variants, the initial Z-8G configuration uses imported Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6B-67A turboshaft engines. Its redesigned nose is longer and more aerodynamically efficient, while the glass cockpit and terrain-following radar support operations in demanding environments. The helicopter also incorporates SATCOM and BeiDou/GPS antennas to improve communications and navigation during long-range missions. Some Z-8Gs have been equipped for special operations, with combinations of MAWS, RWR, and LWR sensors mounted on the rear fuselage and sponsons, together with chaff and flare dispensers. Armor plates beneath the cockpit windows provide additional protection, and some aircraft carry a 12.7mm machine gun inside a cabin doorway. Several specialized variants have also been identified: A battlefield electronic-warfare helicopter featuring large cylindrical antennas mounted on both sides of the mid-fuselage. Another electronic warfare configuration reportedly uses rectangular plate antenna arrays mounted on both sides of the rear fuselage. An airborne command-post variant featuring a retractable synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) surveillance system inside the rear fuselage, alongside additional electronic-support-measures (ESM) antennas. Some Z-8Gs may also have adopted the indigenous WZ-6C engine. A Z-8G at Airshow China at Zhuhai in 2024. Photo by Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images Z-8L The Z-8L is a wide-body development of the Z-8G that first flew in 2017. Its most prominent feature is a pair of large sponsons mounted along the sides of the fuselage, providing additional space for fuel tanks and other equipment. The wider fuselage also increases internal volume, allowing the helicopter to carry more cargo and equipment. Relocating the internal fuel tanks beneath the cabin floor has further increased usable cabin space. Some aircraft have been observed with RWR and MAWS sensors on both sides of the forward fuselage, a roof-mounted FLIR turret, and a terrain-following radar beneath the nose. Additional defensive equipment, including LWR and RWR sensors and chaff/flare dispensers, can be installed on the sponsons. A SATCOM antenna is mounted on top of the tail boom. The original PT6B-67A engines are reportedly being replaced by the more powerful indigenous WZ-7 turboshaft. The Z-8L provides the Army with a larger and more capable transport helicopter suited to demanding operating environments and specialized missions. A Z-8L (nearest camera) alongside a Z-20 during the 2022 Airshow China in Zhuhai, Guangdong province of China. Photo by Stringer/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images Z-8D The Z-8D is a shipborne derivative of the Z-8L that first appeared in 2023. It combines the wide-body configuration with an extensive self-defense suite intended to improve survivability during operations over water. The helicopter features RWR, LWR, and MAWS sensors, along with chaff and flare dispensers. Four inflatable flotation units provide emergency protection in the event of a forced landing at sea. Power is supplied by either WZ-6C or the newer WZ-7 turboshaft engines. Engine air particle separators (EAPS) are installed ahead of the engine inlets to reduce the risk of damage from airborne debris. The Z-8D is expected to operate from China’s Type 075 amphibious assault ships and the larger Type 076 amphibious assault ship. One of the first clear images of a PLAN Naval Aviation Z-8D. via Chinese internet The Z-18 Series: Naval Utility, Early Warning, and ASW Helicopters Z-18Y Named White Heron, the Z-18Y was developed by the 602 Research Institute and Changhe as a new medium-lift shipborne transport helicopter. It is derived from the AC313 but incorporates a redesigned fuselage and a number of changes intended to improve its naval suitability. The helicopter uses imported PT6B-67A turboshaft engines and provides greater internal volume and payload capacity than the earlier Z-8. Improved performance in hot-and-high conditions is another important feature. The Z-18Y incorporates a nose-mounted weather radar and an FLIR/TV turret, along with additional communication and navigation antennas beneath the fuselage. A SATCOM antenna is installed on top of the tail boom. Folding main and tail rotor blades allow the helicopter to be stored more efficiently aboard ships. The Z-18Y is primarily used for carrier onboard delivery (COD) missions, transporting personnel and supplies between ships and shore. It has also provided the basis for several specialized naval derivatives. A Z-18Y operating from a Type 075 class assault ship. PLA Z-18J Named Bat, the Z-18J is an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) helicopter developed from the Z-18Y. Its principal feature is a retractable radar antenna housed within a redesigned rear fuselage. The long-range, multimode AESA radar is lowered vertically during operation, providing 360-degree coverage around the helicopter. The Z-18J also incorporates a nose-mounted FLIR turret and additional MAWS and RWR antennas distributed around the nose and rear fuselage. Chaff and flare dispensers are installed in the flotation equipment. The helicopter has been used aboard Chinese aircraft carriers as an interim airborne early-warning platform and has also been observed operating from Type 075 amphibious assault ships. A rescue hoist is installed on the starboard side of the forward fuselage, allowing the aircraft to perform secondary SAR duties. An improved Z-18A features a redesigned engine and gearbox compartment and three indigenous WZ-6C engines. Some Z-18Js and Z-18As have also received SATCOM antennas to improve long-range communications. A Z-18J together with two J-15 fighters onboard the Liaoning. via Chinese internet Z-18F Named Sea Eagle, the Z-18F is an ASW and anti-ship warfare helicopter developed from the Z-18Y. It first appeared in 2014 and represents a substantial improvement over the earlier Z-8-based naval ASW helicopters. The helicopter incorporates a large surface-search radar beneath the nose, while its FLIR/TV turret has been relocated to the starboard side of the fuselage. A dipping sonar provides an additional means of detecting submarines, while MAWS and RWR antennas are installed on the forward and rear fuselage. Additional communications and navigation antennas are mounted beneath the fuselage. Four external pylons can carry torpedoes or anti-ship missiles (AShMs), including the YJ-9. A dispenser near the rear loading ramp allows the helicopter to deploy sonobuoys. The Z-18F operates aboard Chinese aircraft carriers and the Type 075 amphibious assault ship. Several improved derivatives have since appeared: Z-18FA: Incorporates a redesigned engine and gearbox compartment and three domestic WZ-6C turboshaft engines. Z-18FG: Features a new chin-mounted search radar and small side pylons for lightweight ASW torpedoes or AShMs. Z-18FB: A further improved version reportedly powered by three WZ-7 turboshaft engines, replacing the Canadian PT6B-67A. These developments point to a continuing effort to improve the Z-18’s performance and extend the operational life of the broader family. A Z-18F assigned to the aircraft carrier Liaoning. via Chinese internet The Z-9 Family Z-9A/B The Z-9 originated from the French AS365 Dauphin family, with China acquiring aircraft and subsequently producing them under license through Harbin Aircraft Industry Group (HAIG) during the 1990s. The Z-9A became a principal utility helicopter for Army Aviation and was also used for pilot training. The improved Z-9B incorporated a greater proportion of indigenous components, helping establish the foundation for China’s broader Z-9 development program, which also took it in a maritime direction. The helicopter has since become one of China’s most widely used light utility platforms and has also been widely exported in the Z-9E series. Cambodian soldiers stand in front of Z-9s during a handover ceremony at a Royal Cambodian Air Force base in Phnom Penh, in 2013. KHEM SOVANNARA/AFP via Getty Images KHEM SOVANNARA Z-9C The Z-9C is China’s indigenous naval derivative of the French AS565 Panther, examples of which were imported during the late 1980s. The helicopter incorporates a domestically developed surface-search radar and dipping sonar, allowing it to conduct ASW missions. It can carry up to two Yu-7K torpedoes and is equipped with inflatable flotation bags for emergency landings on water. Some Z-9Cs have been converted to SAR duties, receiving a searchlight, an EO turret, and a rescue hoist. The type has also been used for anti-piracy patrols off the Somali coast. In this role, some aircraft have carried a 12.7mm gun pod and a 57mm rocket launcher. A downgraded training version was developed for the Naval Aviation Academy. Z-9 sits aboard the Type 052D destroyer Zhanjiang at Ngong Shuen Chau Naval Base on Stonecutters Island in Hong Kong on July 6, 2025. Photo by AFP Z-9D The Z-9D is an improved derivative of the Z-9C, incorporating a greater emphasis on anti-surface warfare. The helicopter features stub wings capable of carrying up to four AShMs for use against smaller surface targets. A new fire-control radar is housed in a larger nose cone, while the weapon-control officer is positioned in the rear cabin. RWR antennas are installed on both sides of the nose and near the tail rotor. The Z-9D has been observed operating from Type 056 and Type 056A frigates. Some aircraft have also received an EO turret beneath the fuselage, expanding their surveillance and targeting capabilities. A Z-9D carrying a YJ-9 anti-ship missile. via Chinese internet Z-9F The Z-9F is an improved ASW helicopter based on the Z-9D. It was first observed in 2017 and is expected to replace the older Z-9C. The helicopter incorporates a new dipping sonar, a glass cockpit, and an improved surface-search radar. A BeiDou antenna is mounted on top of the cabin. The Z-9F retains the ability to carry up to two ASW torpedoes beneath its stub wings, providing a more modern platform for shipborne submarine-hunting missions. Z-9S The Z-9S is a naval search-and-rescue helicopter developed for operations aboard Chinese aircraft carriers. It features a nose-mounted EO turret, a searchlight, and a rescue hoist installed on the starboard side. The helicopter is also used for training by the Naval Aviation University. A small number of SAR-configured Z-9S helicopters are also operated by Army Aviation. A Z-9S conducts exercises onboard a Type 055 destroyer. via Chinese internet Z-9WA/WZ The Z-9WA is a night-attack development of the Z-9W, incorporating more powerful engines and improved avionics for operations in low-light conditions. The helicopter features stub wings capable of carrying up to eight KD-8 anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) or PL-90 air-to-air missiles (AAMs). A nose-mounted low-light TV/IR turret supports night operations, while RWR antennas are installed on both sides of the fuselage. Additional features include cockpit armor, flare dispensers, a datalink, and a redesigned cockpit compatible with night-vision goggles (NVGs). Z-9WZ. via Chinese internet The improved Z-9WZ incorporates a laser designator, allowing it to employ the newer KD-9 ATGM, as well as FN-6 AAMs. It is also powered by WZ-8H engines. Most Z-9WAs are believed to have been upgraded to the WZ standard. The PLAAF operates some Z-9WA/WZ helicopters in the SAR role. A similar derivative, the Z-9ZH, is used by the PLAAF garrison stationed in Hong Kong. Dedicated Attack and Scout Helicopters Z-10 The Z-10 represents China’s first dedicated modern attack helicopter. Developed by the 602 Research Institute, CHAIC, and HAIG, the program also received early input from Russia’s Kamov design bureau. The helicopter features a conventional tandem-seat gunship configuration, with the gunner seated in front and the pilot behind. A five-blade composite main rotor and distinctive scissor-type tail rotor distinguish the design. The Z-10 is powered by WZ-9 turboshaft engines and entered service in 2010, following its first flight in 2003. A Z-10K at the Shek Kong Barracks in Hong Kong, China. Photo by Zhang Xiangyi/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images Its primary armament consists of up to eight KD-9 or KD-10 laser-guided ATGMs, supplemented by a chin-mounted 23mm chain gun. The helicopter can also carry up to eight PL-90 AAMs. The nose-mounted PNVS and target acquisition and designation system (TADS)-equivalent housing incorporates FLIR, a TV camera, a laser rangefinder, and a laser designator. RWR antennas are installed on both sides of the forward and aft fuselage, while LWR sensors are mounted on the pylon tips. The initial prototypes were powered by the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6C-76C engine. Series-production aircraft instead adopted the less powerful WZ-9, resulting in reductions to armor protection, sensor size, and weapon load compared with the original configuration. Several variants and upgrades have since emerged: Z-10H: Retains the original PNVS/TADS configuration while using WZ-9 engines. Z-10K: A dedicated version for PLAAF airborne units, featuring a new 23mm gun and 19-tube rocket launchers. Some aircraft have SATCOM antennas on top of the tail boom. Z-10A: The definitive production configuration, distinguished by upward-facing engine exhaust nozzles. Later upgrades: Some Z-10 and Z-10K aircraft have received additional ceramic armor, MAWS sensors on the nose, and SATCOM antennas for long-range communications. The helicopter has also gained newer long-range, IIR/CCD-guided ATGMs. These weapons require an additional datalink antenna mounted in front of the PNVS. Later developments include the introduction of millimeter-wave (MMW) radar-guided fire-and-forget missiles, potentially allowing the Z-10 to operate alongside the Z-19 in coordinated attack missions. The export-oriented Z-10ME incorporates further improvements, including a mast-mounted MMW radar. Z-19 The Z-19 is a scout and attack helicopter developed by HAIG using the H425 as its basis. It was intended to replace the Z-9WA while complementing the larger Z-10. The helicopter features a narrow fuselage and tandem cockpit, with the pilot seated in front and the gunner behind. A nose-mounted EO turret incorporates FLIR, a TV camera, and a laser rangefinder, while RWR antennas provide warning of hostile radar emissions. The Z-19 uses the same WZ-8C engines, transmission, and rotor systems as the H425, helping accelerate its development. A Z-19 without the mast-mounted MMW radar. via Chinese internet When fitted with a mast-mounted MMW radar, the Z-19 provides additional target-detection capabilities. The helicopter’s armament is broadly similar to that of the Z-9WA, including KD-9 and KD-10 ATGMs, PL-90 AAMs, rocket launchers, and gun pods. Later upgrades include MAWS sensors on the nose and tail, along with LWR sensors on the stub wings. The Z-19 has also been integrated with newer long-range IIR/CCD/laser-guided ATGMs, including the KF-9, KF-10, and KF-11. These weapons require an additional datalink antenna mounted on the nose. Z-21 The Z-21 is a new heavy attack helicopter first identified in 2024. Developed by the 602 Research Institute, Changhe, and Hafei, it appears to be a substantially larger and more heavily protected gunship than the Z-10. The helicopter is believed to use the WZ-10 turboshaft engines and rotor systems developed for the Z-20. It features a conventional tandem-seat configuration, with a gunner in the front and a pilot behind. One of the first photos of the Z-21. via Chinese internet Large cheek fairings on either side of the fuselage incorporate MAWS, LWR, ESM, and electronic countermeasures (ECM) equipment. The nose features a new PNVS above a TADS, while an MMW search radar is mounted above the main rotor mast. Laser-powered directional infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) are installed on the wingtips. Additional defensive equipment includes chaff and flare dispensers on the cheek fairings and tail boom. A BeiDou antenna is mounted on the tail boom, while at least one prototype has been observed with upward-facing engine exhausts. Z-21. via Chinese internet The Z-21 is expected to feature a 30mm chain gun beneath the forward fuselage. Each stub wing incorporates three weapon stations capable of carrying the newer KF-series long-range ATGMs, PL-90 AAMs, and other emerging weapons. Compared with the Z-20, the Z-21 is expected to offer improved high-altitude performance, greater armor protection, and a heavier payload, making it better suited to demanding attack missions. The Z-20 Family: China’s New Medium Helicopter Z-20 The Z-20 is China’s new medium-lift general-purpose helicopter, developed by the 602 Research Institute, Harbin, and Changhe since the late 1990s. The design is heavily influenced by the Sikorsky S-70 Black Hawk, examples of which China acquired for the PLA during the 1980s. However, the Z-20 incorporates a number of indigenous systems and is intended to replace the Mi-17 series in Army Aviation service. The helicopter features a five-blade main rotor, a glass cockpit, and armor protection around the cockpit. A PNVS is mounted beneath the chin, while RWR antennas are installed on both sides of the forward and rear fuselage. Additional equipment includes LWR sensors on both sides of the nose, SATCOM, ECM antennas on top of the fuselage, and a nose-mounted weather radar and terrain-following radar. A Z-20 during the 7th China Helicopter Exposition in Tianjin Municipality, China, in 2025. Photo by VCG/VCG via Getty Images The Z-20 is powered by two WZ-10 turboshaft engines and can carry up to 13 fully equipped soldiers. An optional fuel tank can be installed in the cargo compartment to extend its range. Stub wings can be fitted to carry rocket launchers, gun pods, and external fuel tanks. The Z-20 first flew in 2013 and entered service with PLA Army Aviation by 2019. Several aircraft have been observed with upward-facing engine exhausts. A SAR variant incorporates an EO turret and searchlight beneath the forward fuselage, together with a rescue hoist above the cabin door. Z-20K/KS/KT The Z-20 has also spawned a number of specialized variants for the PLAAF. The Z-20K, identified in 2022, is a transport helicopter intended for airborne assault units. The PLAAF operates the Z-20KS subvariant in the SAR role. This model features an EO turret and searchlight beneath the forward fuselage, while optional stub wings allow it to carry rocket launchers and gun pods. An improved assault variant, the Z-20KT, incorporates a larger SATCOM antenna on top of the tail boom. Its folding tail section indicates that the helicopter is designed to facilitate aerial transport, allowing rapid deployment over long distances. A Z-20K at the Shek Kong Barracks in Hong Kong, China, in 2026. Photo by VCG/VCG via Getty Images Z-20T The Z-20T is a specialized assault helicopter broadly comparable in concept to the MH-60L Direct Action Penetrator used by the U.S. Army. The helicopter features large stub wings capable of carrying KD-9 and KD-10 ATGMs, KF-9A ATGMs, PL-90 AAMs, ECM pods, and external fuel tanks. LWR sensors have been relocated to the wingtips, while a TADS has replaced the weather radar in the nose. Additional armor plates provide increased protection for the crew and critical systems. Later examples have also been observed with upward-facing engine exhausts. Air Cavalry: Footage shows Z-20T assault helicopters effectively boosting the tactical flexibility of the Chinese PLA Army’s heliborne troops during an air assault training exercise.#Helicopter #AirAssault #Z20T #Z10#PLA #Army#ChinaMilitary #ChinaMilBugle pic.twitter.com/NcoMbsz9gP— China Military Bugle (@ChinaMilBugle) May 1, 2026 Z-20F The Z-20F is a shipborne ASW helicopter developed to provide the PLAN with a modern equivalent to the MH-60R Seahawk. It first flew in 2018. The helicopter incorporates folding rotor blades and a folding tail boom to facilitate shipboard storage. An emergency flotation system is fitted, while the rear landing gear has been relocated forward to the rear end of the fuselage. The redesigned nose features an EO/laser-ranging turret, with a surface-search radar antenna mounted beneath the chin. A SATCOM antenna is installed on top of the tail boom. Additional ESM antennas are distributed around the nose and rear fuselage. A 25-round sonobuoy launcher is mounted on the port side, while a dipping sonar and rescue hoist provide additional ASW and SAR capabilities. The Z-20F can carry up to four YJ-9 AShMs beneath its stub wings, alongside lightweight ASW torpedoes on rear fuselage pylons. The helicopter is expected to replace the older Z-9C on Type 054 frigates and Type 052 and Type 055 destroyers. It has also been observed aboard the aircraft carrier Fujian and Type 075 amphibious assault ships. A Z-20F on the deck of the carrier Fujian carrying a pair of YJ-9 anti-ship missiles under one stub wing. via Chinese internet Z-20J The Z-20J is a shipborne transport and assault variant designed for the PLAN. Its stub wings can carry up to eight KD-9 ATGMs or four YJ-9 AShMs, as well as rocket launchers, external fuel tanks, and gun pods. MAWS sensors are installed on both sides of the chin and along the rear fuselage, providing additional protection during operations over water. The Z-20J expands the range of missions that can be performed from Chinese surface combatants and amphibious assault ships, complementing the ASW-focused Z-20F. Z-20J. via Chinese internet Conclusion Despite often being overshadowed by the PLA’s latest combat aircraft, missiles, and other high-profile weapons programs, helicopters remain an indispensable part of China’s military modernization. They provide critical capabilities, from moving troops and supplies across difficult terrain to supporting amphibious operations, special forces, search and rescue, and naval warfare. More importantly, the steady development of indigenous helicopter designs reflects China’s determination to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers and build a more capable, self-sufficient rotary-wing force. These aircraft may attract less attention than the PLA’s newest fighters, but their growing sophistication and expanding roles make them an essential part of the force’s ability to operate across a wide range of contingencies. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post A Guide To China’s Expanding Fleet Of Military Helicopters appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Air, Armies, Helicopters, Land, People's Liberation Army (China)] [Link to media]

— This Is The Army’s New MALET Kit That Turns Mortars Into Drone-Dropped Weapons

 

at 11/5/26 12:04pm

The Army on Wednesday unveiled its new system allowing front-line troops to rapidly convert 60mm and 81mm mortar rounds into drone-droppable munitions. Dubbed the Munitions Air-dropped Lethal Effects Tool (MALET), it is part of the service’s Picatinny Common Lethality Integration Kit (CLIK), which enables lethal payloads to be placed on unmanned systems, including small drones. The development of these systems is taking place as the Army races to catch up to a mode of delivering munitions on enemy targets that began to show up a decade ago, when ISIS fighters started using this capability during the Battle of Mosul in Iraq in 2016 and 2017. Work on the MALET system began in 2024, the Army explained in its announcement Wednesday morning. Experts at the Armaments Center’s Fuze and Mortar Divisions “recognized a critical opportunity,” according to the service. “Rather than introducing new munitions to the battlefield, soldiers could benefit from a capability to safely drop existing munitions without having to perform field modifications or manually remove safety mechanisms.” What they came up with was a clip-on kit that adds a fuze function to the round that allows it to be detonated after being dropped and includes fins to ensure “the aerodynamic stability required for a drone drop of the cartridge,” the Army stated. Prototype of the Munitions Air-dropped Lethal Effects Tool (MALET), a clip-on conversion kit which converts munitions into dropped munitions for aerial deployment. (U.S. Army) Eric Kowal Once the rounds are converted, the goal is to drastically extend the range of mortars. Fired from a tube, they have a range of about between two to 3.5 miles. While the Army did not specify which drones were used in recent MALET tests, a solicitation earlier this year said the service is seeking to place these systems on drones with a desired operational range of between 20 and 40 km (about 12.5 to 25 miles). The MALET system doesn’t damage the mortar, nor does removing it. That way, if the mortar is not expended, or mission requirements shift, soldiers can return the munition back to its original state, allowing it to be fired as a conventional mortar if needed. Another advantage of the MALET system, according to the Army, is that it has a large supply of mortars. “Instead of having to procure purpose-built munitions on drones, soldiers will be able to use rounds which they have in abundance already, such as 60mm and 81mm mortar rounds,” the Army noted. U.S. Army Soldiers from Multi-Purpose Company, 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Mobile Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, fire a 60mm High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) round during a Mortar Training and Evaluation Program (MORTEP) at Area X-ray Range Complex, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, Oct. 20, 2026. (Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. Jozeph Alvarez) Sgt. Jozeph Alvarez Recent test drops at multiple facilities “have already shown the MALET’s effectiveness, successfully maturing both the system’s fuze function and its critical safety elements,” the Army claimed. “The team just recently had a successful test where they demonstrated the performance of MALET with live 60mm mortars. The items were dropped from a UAS on the move; they oriented correctly and detonated within the desired target area.” The Army only provided still images showing the round after it was released and then hitting a target, so we can’t independently confirm how well the system worked or how easy it is for soldiers to use it. MALET undergoes live field testing. (U.S. Army) Eric Kowal As it conducts these tests, the Army says the MALET architecture can be applied to munitions other than these two mortar types. Mortars were the first to be demonstrated due to their maturity and alignment with large UAS requirements. “The MALET Integrated Product Team (IPT) is exploring even more concepts which are mostly close-hold for now,” said the Army. Senior Scientific Technical Manager for Indirect Fire Munitions Ryan Gorman would say only that these new concepts are “unique.”  The MALET program is a great example of how the DEVCOM Armaments Center can leverage core competencies like fuze design, safety, and ammunition development and apply them to a dynamic, emerging space like lethal UAS to provide a unique and viable option for the warfighter, Gorman added. For the Army, the next step is to distribute the kit to major military exercises this fall “to allow for soldier touchpoints and receive feedback,” the service stated. “Conversations with industry partners, the User and Acquisition communities have already proven fruitful.” As we noted at the top of this story, MALET is part of the Picatinny CLIK modular system. It includes the Armament UAS Delivered Immediate Battlefield Effects (AUDIBLE) Weapons Release System and the Gunslinger fire control software. The Armys Picatinny Common Lethality Integration Kit (CLIK). (U.S. Army) AUDIBLE enables “quick change adapters to safely drop existing munitions, like the M67 grenade, providing a proven concept that is scalable to service a larger array of munition options,” the Army said in a 2025 release. Gunslinger was originally designed by the Armaments Center for the Future Vertical Lift – Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft XM915 20mm Cannon, the Army explained in a separate release.  Fire control software helps users point the weapon where it will most likely result in a strike while taking into account variables like target or weapons platform motion. While the Army is touting the MALET system, it should be noted that last year, the service came under fire for lauding its ability to drop a grenade from a drone. This practice had been in widespread use by even the lowliest of actors for years by then. “Have you ever seen a drone drop a GRENADE?” a now-deleted post from the official U.S. Army account on X read. “Watch Soldiers from @7thATC [7th Army Training Command], the Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine [JMTG-U] and @173rdAbnBde [the 173rd Airborne Brigade] execute the Army’s first live-grenade drop from an unmanned aircraft system in Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany.” The accompanying video, also since deleted, showed Army personnel loading standard M67 fragmentation hand grenades, as well as inert M69 practice types, onto small quadcopter-type drones fitted with purpose-built mechanisms for dropping them. The system was designed to pull out the safety pin on the unmodified grenade as it is released. The following image is a screen capture of the now deleted video. A screen capture from the Army video showing a soldier loading an M69 practice grenade onto a small quadcopter-type drone at the Grafenwoehr Training Area in Germany. (US Army capture) As we pointed out last year, the answer to the “have you ever seen a drone drop a GRENADE?” is a resounding ‘yes’ for anyone who has watched this area of development over the past decade. We had predicted exactly this kind of application for commercially available drones even years before ISIS began using them in Iraq in 2016. I have gotten a lot of crap for continuously nailing the Pentagon on being absurdly behind on low-end drone warfare threats and opportunities. This official post is all you need to know. Its 2025. Mosul was nearly 9 years ago. https://t.co/1z2hwuTWuC— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) July 21, 2025 There was a deep disconnect between the tone of the social media post, what is seen in the video and the comments therein, as well as the global reality when it comes to small armed drones. The Army suggested this was a technological advancement. However, as we noted earlier in this piece, this mode of attack has been used for quite some time. After the initial use by ISIS in Iraq a decade ago, ISIS and other militant organizations also used drones to drop small munitions, including on American forces in Syria. The threat of weaponized commercial drones, including types carrying improvised explosive payloads designed to just smash into their target and detonate, migrated to Afghanistan, as well. They have been a big part of the Ukraine war, used widely by both sides. You can see a video of Ukrainian forces dropping munitions from drones early in the war below. #Ukraine: The Ukrainian 73rd Maritime Special Operations Centre used drone-dropped munitions to take out a Russian Ural supply/utility truck, presumably in the South. pic.twitter.com/yDT7ThL0i6— Polymarket Intel (@PolymarketIntel) September 23, 2022 In addition, various nation-state armed forces and non-state actors around the world, including drug cartels in Mexico, now regularly employ small armed drones. The concept of adapting surplus munitions to be dropped from drones is not new by any means either, though it has been largely done in more of an improvised manner than the MALET system. Ukrainians in particular became masters of this, including breaking down some of the U.S.-made cluster munition artillery shells they received to repurpose the submunition bomblets inside as improvised weapons to be air-dropped from small drones. Now there are munitions built just for this, as well. The following video shows one example of how that worked. Ukrainians are dismantling 155mm DPICM artillery shells to extract the DPICM submunitions, repurposing them as excellent drone-dropped grenades. The shells in question are either the M863A1 or M864.As predicted by @mucha_carlos .Source: https://t.co/DYQppcyvjXPart 1: pic.twitter.com/7ZK4J70vMm— vitz (@osmnactej) August 23, 2023 Given that the Army is still testing the MALET system, it will be some time before it is actually fielded. While the service remains behind the curve, if MALET works as advertised, it will be a welcome addition for soldiers who want to extend the reach of a plentiful munition. Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post This Is The Armys New MALET Kit That Turns Mortars Into Drone-Dropped Weapons appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Land, Armies, Artillery, Drones, Mortars, News & Features, U.S. Army] [Link to media]

— We Now Know Why Sierra Nevada Corp Canned Its Navy Jet Trainer Bid

 

at 11/5/26 10:57am

The Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) says its decision not to submit a bid to replace the U.S. Navys T-45 Goshawk jet trainer was driven by the services insistence on a fixed-price contracting structure. The company has also called attention to the potential export opportunities that could emerge for whoever ultimately wins the Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) competition. For more than a year, SNC had touted plans to compete for UJTS with its Freedom Jet, which was set to be the only clean-sheet design in the running. However, the company confirmed on Tuesday that it had not done so. This has left the Beechcraft M-346N, based on the established M-346 Master jet trainer, submitted by a team made up of U.S. firm Textron and Italy’s Leonardo, as the only known entrant. A rendering of the Beechcraft M-346N. Textron Through UJTS, the Navy hopes to acquire 216 new jet trainers to replace its aging fleet of approximately 200 T-45s. The first versions of the Goshawk began entering Navy service in the early 1990s, and the fleet has received significant upgrades since then. The aircraft are aging, and operating and sustaining them have become increasingly challenging. A spate of reported hypoxia-like physiological episodes among pilots led to the development of a new oxygen system in the early 2020s. There have been several Goshawk crashes in recent years due to a variety of factors. The Navy lost another T-45 just in May, with the two individuals onboard thankfully surviving. A US Navy T-45 Goshawk jet trainer. USN SNC had previously said that the Navys contracting structure was the central factor behind its decision not to submit a proposal for UJTS, but did not elaborate initially. TWZ reached out for more information and subsequently received a much more detailed response. Fixed-price risks SNCs decision was driven by the acquisition structure, not the aircraft, the team, or the mission. The current solicitation requires industry to commit to firm-fixed-price production before the aircraft design has fully matured, SNC told us. This creates a level of risk we could not responsibly accept and a risk that we believe the Navy will inherit as future cost increases and schedule delays. After careful review, we concluded that we could not commit to pricing a future configuration that has not yet completed the normal design maturation process. A rendering of a pair of SNC Freedom jet trainers. SNC Our concerns centered on three related issues: firm-fixed-price production before design maturity, limited visibility into the programs long-term funding profile, and the requirement to lock in production pricing before key design decisions are finalized, the company continued in its lengthy statement. Taken together, those elements place a significant amount of program risk on industry while important aspects of the program are still evolving. As the name indicates, firm-fixed-price contracting involves the customer and the vendor agreeing to a hard cost figure up front. Cost growth due to delays and other factors is then generally shouldered by the vendor, though the parties can also renegotiate the terms down the line. The pros and cons of firm-fixed-price have been a particularly hot topic of debate between the U.S. military and its suppliers for years now. It has been argued that fixed-cost deals are good for U.S. taxpayers, by promoting accountability and preventing an endless stream of funding going into programs that are not delivering results. At the same time, questions have been raised about incentives, or the lack thereof, and the compounding impacts of ballooning costs on program schedules due to factors potentially beyond a companys control. Boeing has become something of a poster child for the pitfalls of fixed-price contracting that can emerge on both sides of the equation. In recent years, the company has seen billions of dollars in losses on high-profile fixed-price deals, particularly with the U.S. Air Force. This includes the KC-46 Pegasus aerial refueling tanker and T-7A Red Hawk jet trainer programs. The company has lost more than $3 billion just in the course of work on two new VC-25B Air Force One jets. This is in no small part due to quality control problems and other issues at Boeing. At the same time, fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic and other macroeconomic factors have also played a part. A rendering of a VC-25B Air Force One jet. Boeing In April, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that outlined much of this continued debate. It also declared that it is the policy of my Administration that fixed-price contracts with performance-based considerations should serve as the default and preferred method of procurement in order to advance cost predictability and budget discipline, appropriate contractor incentives and accountability, and streamlined procurement and contract administration. Earlier in the year, the Navy had notably announced an increase in the total cost ceiling for the prospective UJTS contract from approximately $1.8 billion to $2.7 billion. At the same time, additional questions have been raised about the availability of funding for the program at the time of the contract award, which is now set to come late next year. SNCs clean-sheet Freedom design SNC had already been taking something of a riskier approach to UJTS. As we noted in the opening of this story, the Freedom jet trainer had been the only clean-sheet design set to compete to replace the Navys T-45s. At the time of writing, a prototype has yet to fly. In contrast, the Beechcraft M-346N is based on a design in widespread operational service globally today. Lockheed Martin and Boeing had been expected to put forward versions of existing jet trainers before they dropped out of the running earlier this year. Furthermore, SNC had been continuing to develop the Freedom jet to be capable of performing carrier qualifications and simulated carrier touch-and-goes at bases on land. This is despite the Navy having long ago axed those requirements from the UJTS program as part of a broader shift in how it trains naval aviators. Unlike the services current T-45s, the future UJTS jet trainers are not required to be capable of operating from real carriers at all. Continuing changes to the Navys naval aviation training pipelines have been and still are controversial, but it has shown no signs of backtracking. Service officials consistently point to developments in virtualized training and assisted carrier landing capabilities as having fundamentally changed what is required to safely and effectively produce new naval aviators. Our decision does not reflect any change in confidence in the Freedom Trainer. Freedom was designed specifically for naval aviation training as a clean-sheet, carrier-capable solution intended to deliver modern training capability and long-term lifecycle savings, SNC said in response to queries this week. We continue to believe it is the best option for the Navys future jet training needs. In statements earlier this week, SNC expressed its willingness to re-engage with the Navy if changes are made to its T-45 replacement plans. Export potential for any future Navy jet trainer SNC has also now shared insights into how it previously attempted to address its concerns about the UJTS contracting structure with the Navy. The company notably highlighted potential for export deals facilitated through the U.S. governments Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. SNC engaged extensively with the Navy on the UJTS requirement over several years and raised these specific concerns directly, per the companys statement to us. We appreciate the professionalism and openness of the Navy and PMA-273 team and have remained engaged in a constructive dialogue throughout the process. PMA-273 is the Naval Undergraduate Flight Training Systems Program Office at Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). SNC We have shared several ideas with the Navy, including additional risk-reduction activities through preliminary design review, proposals based on more mature designs and acquisition approaches that better align production commitments with design maturity, according to SNC. Greater visibility into the programs long-term funding profile would also help, with additional pre-planned Foreign Military Sales partnerships developed with and for the joint force training and readiness. Programs at this level should be considering bringing our allied partnership and investment to the table to drive production and affordability on both the front end and the back end,  SNCs statement explains. There are more than 600 FMS trainer aircraft requirements that could be combined in a joint program for the UJTS at a tremendous cost offset to the Department of War. When Boeing won the Air Forces T-X competition with what became the T-7A Red Hawk in 2018, TWZ also highlighted the immense potential for foreign sales that could result. Despite interest from several countries for versions of the Red Hawk, no export sales of T-7s have yet been announced. The T-7 program, which is notably being run under a fixed-price contract, has also been beset by technical issues, delays, and cost growth. A US Air Force T-7A Red Hawk jet trainer. USAF How the Navy proceeds now with UJTS, if at all, very much remains to be seen, especially with the M-346N being the only known serious entrant at this point in time. The program office is restricted from disclosing this information or commenting on active proposals, a Navy spokesperson told TWZ when asked for an update on UJTS following SNCs decision not to bid. To maintain the integrity of the competitive process, source selection information including bidder identities and proposal details, are restricted from public disclosure. It is important to note here that the UJTS program schedule has already slipped multiple times. The original goal was for the Navy to begin receiving new jet trainers in 2028. Now, the initial contract for these jets is not even expected to come until the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2027, which runs between July and September of next year. Im unable to share details of the proposal or speculate about the Navys next steps, Textron also told TWZ in a separate statement. Textron Aviation Defense also brings an established American workforce, supply chain and production capability to support delivery at scale. Combined with a mature Integrated Training System that brings together live, virtual and constructive training, the M-346N offers the U.S. Navy a low-risk solution designed to prepare aviators for the demands of the high-end fight. Ultimately, the Navy is best positioned to determine the path forward, and we stand ready to re-engage if the approach is revisited, SNC told us. Our view is simply that robust competition delivers the best value for the Navy and the taxpayer over a program of this duration. We would welcome the opportunity to compete under a structure that we can responsibly support. For now, as far as we know, the Navy is pushing ahead with UJTS, even though there appears to be only one contender for the fixed-price contract. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post We Now Know Why Sierra Nevada Corp Canned Its Navy Jet Trainer Bid appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Sea, Air, Navies, Trainers, U.S. Navy] [Link to media]

— NASA Announces X-70 “Fractal” Experimental Aircraft (Updated)

 

at 11/4/26 7:37pm

NASA just unveiled its latest X-plane, the X-70 Fractal, which Administrator Jared Isaacman had teased last week, at the UP.Summit at Kennedy Space Center today. The aircraft is described as crewed and features rapidly reconfigurable flight control capabilities. According to NASAs release it will explore aircraft maneuverability in ways never before demonstrated in crewed flight. The aircraft can also accommodate up to 2,000 pounds of experimental payloads in internal and external locations, enabling a wide range of research and flight-testing opportunities. The release states: “The X-70 Fractal gives NASA a crewed, high-performance platform to test advanced flight-control, maneuverability, and other cutting-edge technologies in real flight,” said NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman. “Its modular design and ability to rapidly swap internal and external payloads will keep our teams flying, learning, and moving quickly from one experiment to the next. We expect her first flight under the NASA banner within the next two years, and X-70 is just one part of this new beginning for aeronautics. This is why people come to NASA: to build, to learn, and most importantly, to fly.”  Additional details about Fractal were provided as having a takeoff weight of 10,000lbs, a ceiling of 45,000 feet and a cruise speed of Mach 0t.75. Its range will be around 1,500 nautical miles. This will allow it to fly across a wide spectrum of conditions and over longer distances and durations. Described as generated content, the image provided is still intriguing. It shows an aircraft with splayed tails, bubble canopy, and fighter-like wings. The concept image is just that, an impression of what it will look like, with much of it cloaked in clouds. It draws superficial similarities to other experimental testbed aircraft as of late, especially those from Scaled Composites, in particular the Beacon testbed aircraft. That aircraft is also a flexible open architecture-oriented platform, but it has more to do with testing autonomy packages and drone-related technologies. This new jet has a focus on flight controls and sounds like it will be able to host exotic capabilities in this regard. Lift fan and thrust vectoring capabilities could also be part of the X-70s modular potential. There are also concepts such as morphing wings and air-bursted flight controls that would allow planes to maneuver without traditional moving surfaces. These are on the bleeding edge of technology and this kind of aircraft could potentially help move them forward. Isaacman, who flies a private MiG-29 and owned a contractor aggressor squadron, has made pushing aeronautics forward via new X-planes a top priority of the agencys. The release also states it will fly under the NASA banner in two years. This likely means once the agency takes delivery from the manufacturer or its possible this asset is being pulled from the classified realm and ported over to NASA. It is unclear who is building or built Fractal at this time, but we are sure to find out more at NASAs Max Power air show taking place at the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy this weekend. Update: 11/5/2026 – Steve Trimble, Aviation Week’s defense editor and friend of TWZ, has shared a video, seen in the social media post below, of NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announcing the X-70 at the UP.Summit yesterday. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman officially unveiled a new experimental aircraft, designated the X-70 “Fractal,” today at the UP.Summit in Florida, held at Kennedy Space Center.According to the videographer, NASA plans to unveil another experimental aircraft… pic.twitter.com/MoKpczczSQ— 笑脸男人 (@lfx160219) November 5, 2026 NASA should have a portfolio of X-planes taking on the challenges that stand between what we dream to be possible and the aircraft American companies can build, Isaacman said. At NASA, we have some national treasures. We have extraordinary wind tunnels, propulsion facilities, labs, and unmatched talent constantly working toward the desired outcomes. We should be putting them to work alongside industry to solve the problems that no company could reasonably take on alone. “We need to get back to the radical airframe and engine designs, building and flying faster and higher than we have in decades,” he added. “Know that X-70 is just one part of this new beginning for aeronautics. I promise you, there will be more,” Isaacman also said yesterday, according to a report today from Aviation Week. The story also said another X-plane is expected to be announced at the UP.Summit tomorrow. Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com The post NASA Announces X-70 Fractal Experimental Aircraft (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Space, Air, NASA, Testbeds] [Link to media]

— NASA Announces X-70 “Fractal” Experimental Aircraft

 

at 11/4/26 7:37pm

NASA just unveiled its latest X-plane, the X-70 Fractal, which Administrator Jared Isaacman had teased last week, at the UP.Summit at Kennedy Space Center today. The aircraft is described as crewed and features rapidly reconfigurable flight control capabilities. According to NASAs release it will explore aircraft maneuverability in ways never before demonstrated in crewed flight. The aircraft can also accommodate up to 2,000 pounds of experimental payloads in internal and external locations, enabling a wide range of research and flight-testing opportunities. The release states: “The X-70 Fractal gives NASA a crewed, high-performance platform to test advanced flight-control, maneuverability, and other cutting-edge technologies in real flight,” said NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman. “Its modular design and ability to rapidly swap internal and external payloads will keep our teams flying, learning, and moving quickly from one experiment to the next. We expect her first flight under the NASA banner within the next two years, and X-70 is just one part of this new beginning for aeronautics. This is why people come to NASA: to build, to learn, and most importantly, to fly.”  Additional details about Fractal were provided as having a takeoff weight of 10,000lbs, a ceiling of 45,000 feet and a cruise speed of Mach 0t.75. Its range will be around 1,500 nautical miles. This will allow it to fly across a wide spectrum of conditions and over longer distances and durations. Described as generated content, the image provided is still intriguing. It shows an aircraft with splayed tails, bubble canopy, and fighter-like wings. The concept image is just that, an impression of what it will look like, with much of it cloaked in clouds. It draws superficial similarities to other experimental testbed aircraft as of late, especially those from Scaled Composites, in particular the Beacon testbed aircraft. That aircraft is also a flexible open architecture-oriented platform, but it has more to do with testing autonomy packages and drone-related technologies. This new jet has a focus on flight controls and sounds like it will be able to host exotic capabilities in this regard. Lift fan and thrust vectoring capabilities could also be part of the X-70s modular potential. There are also concepts such as morphing wings and air-bursted flight controls that would allow planes to maneuver without traditional moving surfaces. These are on the bleeding edge of technology and this kind of aircraft could potentially help move them forward. Isaacman, who flies a private MiG-29 and owned a contractor aggressor squadron, has made pushing aeronautics forward via new X-planes a top priority of the agencys. The release also states it will fly under the NASA banner in two years. This likely means once the agency takes delivery from the manufacturer or its possible this asset is being pulled from the classified realm and ported over to NASA. It is unclear who is building or built Fractal at this time, but we are sure to find out more at NASAs Max Power air show taking place at the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy this weekend. This is a developing story, we will update this post in the coming hours as we find out more. Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com The post NASA Announces X-70 Fractal Experimental Aircraft appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Space, Air, NASA, Testbeds] [Link to media]

— Did The Blue Wave Just Sink Trump’s Battleship?

 

at 11/4/26 4:00pm

The Democratic Partys historic blowout of its Republican opponents in yesterdays mid-term elections is extremely likely to result in a slew of high-profile Trump administration programs and initiatives getting put under the microscope and slashed. In the defense arena, the nuclear-powered Trump class battleship is likely the biggest target of opportunity for the new majority in the House and Senate. The questionable utility and opportunity cost of the Trump class warships have made the program a hot topic of debate since it was first rolled out in December 2025. The battleship effort has already faced growing bipartisan pushback over its price tag and practicality, as well as industrial base concerns. A rendering of a Trump class battleship. White House/USN To provide some quick additional context, Democrats are now set to take firm control of both chambers of Congress in January. This will give the party immense sway over how defense and other federal spending is authorized and appropriated, as well as how broader policy is set. Control of key committees that oversee the U.S. military and its budgets will also change hands. Representative Adam Smith, a Washington state Democrat, could be in line now to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Representative Joe Courtney, a Democrat from Connecticut, may be similarly poised to head up the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee. Smith and Courtney have both been particularly outspoken critics of the Trump class battleship already. President Donald Trump speaks at the rollout of the Trump class battleship program at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida in December 2025. Daniel Torok/White House We need an appropriate mix of high-end survivable systems and lower-cost attritable capabilities, not a fleet of nuclear-powered battleships as proposed by the President, Representative Smith wrote in a letter to Democratic Party colleagues just today, which has now leaked online. The missives main thrust was to call for support for him returning to the role of Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in January. I think the Democrats will make a broad effort to remove Trump branding from Washington, Mark Cancian, a retired U.S. Marine Corps colonel who is now a senior adviser with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) think tank, also told TWZ. The Trump battleship is likely doomed both because of the branding and because the program is extremely expensive and weakly justified. The battleship program was in stormy seas before the midterm elections, because it was premised on a strategy that ran counter to a decade long bipartisan effort to distribute maritime lethality, Mark Montgomery, a retired U.S. Navy rear admiral who is now a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank, told us, as well. Compounding this challenge was the fantastically high cost per battleship, equating to as many as 10 Arleigh Burke class Destroyers for one battleship – a terrible trade off. Montgomery is of the view that, given the midterm election results, the battleship program is now aground and taking on water. The current state of the Trump class battleship plan As it stands now, the Trump class battleship design is a 35,000-ton-displacement warship that is expected to boast a wide array of weapons, as well as advanced sensors and other systems. From what the Navy has said so far, the ship will be able to fire nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, from several very large Vertical Launch System (VLS) arrays. Its armament package is also set to include an electromagnetic railgun and a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns. Several classes of laser directed energy weapons, as well as other weapon systems for close-in defense, are to be fitted, as well. An annotated graphic highlighting various capabilities set to be found on the Trump class design. Note that the mention here of “28 Mk 41 VLS” cells appears to be a typo, as other official information from the US Navy says the ships will have 128 such cells. USN via USNI News In May, the Navy confirmed that the plan is also for the Trump class battleships to be nuclear-powered. The service retired its last nuclear-powered surface combatants – a category that does not include aircraft carriers and submarines – in the 1990s. It has been even longer since a ship of this type was built in the United States. Russias Kirov class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov is the only nuclear-powered surface combatant currently in service anywhere in the world. The Navy has previously outlined plans to order at least 15 Trump class battleships between Fiscal Years 2029 and 2055. The first one, currently set to be named the USS Defiant, is not expected to enter service until 2036. The USS Defiant could cost as much as $23 billion, and the average price of the next 14 battleships could be $18 billion, according to estimates the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) put out in August. To put this in perspective, even the $18 billion figure would make these warships significantly more expensive than each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers. A look at the future USS John F. Kennedy, the second Ford class carrier for the US Navy. HII From the start, TWZ has raised detailed questions about the actual viability of the Trump class design, as it has been described to date. This includes the ability of these warships to conduct independent operations, as well as the value of employing them in this way. At least right now, the Navy only plans to acquire a very small number of these ships, each of which can only be in one place at one time, and that would be top targets for adversaries in future conflicts. All of this comes at a time when the Navy has been struggling to meet operational demands for surface combatants with its existing fleets. This has been further exacerbated by shakeups in separate plans to acquire new frigates and larger uncrewed surface vessels (USV), as well as rising costs associated with its workhorse Arleigh Burke class destroyers. The Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Jack H. Lucas, which was the first example of the latest Flight III subclass to be commissioned into US Navy service. USN Though top Navy officials have voiced significant support for the Trump class since December 2025, there had been no calls publicly for a ship of this type before Trump started his second term. For his part, Trump has been enamored with the idea of the Navy sailing new battleships for years now. He notably floated the idea while running for his first term in 2015. TWZ has previously drawn further attention to industrial base concerns stemming from the battleship plans. Naval shipyard capacity in the United States has steadily dwindled since the end of the Cold War, and what remains is under immense strain from existing demands. Navy shipbuilding programs, even established ones, routinely run up against thing workforce shortages and growing costs. This is despite extensive efforts by the federal government, including under Trump, to reverse these trends. Nuclear shipbuilding presents additional challenges. There are currently only two shipyards qualified to build nuclear-powered vessels of any kind in the United States, and only one supplier of naval reactors. This part of the naval industrial base is already heavily committed to building aircraft carriers and submarines. This includes new Columbia class nuclear ballistic missile submarines, the on-schedule delivery of which is critical to national security, but that also faces potential risks. Naval nuclear reactor components for the future Ford class aircraft carrier USS Doris Miller. BWXT Bipartisan pushback already to Trumps battleships For its part, the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee has already demanded that the Secretary of the Navy outline what the service is doing to ensure the battleship program will not disrupt carrier and submarine production. Democratic Representative Joe Courtney was the one to call for this report, which is due no later than March 1, 2027. Earlier this year, the Republicans in the House also allowed the passage of a version of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for Fiscal Year 2027, with a key provision related to the Trump class battleship. Section 131 would block any work on the future USS Defiant until the Navy provides assurances that key weapon systems are “sufficiently mature.” Efforts to pass a final version of the Fiscal Year 2027 NDDA have since stalled in the Senate over non-battleship-related issues. A rendering of the first planned Trump class battleship, the USS Defiant, firing a variety of different missiles, guns, and other weapons. USN In July, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget issued a formal Statement of Administration Policy regarding the Houses version of the NDAA that included explicit opposition to Section 131 among other criticisms of the bills contents. TWZ has pointed out on several occasions in the past that plans for the Trump class battleships could change dramatically given the lengthy schedule for the program. As mentioned, the USS Defiant is not expected to be delivered until 2036, well after the end of Trumps second term, which will come to an end in January 2029. There is still the possibility the battleship program could be reformulated in various ways rather than outright cancelled. Work on specific components, such as the railgun, might potentially be redirected to other programs. A picture showing the prototype electromagnetic railgun at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico being fired during a test. USN Any money allocated to the program will be for research or long term parts ordering that could just as easily support a next generation destroyer effort rather than the battleship, FDDs Montgomery also told us. The battleship program itself probably cant be killed until Trump leaves office, but all involved need to ensure that it does minimal damage to other Navy program efforts as it sinks to the bottom. The Navy still needs the capabilities resident in the proposed battleship, Brent Sadler, Senior Research Fellow for Naval Warfare and Advanced Technology at the Allison Center for National Security within The Heritage Foundation think tank, also argued in response to queries from TWZ. The name – Trump class – likely won’t survive but the ship will. Sadler added that, in his view, what is really needed is a national shipbuilding industrial plan that includes upgrading shipyard capacity to build the needed large surface warship. New pressure from Congress likely to go beyond Battleships The future prospects of other high-profile Trump administration defense initiatives are also very likely to at least see new scrutiny in the next year. Beyond battleships, the President has notably injected himself directly into other aspects of future naval shipbuilding plans as part of a larger effort dubbed the Golden Fleet. In August, Trump notably put out a memo titled “Rebuilding the United States Navy and America’s Shipbuilding Industrial Base that called for, in part, the drawing up of plans for installing steam-powered catapults and hydraulic elevators on the future Ford class aircraft carrier USS Doris Miller. The President has long been a critic of the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) catapults and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE) that are central Ford class design. EMALS and AWE have been a persistent source of reliability and maintenance issues over the years, but going back to steam and hydraulics would be a costly and risky undertaking, as TWZ has previously explored in detail. President Donald Trump descends to the hangar deck of the US Navy’s Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS George Washington during a visit to the ship in October 2025. White House Reports later in August also said Trump was pushing the Navy to physically reposition the island superstructure on the Ford class on aesthetic grounds. The President has been very vocal over the years about what he thinks warships should and should not look like. The Golden Dome missile defense initiative is another potential area where the new Democrat-led Congress could clash with the administration. The full scale and scope of the Golden Dome plan, as well as its cost, remain very murky. In August, U.S. Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, the top officer in charge of the initiative, warned that work could come grinding to a halt if key budgetary hurdles were not overcome. Lockheed Martin The leaked letter from Representative Smith makes clear that many more programs and policy issues, as well as defense spending writ large, are set to be put under the microscope when the Democrats take control of Congress in the new year. The Trump administration continues to pursue a roughly $1.5 trillion defense budget for Fiscal Year 2027, which includes some $350 billion that would come from outside normal defense spending streams via a process called reconciliation. We must thoroughly review our national defense strategy and develop a more realistic and sustainable approach that does not require a defense budget in excess of $1 trillion or paid for through draconian cuts to critical domestic programs, Representative Smith wrote in his dear colleagues letter today. Many other defense programs could potentially be at risk of being truncated or even cancelled if defense spending plateaus in the near term. Spending priorities also now have to take into account the need to restock critical munitions expended in the course of the war with Iran, as well as other crises in the Middle East in recent years. There are also ongoing demands to support allies and partners, especially Ukraine. “President Trump has outlined a bold vision to restore American maritime dominance and construct a Golden Dome to protect our homeland and our citizens, Deputy White House Press Secretary Anna Kelly told TWZ when asked about concerns about the fate of certain defense programs following the mid-term election results. President Trump will work with anyone to protect the United States from threats abroad – if Democrats oppose these critical projects, they are playing politics at the expense of our national security.” Asked to confirm her comments included the Trump class ships, Kelly added that these remarks also extended to the realm of “maritime dominance.” It is still far too early to know the full extent of the fallout from this years mid-term elections on the U.S. governments defense and other priorities. When it comes to the Trump class battleship, the programs course had already looked increasingly uncertain before this massive shift in the political winds, and it looks one heck of a lot more precarious now. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post Did The Blue Wave Just Sink Trumps Battleship? appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Sea, Navies, News & Features, POTUS, U.S. Navy] [Link to media]

— Pakistan Joins Air-to-Air Missile Club With Successful Test Of Fa’az

 

at 11/4/26 1:29pm

Pakistan has successfully flight-tested its first indigenously developed air-to-air missile, marking a significant milestone in the country’s efforts to establish its own advanced aerial weapons industry. The test of the Fa’az missile, announced by the Pakistani military alongside video footage of the event, puts the country among a relatively small group of nations developing their own air-to-air missile capabilities. A Pakistan Air Force JF-17 carrying a red-painted Fa’az-IIR missile ahead of the first launch of the weapon. PAF/screencap Pakistan’s military announced the successful test on November 3, describing Fa’az (Urdu for Victorious) as an indigenous weapon equipped with an advanced terminal guidance system capable of engaging aerial targets at longer ranges. The accompanying footage shows the missile being launched from a pylon under the wing of a JF-17 Thunder fighter. Importantly, the weapon visible in the video is the Fa’az-IIR, the imaging infrared (IIR) version of the missile, rather than the separately developed active radar-guided Fa’az-RF variant. Senior Pakistani military officers, along with scientists and engineers involved in the program, witnessed the event. The country’s senior civilian and military leadership subsequently congratulated those involved. PAKISTAN SUCCESSFULLY CONDUCTS FLIGHT TEST OF FIRST INDIGENOUSLY DEVELOPED FA’AZ AIR- TO-AIR MISSILEPakistan has conducted successful flight test of first indigenously developed Fa’az air- to-air missile, marking another significant milestone in the advancement of national… pic.twitter.com/4xzy8pXyF9— DGPR (AIR FORCE) (@DGPR_PAF) November 3, 2026 The Fa’az program has been publicly known for several years. Pakistan’s state-owned Global Industrial & Defense Solutions (GIDS) displayed mockups of two variants of the missile at the International Defense Industry Fair (IDEF) in Turkey back in 2023. These comprised the Fa’az-RF, an active radar-guided missile, and the Fa’az-IIR, which features an IIR seeker. At the time, GIDS described both as medium-range air-to-air missiles with advertised ranges exceeding 100 kilometers (62 miles) and maximum speeds of approximately Mach 3.5. The company also advertised seeker detection ranges of 25 kilometers for the radar-guided version and 40 kilometers for the infrared-guided variant. As always, such figures should be treated as manufacturer specifications, under optimum conditions at best, or inflated at worst. In an operational context, they will vary greatly depending on the type of engagement and the energy and altitude state of the launching aircraft. The FA’AZ I is the export-variant of the Pakistani-made, fully locally produced and license-built of the PL-12/SD-10 BVR missile using a 100% transfer of technology agreement signed in the second part of the 2010s. It is offered with two guidance systems as different versions,… pic.twitter.com/Tv3AGMKaHh— The STRATCOM Bureau (@OSPSF) February 17, 2024 Unlike an active radar-guided weapon, an imaging infrared missile relies on the target’s thermal signature for terminal guidance. To achieve engagements at distances of 100 kilometers or more would involve the launching aircraft providing initial targeting information, with the missile using inertial navigation and potentially datalink updates to travel toward a predicted intercept area before activating its infrared seeker for terminal acquisition. This is known as lock-on after launch (LOAL), an approach also used by other beyond-visual-range infrared missile designs. A close-up of the Fa’az-IIR test round on a Pakistan Air Force JF-17. PAF/screencap Speaking to TWZ, Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) research institute in London, raised the possibility — so far unconfirmed — that the seekers used in the Fa’az missiles could well have been supplied by China. “My assumption with the Chinese imaging infrared seeker is that this is good technology,” Barrie said. “If it’s like everything else China is now doing in the guided weapons world, it’s likely up there with the best. Even a detuned version is going to be a good sensor.” The Fa’az design has previously been compared with China’s SD-10/PL-12 air-to-air missile, also used by Pakistan. GIDS has maintained that it developed its products locally and owns the associated intellectual property rights. The extent of any technological influence from existing foreign missile designs remains unclear, but China and Pakistan already have a very close military relationship. A mockup of export-configured PL-12AE and PL-15E air-to-air missiles on display during Airshow China in Zhuhai in 2024. Photo by Shen Ling/VCG via Getty Images With that in mind, the program also has important implications for the Sino-Pakistani JF-17 Thunder, which is central to Pakistan’s efforts to develop a more self-reliant combat aviation industry. An indigenous air-to-air missile could give the Pakistan Air Force greater flexibility in integrating, upgrading, and sustaining its fighter weapons inventory without depending entirely on foreign suppliers. There is also an interesting parallel between Fa’az and the JF-17 itself. The fighter was developed through a partnership with China, giving Pakistan a pathway to build up its own aerospace design and production capabilities. Fa’az could represent a similar progression in the weapons arena, particularly if its development draws on earlier Chinese missile technology while establishing a domestic design and production capability. A two-seat JF-17B displayed alongside some of its Chinese-made weapons at Airshow China in Zhuhai in 2022. CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images Pakistan is not starting from scratch when it comes to advanced air-to-air weapons. The Pakistan Air Force already operates a range of imported systems, including China’s very capable PL-15E, an export version of the PL-15 beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile. The weapon arms both its J-10C fighters and JF-17 Block III jets. Pakistan’s F-16s are meanwhile armed with the American-made AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), although the use of these weapons is reportedly subject to U.S. restrictions. A Pakistan Air Force J-10CE fighter. PAF You can read all about the air-to-air missiles currently fielded by the Pakistan Air Force in this previous TWZ article. As for the PL-15E, this weapon features an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar seeker and a two-way datalink, with a published maximum range of around 145 kilometers (90 miles). Pakistan was the first export customer for the missile, which attracted considerable attention following its use during the May 2025 India-Pakistan air conflict. Although the precise outcomes of the reported engagements remain disputed, Beijing has sought to capitalize on the missile’s apparent battlefield performance as a showcase for its advanced weapons exports. The largely intact rear section and other parts of a Chinese-made PL-15E active-radar-guided air-to-air missile came down in India during a battle in the skies along the country’s border with Pakistan in May 2025. via X In an operational context, the Fa’az-IIR in particular could be a compelling complement to the PL-15E. In Soviet and Russian doctrine, the launch of a radar-guided air-to-air missile would typically be followed immediately by the pilot firing an infrared-guided missile against the same target, increasing the probability of a kill and complicating any countermeasures that might be employed. The same could apply in the context of the PL-15E and the Fa’az-IIR. Infrared guidance brings other advantages, too, including its capability against low-observable targets that might evade a radar lock-on. This is especially important now that stealthy targets are proliferating. Paired with an infrared search and track (IRST) system for targeting, and other networked data if available, a missile of this kind offers a deadly capability against stealth targets. Just as importantly, the Fa’az program is about proving Pakistan’s ability to develop and eventually produce this critical class of weapon domestically. Possessing the industrial and technical expertise to design and manufacture an advanced air-to-air missile is significant, and would also provide Islamabad with a compelling export product. Pakistan Air Force JF-17s during the multinational naval exercise AMAN-25 in the Arabian Sea in February 2025. Photo by Asif HASSAN / AFP The development comes as air-to-air missile capabilities become increasingly important to the regional military balance. India has its indigenous Astra beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile, while China has developed increasingly sophisticated weapons, including the PL-15. Establishing its own missile program gives Pakistan another avenue to sustain and develop its air combat capabilities. Pakistan has not released detailed information about the test, including the engagement parameters or performance against an aerial target. Nor has it indicated when the Fa’az-IIR might enter operational service or provided an update on the development status of the radar-guided Fa’az-RF. Nevertheless, the test marks an important step for Pakistan’s defense industry, taking an indigenous air-to-air missile program beyond exhibition mockups and into flight testing. It is a significant development in the countrys efforts to establish a domestic air-to-air weapons capability and join a relatively small group of countries with the expertise to develop such weapons. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post Pakistan Joins Air-to-Air Missile Club With Successful Test Of Fa’az appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Air, Air Force Munitions, Air-To-Air] [Link to media]

— Ukrainian Soldiers Tell Us Which Guns And Optics Work Best In Combat

 

at 11/4/26 12:17pm

When it comes to what rifles, sidearms and optics work best in war, there is perhaps no better place to find out than Ukraine. During more than four years of intense defense of their homeland, Ukrainian troops have used an assortment of small arms and accessories, many foreign-made, others domestically produced, to fight the Russians. To get a better sense of what Ukrainians are currently using on the front lines, what they like, and what they don’t, we reached out to the First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. The unit is stationed in the bloody Dobropillia sector in the eastern Donetsk region and is in the middle of one of the toughest fights in Ukraine. Five soldiers from different Azov units with a range of specialties offered their unique insights into the weapons, sights and scopes they like and the ones they don’t. The soldiers are issued all their weapons exclusively through the brigades armament service, which obtains them from the Ukrainian Defense Ministry (MoD). Individuals, however, told us they sometimes purchase their own sights and scopes and other accessories, depending on the models. Some of the questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity. Specifically, what rifles are the most coveted? And if they are AR-15s and AKs, which specific ones? Tarantino, Chief Armorer, 12th Special Forces Brigade Azov, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. When it comes to light weapon systems, the most common is an assault rifle based on the AR-15 [chambered 5.56mm], either domestic production or the one given to us by partner countries. Chill, Chief Tactical Training Instructor, 41st Unmanned Systems Regiment Pilum, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. So, in my personal opinion, the UAR-15 system is better for me because its lighter and its more reliable. I have worked with both platforms, both systems, and I can compare them based on my experience. And from my personal experience, the AR system is better. The caliber is 5.56, and its also really convenient in terms of its modification and modernization because with the AK platform, you need to adapt it for further adjustments individually. But in the case of the UAR system, its really adaptable and you do not basically need anything in order to modernize it or modify it. Khalepa, Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battery Commander, Air Defense Battalion Strazh, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. Well, in our case, we are using larger calibers starting from 12.7mm up to 35mm. So we do not actually use the standard rifles. Chewie, Deputy Commander for Logistics, Separate Special Operations Detachment Tuman, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. When it comes to close combat, usually this is the UAR-15S of Ukrainian manufacturer called Zbroyar. Barman, Tactical Training Instructor, Personnel Training Battalion, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. So currently our key weapon platform is the UAR-15, but previously we also used the AK-74 and other modifications. The AK-74 fires 5.45mm rounds. What is most conducive to fighting? Tarantino Well, the best weapon to work with is not the weapon itself, but the people we are working with. The weapon is only the instrument. But personally, the most reliable weapon is the one that has as few stoppages as possible because the last thing you want is to have a stoppage in the situation where you need to fire. For me, that is the Heckler & Koch 416. But I am talking about my preferences and experience. That gun has a gas piston system that has proven itself the most efficient due to the fact that the movement of the piston back and forth is relatively short. That makes the weapon itself much more reliable. Heckler Koch 416. (Heckler Koch) Another system, called DI [direct impingement used in standard AR-15 pattern rifles], requires much more attention from the gunner who is shooting the rifle. Because in the conditions where the operator, the marksman, is sitting in the trench or in a bunker — especially now in autumn when the humidity is high — this DI system requires much more attention due to the wet weather around. The gas piston system has proven itself much more reliable and it doesnt need that much attention. Chill We are using the Ukrainian-manufactured UAR-15 rifle, and you know, as they say, the best rifle is the one that you have. Ukrainian-built UAR-15. Photo credits: (National Guard of Ukraine) Chewie So the weapon system that I told you about, UAR-15, is indeed the most loved because, in addition to this weapon, we do possess small numbers of Beretta, Bren, and several other weapon systems. The reason why we prefer the UAR-15 is, first of all, it is much lighter. Second, its shorter. Another reason is that, taking into account the combat warfare that we have right now, we have the manufacturer on the premises of our country. It means if something happens to the weapon, it doesnt take much time to either send the request to the manufacturer for them to send us the spare details, or for us to send the weapon system to them for maintenance. Barman Our preference is of course the UAR-15, and were using the 5.56 UAR platforms because its more convenient to use, its easier to maintain, and its also more reliable. But we also need to understand that our enemy is using the AK platforms, the AK-12, the AK-74, and while of course we are carrying the 5.56 rounds, usually during the assault actions, we can take the AK rifles and the 5.45 rounds to be able to use our rifles in compatibly with the enemys rifles. We can use the AKs for the element of surprise and for deception. The way they look compared to the UAR rifles makes it easier to deceive the enemy. Kalashnikov AK-74. (Kalashnikov) Have you noticed any performance differences between the AR-15 piston and direct impingement (DI) versions? Tarantino Well, again, the biggest difference between this gas piston system and the DI system is that the gas piston system has a very short movement back and forth of the piston. It means that the chances of stoppage in this weapon are quite low, while the DI system is much more demanding because these exhaust gases go back into this tube that pushes the bolt carrier back. That means these gases make this tunnel much more dirty. And in a situation when the rotation of the soldier to the battlefield is for two weeks, and these are the two weeks of a very intensive fight, a soldier doesn’t always have the chance to disassemble a weapon and pull the bolt carrier out and clean it.  Compared to the DI system, the Heckler & Koch quality of the barrel itself is exceptionally phenomenal. So the quality of the metal is good, and it allows you to shoot even four or five or even six magazines in a row without the barrel getting overheated. Chill Well, talking about the piston system, the only AR-15-based rifle which I know has the piston system is the Heckler & Koch 416. So I have some experience in using it, but unfortunately I do not have this rifle. But I would like to. Its quite reliable based on my communication with other operators and service members. I also get really good feedback about that weapon. But thats the only weapon system with this piston system that I know of, and yeah, it presents some advantages.  The UAR-15 system that we are currently using within our unit is the DI-based weapon system, and the key difference is that they become contaminated quicker, and they require better and more frequent maintenance, which is not always possible to ensure in combat conditions. Khalepa Well, I have served in the infantry since 2022, and I have had some experience with the piston systems, for instance, with the AK system, and I did not really notice any major differences. Chewie We use only the DI system. Barman Well, from my experience, the gas piston systems like the one that we can find on the HK 416, they are simpler to maintain. They are more efficient in terms of their principle of operation, and also they are more reliable, I would say. Ukrainian Spectre 33 using the Heckler Koch HK416 assault rifles. (Ukrainian MoD/Spectre 33) But the key difference in the DI system is that, of course, its a little bit more difficult to maintain them. But at the same time, you can regulate the amount of gas that goes back into the receiver. So, both of these systems have their own advantages and disadvantages.  If I were asked to choose between the two, I would use the gas piston system. It also has fewer parts that can be broken during intensive use. Any bullpups, where the grip is forward of the breech, that have performed well? Tarantino I will tell you this: we have never received a foreign-made bullpup weapon. We have several domestic-made ones. One of them is called the Fort 221. So for the short-term operations, when you have to fulfill a mission within a small and limited amount of time, and especially when you have to move around a lot, this forward bullpup configuration has proven itself quite good. But when it comes to long-term operations, when you have to, in addition to moving a lot, have to be out there in the field for quite a long time, this one is not the best option for this. A Ukrainian Fort 221 bullpup rifle. (Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs) Chill Well, I wouldnt say that I would recommend any of the bullpups that I have used. So I have used the Fort 224, and my impressions of this weapon system are like 50-50. I would say that the primary issue with these rifles is their ergonomic characteristics. So, especially while shooting from a prone position, its pretty difficult to handle these rifles. So maybe during some kind of assault actions, active offensive actions, these rifles could be usable. But in terms of ergonomics, the standard rifles are much more convenient to use. Khalepa We don’t use bullpups. Chewie We do not use any bullpups. One of the reasons is that a Ukrainian manufacturer used to produce these weapon systems with a 5.45mm, and thats definitely not a reliable weapon at all. Barman I had some experience in using bullpup rifles, namely the Tavor, also the Ukrainian-manufactured Malyuk, and I think thats it with bullpup assault rifles. But also I have used Turkish-manufactured bullpup type shotguns. In my experience, the bullpup systems function seamlessly, but Im just more used to the classic configuration of the assault rifles. But the bullpup rifles have their own advantages. For example, they are more compact, so they can have the same length of the barrel. The ballistics will be the same, but the rifle will be more compact. At the same time, the bullpup configurations require more practice at the shooting range. So you just need to get used to reloading the bullpup rifle because the magazine is located in the rear part of the weapon. I wouldnt say that this is much more difficult than reloading a weapon with the classical configuration, but it just feels unusual. This is why you just need more practice to get used to it. Are you using suppressors and, if so, what kind? Tarantino When it comes to silencers and these suppressors, this very gap is not yet filled, so there is still a lot of room for maneuver and for somebody to enter this field. We do use them. We use several of them. One of them is called Ase Utra, but this one has the option of whats called a gas release function. Ase Utra supressor. (Ase Utra) Another one we have is called Ukrop FAST (Fast-Attach Suppressor Tactical) suppressor. This can be easily attached and detached. But when it comes to active combat and when it comes to automatic mode of firing, these very suppressors lose their resources quite fast, so the wear and tear comes quite fast. Chill Personally, I do not use any suppressors, any sound moderators, because I do not have the tasks that require such equipment. But of course, the other service members who have the appropriate tasks, they use those. Khalepa No, we do not use any kind of those because we are located far from settlements and towns, which is why we do not need any kind of suppressors. Chewie So when it comes to the UAR system, they go in a set with the manufacturer-issued suppressors. So we do use them because they go in a set. And another one that we use is the one called Ase Utra. The reason why we prefer this suppressor that goes in a set with UAR-15 is that it has a function of quick removal. It means that to install it on the gun and to take it out from the gun, it doesnt need much time and it doesnt require any additional fixing of the aiming point. It means that a person can shoot if at some point he or she needs to put on the suppressor, they put on the suppressor and keeps shooting, so there is no need to do another kind of manipulations with the aiming device.  Ase Ultra doesnt have this function. It means that after putting on the suppressor, you still have to adjust the aiming point a little bit. There is only one exception with Ase Ultra suppressors, for the caliber .308, which is the UAR-10. This one has shown its efficiency quite well, and the preciseness of shooting for the distance of approximately 900 yards remains the same with the suppressor and without the suppressor. But thats the only exception. In the past we used to use the UAR-10 much more often, both modifications, the short barrel and long barrel. But right now its more and more rare to use it. UAR-10 semi-auto sniper rifle chambered for 7.62х51mm NATO round. (National Guard of Ukraine) Barman I have used some of the sound moderators, mostly manufactured by the Ukrainian company Zbroyar. Also, some of the American manufactured sound moderators, SureFire RC2, and also the Ukrainian manufactured Mystic Medusa sound moderators. So all of them were used in the automatic fire mode, and they have demonstrated quite a high level of efficiency. Surefire SOCOM556 RC2 Suppressor. (Surefire) But I would say that the Zbroyar-manufactured sound moderators have a slight disadvantage in terms of how the gases are channeled. So, if you fire a weapon like the Heckler & Koch, sometimes while shooting automatic fire bursts, you can have some problems with the gas from firing. It all depends on whether you can regulate the gas block in the weapon system or not. So, for instance, in the UAR systems, there is a possibility to regulate the gas block, and this is why you can adjust your shooting depending on what youre using. But with some of the weapons, you cannot adjust this, and part of the gas just returns to the receiver, causing problems. What about personal defense weapons and submachine guns? Tarantino Yes, we do use some submachineguns. One of them is Heckler & Koch MP5, which has proven itself quite good because this one is quite comfortable to work with, and this one is quite a mobile weapon system and easy to operate. The only drawback of such a weapon is that you can only use it in a few situations. So the variety of usage of this weapon is too narrow. So its quite irrational to use this weapon system in modern combat warfare. The best example where it definitely will serve you well? Id say the drivers of the vehicles use them, or the tank drivers use them, due to the fact that they have to fulfill other missions. The weapon itself is relatively small, so this comes handy for drivers and the tank drivers. Heckler Koch MP5. (Heckler Koch) Chill Well, usually the only self-defense gun which has been used is the handgun, so the pistol. As for the submachine guns, we almost do not use them at all because of their form factors. So the most standard self-defense weapon is either the rifle for every service member, or when there is an opportunity to use a pistol. But submachine guns are not widely used. Khalepa The Fort 20 is the model of the pistol that we are using for personal defense weapons in our unit. And as for the personal weapons, we also use the UAR-15 rifles. Chewie We do not use submachine guns. What our soldiers do use, because they are issued out, are sidearms. Its either Glock 17 or the Fort 20. Barman In terms of submachine guns, I have only used those at shooting ranges, so I do not have any real experience with them. But our sidearms are usually Glock 17 or Fort 20, and also we had some experience with Berettas. What about optics? What red dots and scopes are most used? What works best and what do soldiers see as the positives and negatives of different brands and types, like EOTECH holographic sights versus Holosun or Aimpoint red dots? Tarantino There is one optic thats called Aimpoint, third generation. When it comes to red dot sights, we take what is available commercially. So what has proven its efficiency is the one red dot called Holosun. This one out of everything that is on the market has also proved its efficiency. But we are talking about relatively cheap options right now. Other brands that are quite popular are the EOTECH, Vortex, and Vector Optics. A view of the sight of a rifle, at an undisclosed location next to the Vuhledar frontline, Ukraine March 7, 2023. The frontline around the city of Vuhledar, a strategic rail and road hub south of Bakhmut, resembles an apocalyptic scenario. (Photo by Ignacio Marin Fernandez/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images) Anadolu Chill I have been using the Holosun red dot scope for over three years, and I cannot say that I have any complaints regarding that. It performs its function, and the rest of the possible manufacturers of these devices depend on the unit and depend on their personal budgets as well. So, of course, there are some differences between them. For instance, the Aimpoint has proven itself really reliable. The EOTECH as well. There are some drawbacks related to its dimension. Its pretty large, and it is not appropriate for all the operators. Holosun, I would say that this is the device that shows the best cost-to-quality ratio. So it all depends on the unit. For instance, when we are talking about the service members that are involved in some direct action, for instance, in assault actions, then they might use the EOTECH or the Aimpoint devices. But other service members might as well use the Holosun devices and other brands that are also available on the market. So, as usual, everything is operator-dependent. I wouldnt say that there are any particular problems with them, but maybe the price, the high price, can be called just one of the problems. #Ukraine: Destroyed and captured Russian equipment in Kupiansk-Vuzlovyi, #Kharkiv Oblast a BTR-80-based vehicle and a Tigr-M IMV.Note the prevalence of US-donated M4A1 assault rifles with Aimpoint M68 CCO red dot sights. pic.twitter.com/g0Qx1ypeQ8— Polymarket Intel (@PolymarketIntel) September 28, 2022 The baseline is that everyone is using the rifles with iron sights. But then, if, for instance, the additional optical devices are not provided for by the unit, then the fighters can choose to buy their own optics. It all depends on the unit and the operator. Khalepa In the unit that Im currently serving in, we do not use any kind of these optical devices because we are located very far from the front line. Basically, our positions are in the rear, and since we are concerned with shooting down aerial targets, we do not need to use any of these devices. Chewie So we do use Aimpoint. We use the modifications M5, M4, and also we use the EOTECH. An Azov soldier using an Aimpoint red dot sight on a Heckler Koch HK416 rifle. (Azov) So when it comes to EOTECH, it has one big advantage. It has quite a big screen or quite a big window that allows the operator to see a much wider spectrum, and this allows him to make much more precise aim. But the drawback of this one is that it doesnt have this kind of underbarrel option of having the grenade launcher under the barrel. When it comes to Aimpoint, the aim itself is quite small, but this one is capable of withstanding the launching of the underbarrel grenade launcher. When the grenade is leaving the barrel, the Aimpoint still can remain on the barrel and not be lost. The peculiarity of this EOTECH is the following: when you shoot two or three grenades from the underbarrel grenade launcher, after two or three shots, the aiming stops working correctly. The recoil from the grenade launcher impacts the work of this aiming device, and it’s no longer correct. Barman I have worked both with red dot sights and optical scopes. In terms of the red dot sights, I have experience in using the EOTECH 553 and the EOTECH XPS3. Ive used them with the 3x magnifier, also manufactured by the EOTECH company, and also I have some experience in using the Aimpoint T2 red dot sights, also in combination with the EOTech magnifier. Also, I have used the Vortex Crossfire red dot sight. Its similar to the Aimpoint T2, but its a little bit cheaper and it is intended to be used by sportsmen. EOTECH XPS3 sight. (EOTECH) All of these models have their own advantages. In terms of the EOTECH and Aimpoint, they have the mil-spec certification, which is why they can be more resilient than the other brands. If I were to choose, then I would definitely choose the Aimpoint T2 red dot sight because this is like the classical red dot sight, not the holographic sight, like the EOTECH XPS3. So this means that even with the partial damage of the sight, with the partial damage of the lens, it still gives you the red dot, and you are still able to efficiently shoot with it. Partially we buy them ourselves. Partially we are issued those sights by the state. For instance, in this unit, I was issued the Aimpoint T2 micro kit. So in another unit that we have served before joining this unit, we were issued ACOG sights for the M4A1 rifles, so it really depends. What about scopes? Tarantino When it comes to the scopes, the ones that we use are the ones that zoom in at the 3x or 5x magnification, no more, because 3X and 5x are exactly the ranges that are good enough for you to operate your weapon in an efficient way and to cover that area of responsibility each marksman has. Chill We do not have any organic standard-issue scopes within our unit, but from what I have seen among the operators in our subunits, I have seen the Vortex scopes. So these are the ones that can be used with the AR systems. As for magnification, its either 1-8x or 1-16x. Usually, our operators are using the scopes with variable magnification, and it all depends on the task. But mostly, these scopes are not used for firing, but rather for observation. Khalepa We don’t use scopes. Chewie We do use them. We use mostly four different modification brands. One of them is called Nightforce. Another one is called Schmidt & Bender. Another one is called Kahles, and the last one that we use is called Leupold.  So roughly speaking, Kahles and Leupold are equals and they work quite similar. The differences are that in the Kahles, the aiming matrix is different, but when it comes to Leupold, I would say that the lens is quite clean, so that makes this one very, very much loved. So I do possess the Leupold scopes. This is my main scope I use. It has been through a lot, and it has withstood a lot of explosions, and its still up and running. Its still functioning. A Ukrainian Special Operations Forces soldier with a Leupold scope. (Ukrainian Special Forces) When it comes to this Kahles, again, roughly speaking, it has shown its efficiency quite well. Some modifications to these Kahles scopes allow it to provide a view called parallax. Thats one of the settings. So if a soldier doesnt know how to properly use it, its not possible to set this scope correctly. We do buy a lot of those scopes. Back in the past, volunteers used to help us a lot, and other companies used to buy them for us and simply deliver them to us, but right now the system is such that we do receive from the government from the official line of sustainment very efficient scopes. Barman So currently Im using the Sig Sauer scope. I need to look up the exact model, but its magnification is one to six. Its ballistics are honed for the 5.56 caliber exactly for the M855 cartridge. This is the scope which is most optimal for the usage with the assault rifle. But previously, I also used the Elcan Specter scope and also the EOTECH Vudu. I cannot just select only one scope. One of my favorites is the Elcan Specter. Its quite compact, and its magnification is one to four. At the level of one, it can be used as a red dot sight, and then it can also be used as the classical optical sight to magnify the image. And for shooting at longer ranges, well, I would say that the Sig Sauer is my favorite. So its pretty convenient to be used for shooting at ranges of several hundred meters. Sig Sauer TANGO-MSR COMPACT 1-8x24MM (SFP) rifle scope. (Sig Sauer) How prevalent are thermal scopes? Is there a difference in quality between those used by the Russians and Ukrainians that gives an upper hand? Tarantino When it comes to thermal optics, the one that we use quite often is called Archer. Thats a Ukrainian domestic production thermal vision device, and this one is quite efficient and quite comfortable to use. And when it comes to the night operations, thats definitely a must-have that each soldier is supposed to have. But when it comes to what the enemy is using, what kind of thermals the enemy is using, I cannot give you the clear answer because, in all honesty, I do not know. Chill Within our unit, we do not use thermal scopes, but I know guys who do, and well, its quite a useful thing if your tasks and if your unit imply using the thermal vision scopes. Since we are an unmanned systems regiment, we do not have the kind of tasks that require the use of the thermal scopes. Chewie We do use the thermal scopes and additional adapters to them. But when it comes to Russian thermals and what kind of thermals they use, I will be honest with you. I have never had any chance to get a hold of them and hold them in my hands, so I cannot compare them.  I can only tell you about Ukrainian manufacturers. But when it comes to long-range guns, we use the Archer 7 for this very purpose. When it comes to the .338 caliber, we use guns by Accuracy International, and Sako TRG 42. When it comes to the .375 caliber, we use the Cadex 40 Shadow.  When it comes to UAR-15 5.56, usually we use the Archer 10 for this very purpose. When it comes to simply observational functions, we use either Archer 55 or Archer 8. And I also know about some other units that use thermals called Safran because they have the peculiarity of having coolant inside. Archer TMA 55M thermal scope. (Archer) Barman Ive used thermal vision scopes. First of all, in terms of the Russian thermal vision scopes, unfortunately, I haven’t had any experience of using those, but I have some experience with the Archer manufacturer with the Archer thermal vision scopes. Usually, the TSA-7 models have proven to be quite good, and also I had some experience with the Chinese-manufactured AGM thermal vision scopes, and they are also quite good. Archer TSA-7 thermal scope. (Archer) My favorite is Archer, the TSA-7. We have used it for the longest periods of time, and we are really used to operating with it. So it has the ballistic suggested for every type of ammunition. It has a laser rangefinder. It has a ballistic calculator. So its quite a useful thing, and its easy and convenient to use. What about night vision? Are most troops using night vision goggles and need to set their rifles up for that? Tarantino We use a classical one called the PVS-7. We attach it to our helmets. Chill Night vision devices on assault rifles and other weapons are primarily used by reconnaissance and assault units — particularly during clearing operations. As for the drone component, NVDs are used by drivers for safe and concealed delivery of crews to the positions during the night, as well as the operators themselvs for nighttime work and launches. Khalepa We have some night vision devices, namely Archer 10, but these devices were just issued to the guys to monitor their perimeter during nighttime. We have no need for that because we are located in the rear and we are more concerned with the sky than with whats on the ground. Chewie We do not use the night vision devices installed on the weapon system. We do use them installed on the soldiers helmets, but not on the weapon system. Sometimes our soldiers do use the laser point night vision devices, but they use it only when they use the infrared spectrum. When it comes to installing the aim on the gun, usually the soldier does a zeroing, and if the zeroing is done properly, the efficient range of such a weapon to operate in this infrared spectrum is up to 200 meters. Ukrainian SOFs night vision equipment is one area where Ukraine has an advantage over their Russian counterparts, including GPNVGs. https://t.co/aeGD4XxhHH pic.twitter.com/OjGhZyEELR— Rob Lee (@RALee85) March 5, 2022 Barman We dont use the night vision devices on the weapons systems themselves. We use them attached to the camera, to the helmets, and out of those we use the PVS-14 L3Harris. Thats a monocular. Also, we use the PVS-32. Thats a binocular. The most widely used is the PVS-14. PVS-14 L3Harris night vision monocular. (L3Harris) In my personal opinion, the PVS-14 is simply much more comfortable. I love this one simply because this is a monocular and I use it with my left eye because the right eye I mostly use for the red dot or with the laser beam aiming device. But thats very much an individual opinion because a lot of people in my unit prefer the PVS-32. How much leeway do troops have for customizing their rifles? Tarantino Well, before using any kind of modifiers on any weapon system, the way we deal with that is the following: Before doing that, each soldier is supposed to master how to handle a weapon without any additional modifiers, meaning the default setting of the weapon that he or she receives. He or she is supposed to first get a feel for this and receive some kind of qualification with this one without any additional modifier. Only after a soldier gets used to, and is quite good at, handling the weapon with the mechanical optics that the weapon goes with, can a soldier go to another level. But this is done only if sergeants and commanders see that the soldier has reached some kind of efficiency level, and only after that, the commander or sergeant can give permission to install any kind of additional modifiers on the weapon. Chill The first thing that we always emphasize and that we try to popularize among our personnel is the installment of the red dot sights. We try to explain the advantages of using red dot sights on the weapons. Then, if the weapon does not have the ambidextrous safety, we try to persuade people to install those safety levers that can be switched from both sides ambidextrously, and then the third thing is the buttstock, the pistol grip. So these things are usually not convenient due to the specificities of every persons ergonomics. Ukrainian soldiers of the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade, operating under the call signs Hrek and Mahura, inspect forward infantry positions near the border with Russia on August 28, 2026 in Sumy Region, Ukraine. The two officers arrived at the frontline on quad bikes to evaluate the defensive lines and meet with infantrymen who had held their ground for 59 days before escorting them to an evacuation point. (Photo by Kostiantyn Liberov/Libkos/Getty Images) Libkos Khalepa Apart from just standard procedures like zeroing with the weapon, adjusting the iron sight and so on, we do not customize our weapon. We do not conduct any additional modifications. Chewie We do have some additional modifications when it comes to magazines, when it comes to magnifiers, when it comes to the grasp handles. Some of the soldiers do use the forward grasp handle. Some of the soldiers do use the flashlights that they put underneath the barrel. But its not about sport modification. The primary reason is to make the weapon more comfortable for you, and to make you a much better operator of this weapon. Barman I need to separate it into two parts. The first part is about the insides of the weapon systems. Mostly, we do not change the insides of the weapon systems. There might be some changes with a bolt carriage, but thats mostly the exception. We can work with the suppressors, with the heavy buffer suppressors and optics, red dots, and handles for a better grip. What about sidearms? What sidearms are most prevalent and in what caliber? Tarantino When it comes to the pistols, the most used one is the Fort 20. Thats domestic production. Also Glock. Also the one called Sig Sauer, and the last one that is the CZ. These are all 9mm weapons. Ukrainian soldier with modern CZ P-10 F pistol made by ČZUB. ČZUB supplied Ukraine with a large number of weapons from its stocks, in addition to the CZ P-10 C/F, also CZ Bren 807 or CZ Bren BR. Whether these were a gift from ČZUB or the weapons were donated by the Czech… pic.twitter.com/U8nsFSN92d— ?????? ??? ????? (@praisethesteph) October 31, 2024 Chill Well, previously we used to use Makarov pistols, but now were using the Fort 20 Ukrainian manufactured sidearms, and also I have previously used the Glock pistols. So basically, these are the most common, most widespread pistols that you can come across in Ukraine. Khalepa Currently the Fort 20 and the Glock 17 are the most commonly used pistols. Chewie So as I have already mentioned, the sidearms that we are using are the Glock 17 and the Fort 20. Barman So the main caliber is 9x19mm. Thats the most widely used caliber. When it comes to sidearm brands, the most widely used ones are Fort 20, Glock 17, and this Czech CZ. A Ukrainian soldier firing a Glock 9mm pistol. (Azov) What are considered the best and most reliable and what has been disappointing or considered not as reliable? Tarantino When it comes to these small arms and guns, a lot depends on the anthropometric characteristics of each individual the size of the palm, the grasp that each individual has. But when it comes to reliability, in my experience, the Fort 20 is number one, and when it comes to comfort and efficiency, I would say that Sig Sauer is the best one. I cannot give you a very clear answer about which is the most disappointing, because all of these four weapon systems will be able to fulfill their mission in the hands of a very skilled operator. So those small differences, these are the differences that each individual has as preferences only. But when it comes to functions and functionality, they all will do a good job. When it comes to my favorite weapon systems, its definitely gonna be the Sig Sauer, but I really struggle with the idea of finding the most disappointing one. At some point, Glock might be called one, but Glock is also quite a reliable weapon, and I cannot even tell you assuredly that Glock is the worst. Chill As for my favorite type of pistol, its the Glock, of course. But as for those that do not live up to my expectations, I do not think that I can choose one. Previously, we had some Soviet manufactured sidearm models. For instance, we used the TT Soviet manufactured pistol, so I would say that it was pretty bad. So those were the old Soviet pistols, and they do not live up to the requirements of modern warfare. TT-33 7.62 pistol used by Ukrainian 151st Mechanized Infantry Brigade, February 2024. pic.twitter.com/5vjGONgUQ7— B-AREV (@trip_to_valkiri) February 7, 2024 I like the Glock because, first of all, its convenient. Second, accessibility. Then the shooting precision, and of course their dimensions. Their dimensions are also pretty convenient. Khalepa I would just say that every weapon needs its own approach. So you just need to find the right approach to every weapon. But no, there are no weapons that I wouldnt use. I like the Glock 17 and the Fort 20 because both of these pistols are easy to maintain, especially the Fort 20. Its lightweight. Its not really large, so its quite convenient to use. And as for the Glock pistol, its just the golden classic, the classical example of a handgun. Chewie Well, in terms of Glock 17, from my own combat experience, I would like to say that this is a really good weapon that works pretty well even in mud conditions, even when its dirty. So in 90% of cases, it didnt show any malfunctions, any stoppages, etc. Even in really bad operational conditions. In terms of the Fort 20, its also quite a good weapon. But well, unfortunately, we cannot provide the Glock pistols for all of our service members. But if we had this opportunity, of course, we would provide the Glocks for 100% of our personnel. The primary reason why we cannot provide Glocks for all of our personnel is that currently our unit is not purchasing Glocks because there are no funds for this procurement. And as for the key differences between the Glock and the Fort systems, the Fort is really sensitive to humidity and it gets rusty quite soon. So basically, this can also lead to some malfunctions. I have worked with many pistols, and talking about those that I would never use, these are some of the models manufactured by Beretta. I really didnt like those, both in terms of maintenance, in terms of the recoil of this weapon. They were hard to maintain, and they had too much recoil. Its also not really controllable, especially in field conditions. But of course, this is also a matter of habit. Beretta M9A4 pistol. (Beretta) So you just need to get used to this weapon. Im already used to the weapons that we use, and we can just easily maintain them, even in field conditions. And also, were quite good at operating the weapons. Barman The one that we use in my unit is the Fort 20. But the drawback of this one is that the barrel is very fragile and very much open for any kind of corrosion and rust. So if I could choose one, according to my preferences, I would definitely choose the CZ P-07. Right now we are in the process of rearming the soldiers, meaning that some of the soldiers have already received this weapon system, the rest of us will receive it, I guess, by the end of next year. This is being provided by MoD. Out of those that I had a chance to put my hands on, I didnt like the Beretta much because the way it sits in the hand is not comfortable. It has a pretty strong recoil, and this one is very sensitive and requires much more attention. Do you run red dots on your pistols? If so, what kinds have worked well? What hasnt? Same for pistol lights. Tarantino I have never worked with a pistol with a red dot. I do know that some of the soldiers use it, but for me, it seems mostly like something for the sport world, not the war world.  It goes without saying, but there are some pitfalls and drawbacks of this because when it comes to the red dot on your main gun, its always in your hands. Its always in front of you, so you can control it. But the pistol that the soldiers do have usually is in such a place where you do not completely have control every time you move. That means that, if at some point you fall, or if at some point you are in the dense wood and it might simply knock this red dot off. So a pistol usually is in the holster, and dont always have your eye on the holster or the pistol. While the red dot is on your rifle, you always keep an eye on it. So it simply can fall apart. And thats a bad story when a soldier can only operate the pistol with a red dot, it means that you take the red dot out, and you cannot work with mechanical optics, it will be a very dire situation. I don’t have much expertise in this field when it comes to the flashlights under the barrel of the pistol, and when it comes to any kind of modifications on the pistols. I do know that some reconnaissance soldiers do use the flashlights on the pistols, but thats mostly on very rare occasions. Chill Personally, I have not used any red dot sights with my handguns. The only personnel that I have seen using red dot sights on their pistols are close protection service members, and for them this is justifiable because the pistol is their primary weapon, but for us the pistol is just a sidearm. So this is why we do not concentrate on using red dot sights on our pistols. Glock 19 with a Holosun 507C red dot. (Photo by Valentine CHAPUIS / AFP) VALENTINE CHAPUIS Khalepa No, the effective range of these handguns is 20 to 30 meters, so there is no need, no sense using red dot sights on them. We don’t use pistol lights. Chewie In combat, we do not really use red dot sights on our pistols. Some of our guys can just install red dot sights on their pistols for sports reasons, just for training, for some personal use, etc. But not in combat. In terms of the closed-type [fully enclosed emitter] red dot sights, first of all they are quite pricey, and secondly they can be easily broken. Again, they are susceptible to mud, to humidity, etc. And in terms of the open-type red dot sights, a bit of mud and it doesnt work anymore. At the same time, in terms of the use of the iron sights on the pistol, they are basically fail-proof. And even if they are dirty, even if there is some contamination, some mud, you can just clean them off with your glove and keep on shooting. So they are just fail-proof on the battlefield. And its easier. You dont have to put in and out of your holster without the red dot. My issued weapon doesnt have a red dot sight, and I feel pretty confident in getting it out of the holster and putting it back in the holster. And my personal sidearm a Glock 34 I have a red dot sight on it, and once again, no problems in using the holster. The Glock 34 is a sports weapon I purchased to participate in sports. This is not a self-defense weapon. Barman When it comes to combat and real combat warfare, we do not use the red dots on the pistols. So the war is about the dust and its about being dirty and there is a pretty big and high chance that you might hit your weapon either with a stick or something and simply destroy or break the red dot. That is the reason why most of us stick to mechanical sights. As for pistol lights, we use Olight. What about shotguns? Do you use them for trench warfare? What about for shooting down drones? Tarantino When it comes to military shotguns, unfortunately, I cannot give you a lot of information because we dont have many chances to work with them. Chill Usually they just use shotguns to shoot down drones. I havent really heard anything about using shotguns while conducting any actions in the trenches. Khalepa Well, as of today, we do not use shotguns, because they can be used against FPV drones or other types of small drones, but our unit does not use shotguns to shoot down Shahed drones. Chewie Well, usually we use shotguns for the crews of armored fighting vehicles, but we use shotguns in really rare cases. Mostly, all the personnel are trained to shoot down drones with their primary weapon without using the shotguns. Barman We do not use shotguns at all. The weapon that we operate is our authorized UAR-15 with the very standard M855 round. What shotguns work best for shooting down drones? Tarantino So out of those that I had a chance to get my hands on, is one called Benelli. Thats an Italian production shotgun. I have it in my hands. Thats a very qualitative weapon system, and definitely is a reliable one. Another one that I used in my career is the Winchester, and it also looks and works quite and is quite an efficient weapon system.  Benelli 828 U SUPERSPORT A.I. OVER AND UNDER SHOTGUNS. (Benelli) The one that we know that we use is the one from the Turkish production, and these are the smoothbore weapons. The drawback of all of them is the following: the weapon is the same, but the manufacturers of the same weapon are different. It means that a brand new weapon from one manufacturer can be up and running and working well, but another weapon system from another manufacturer cannot work so smoothly, and it requires additional fixing of some things. The explanation for all this in my mind is quite easy because these all are not military weapons. These are the weapons designed for hunting and for hunters. Chill We do not really have any kind of standardization in this matter. Its either the Turkish manufactured platforms or any platforms that we can get. As a hunter, I prefer the classical platforms, but now we have a lot of different types of shotguns in Ukraine, different form factors, a lot of Turkish-manufactured Hatsan shotguns, both pump-actions and other models, and I would say that the pump-action guns are the most effective that can be used in our conditions of Ukrainian warfare. Seeing more and more visual evidence of shotgun use against drones. Heres a member of the 53rd Mechanised Brigade firing a 12ga 870-pattern shotgun at a Mavic-type drone. Source: https://t.co/483YpwRBKW#UkraineRussiaWar #SALW #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/C2xpLcm2N5— Matthew Moss | The Armourers Bench (@historicfirearm) March 20, 2024 Chewie Currently we are using the Turkish manufactured copy of Benelli and also the Safari [HG-150M]. This is a Ukrainian manufacturer. Do you use a 5.56 fragmentation round for shooting down drones? Tarantino Yes, 5.56 shot rounds are occasionally used. However, the firing effectiveness depends exclusively on the operators skills. Chill No, we do not usually use specialized anti-drone cartridges. Its usually just simple shot cartridges. Khalepa Well, the UAR-15 rifles have the special type of anti-drone ammunition that doesnt have a single bullet, but it has something more similar to the shotgun, which just acts as the fragmentary ammunition that you have described. We have them and we practice using them at the training sites at the shooting ranges, but we havent had any need to use them in the real combat scenario yet. If were looking at the extreme situations and if we imagine that a rifle with the anti-drone munitions is the only thing that you have against the drones, yes, I would say that these anti-drone munitions are better than just simple bullets. They contain small gauge shot, and in comparison with the bullet, they are much more effective in damaging the drones because they can cover a larger area, and the dispersion is larger and better than in just simple cartridges with bullets. Chewie No special cartridges. We just train them to shoot down the drones with what we have, with what they fight. Because when our personnel are somewhere in the tree line and they have contact with the enemy, and they quickly need to shoot down a drone, they will not have time to change the magazine for the one with the anti-drone cartridges, and basically shooting down drones with standard munitions has proven quite efficient. So we train our people to do this. We have quite high results, and we even had cases when our fighters shot down drones with their pistols. Barman The only scenario where we use them is during training on the ranges. But when it comes to combat warfare, usually we do stick to our standard rounds because when it comes to warfare right now, a lot of those attacks happen suddenly, unexpectedly. It means that a soldier simply doesnt have time to change the magazine for the magazine that has those rounds that have these fragments in it. The peculiarity of the fragmentation round is that its range of efficiency is approximately from 40 to 60 meters, while a usual standard round can hit a drone at a distance of 100 to 150 meters, so we simply made our own conclusion and stuck to this. That using a regular round is much better than this fragment round. Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post Ukrainian Soldiers Tell Us Which Guns And Optics Work Best In Combat appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Land, Around The Globe, Assault Rifles, Europe, News & Features, Sidearms, Small Arms, Submachine Guns, Ukraine] [Link to media]

— Which Guns And Optics Are Best According To Battle-Tested Ukrainian Soldiers

 

at 11/4/26 12:17pm

When it comes to what rifles, sidearms and optics work best in war, there is perhaps no better place to find out than Ukraine. During more than four years of intense defense of their homeland, Ukrainian troops have used an assortment of small arms and accessories, many foreign-made, others domestically produced, to fight the Russians. To get a better sense of what Ukrainians are currently using on the front lines, what they like, and what they don’t, we reached out to the First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. The unit is stationed in the bloody Dobropillia sector in the eastern Donetsk region and is in the middle of one of the toughest fights in Ukraine. Five soldiers from different Azov units with a range of specialties offered their unique insights into the weapons, sights and scopes they like and the ones they don’t. The soldiers are issued all their weapons exclusively through the brigades armaments service, which obtains them from the Ukrainian Defense Ministry (MoD). Individuals, however, told us they sometimes purchase their own sights and scopes and other accessories, depending on the models. Some of the questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity. Specifically, what rifles are the most coveted? And if they are AR-15s and AKs, which specific ones? Tarantino, Chief Armorer, 12th Special Forces Brigade Azov, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. When it comes to light weapon systems, the most common is an assault rifle based on the AR-15 [chambered 5.56mm], either domestic production or the one given to us by partner countries. Chill, Chief Tactical Training Instructor, 41st Unmanned Systems Regiment Pilum, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. So, in my personal opinion, the UAR-15 system is better for me because its lighter and its more reliable. I have worked with both platforms, both systems, and I can compare them based on my experience. And from my personal experience, the AR system is better. The caliber is 5.56, and its also really convenient in terms of its modification and modernization because with the AK platform, you need to adapt it for further adjustments individually. But in the case of the UAR system, its really adaptable and you do not basically need anything in order to modernize it or modify it. Khalepa, Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battery Commander, Air Defense Battalion Strazh, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. Well, in our case, we are using larger calibers starting from 12.7mm up to 35mm. So we do not actually use the standard rifles. Chewie, Deputy Commander for Logistics, Separate Special Operations Detachment Tuman, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. When it comes to close combat, usually this is the UAR-15S of Ukrainian manufacturer called Zbroyar. Barman, Tactical Training Instructor, Personnel Training Battalion, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. So currently our key weapon platform is the UAR-15, but previously we also used the AK-74 and other modifications. The AK-74 fires 5.45mm rounds. What is most conducive to fighting? Tarantino Well, the best weapon to work with is not the weapon itself, but the people we are working with. The weapon is only the instrument. But personally, the most reliable weapon is the one that has as few stoppages as possible because the last thing you want is to have a stoppage in the situation where you need to fire. For me, that is the Heckler & Koch 416. But I am talking about my preferences and experience. That gun has a gas piston system that has proven itself the most efficient due to the fact that the movement of the piston back and forth is relatively short. That makes the weapon itself much more reliable. Heckler Koch 416. (Heckler Koch) Another system, called DI [direct impingement used in standard AR-15 pattern rifles], requires much more attention from the gunner who is shooting the rifle. Because in the conditions where the operator, the marksman, is sitting in the trench or in a bunker especially now in autumn when the humidity is high this DI system requires much more attention due to the wet weather around. The gas piston system has proven itself much more reliable and it doesnt need that much attention. Chill We are using the Ukrainian-manufactured UAR-15 rifle, and you know, as they say, the best rifle is the one that you have. Ukrainian-built UAR-15. Photo credits: (National Guard of Ukraine) Chewie So the weapon system that I told you about, UAR-15, is indeed the most loved because, in addition to this weapon, we do possess small numbers of Beretta, Bren, and several other weapon systems. The reason why we prefer the UAR-15 is, first of all, it is much lighter. Second, its shorter. Another reason is that, taking into account the combat warfare that we have right now, we have the manufacturer on the premises of our country. It means if something happens to the weapon, it doesnt take much time to either send the request to the manufacturer for them to send us the spare details, or for us to send the weapon system to them for maintenance. Barman Our preference is of course the UAR-15, and were using the 5.56 UAR platforms because its more convenient to use, its easier to maintain, and its also more reliable. But we also need to understand that our enemy is using the AK platforms, the AK-12, the AK-74, and while of course we are carrying the 5.56 rounds, usually during the assault actions, we can take the AK rifles and the 5.45 rounds to be able to use our rifles in compatibly with the enemys rifles. We can use the AKs for the element of surprise and for deception. The way they look compared to the UAR rifles makes it easier to deceive the enemy. Kalashnikov AK-74. (Kalashnikov) Have you noticed any performance differences between the AR-15 piston and direct impingement (DI) versions? Tarantino Well, again, the biggest difference between this gas piston system and the DI system is that the gas piston system has a very short movement back and forth of the piston. It means that the chances of stoppage in this weapon are quite low, while the DI system is much more demanding because these exhaust gases go back into this tube that pushes the bolt carrier back. That means these gases make this tunnel much more dirty. And in a situation when the rotation of the soldier to the battlefield is for two weeks, and these are the two weeks of a very intensive fight, a soldier doesn’t always have the chance to disassemble a weapon and pull the bolt carrier out and clean it.  Compared to the DI system, the Heckler & Koch quality of the barrel itself is exceptionally phenomenal. So the quality of the metal is good, and it allows you to shoot even four or five or even six magazines in a row without the barrel getting overheated. Chill Well, talking about the piston system, the only AR-15-based rifle which I know has the piston system is the Heckler & Koch 416. So I have some experience in using it, but unfortunately I do not have this rifle. But I would like to. Its quite reliable based on my communication with other operators and service members. I also get really good feedback about that weapon. But thats the only weapon system with this piston system that I know of, and yeah, it presents some advantages.  The UAR-15 system that we are currently using within our unit is the DI-based weapon system, and the key difference is that they become contaminated quicker, and they require better and more frequent maintenance, which is not always possible to ensure in combat conditions. Khalepa Well, I have served in the infantry since 2022, and I have had some experience with the piston systems, for instance, with the AK system, and I did not really notice any major differences. Chewie We use only the DI system. Barman Well, from my experience, the gas piston systems like the one that we can find on the HK 416, they are simpler to maintain. They are more efficient in terms of their principle of operation, and also they are more reliable, I would say. Ukrainian Spectre 33 using the Heckler Koch HK416 assault rifles. (Ukrainian MoD/Spectre 33) But the key difference in the DI system is that, of course, its a little bit more difficult to maintain them. But at the same time, you can regulate the amount of gas that goes back into the receiver. So, both of these systems have their own advantages and disadvantages.  If I were asked to choose between the two, I would use the gas piston system. It also has fewer parts that can be broken during intensive use. Any bullpups, where the grip is forward of the breech, that have performed well? Tarantino I will tell you this: we have never received a foreign-made bullpup weapon. We have several domestic-made ones. One of them is called the Fort 221. So for the short-term operations, when you have to fulfill a mission within a small and limited amount of time, and especially when you have to move around a lot, this forward bullpup configuration has proven itself quite good. But when it comes to long-term operations, when you have to, in addition to moving a lot, have to be out there in the field for quite a long time, this one is not the best option for this. A Ukrainian Fort 221 bullpup rifle. (Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs) Chill Well, I wouldnt say that I would recommend any of the bullpups that I have used. So I have used the Fort 224, and my impressions of this weapon system are like 50-50. I would say that the primary issue with these rifles is their ergonomic characteristics. So, especially while shooting from a prone position, its pretty difficult to handle these rifles. So maybe during some kind of assault actions, active offensive actions, these rifles could be usable. But in terms of ergonomics, the standard rifles are much more convenient to use. Khalepa We don’t use bullpups. Chewie We do not use any bullpups. One of the reasons is that a Ukrainian manufacturer used to produce these weapon systems with a 5.45mm, and thats definitely not a reliable weapon at all. Barman I had some experience in using bullpup rifles, namely the Tavor, also the Ukrainian-manufactured Malyuk, and I think thats it with bullpup assault rifles. But also I have used Turkish-manufactured bullpup type shotguns. In my experience, the bullpup systems function seamlessly, but Im just more used to the classic configuration of the assault rifles. But the bullpup rifles have their own advantages. For example, they are more compact, so they can have the same length of the barrel. The ballistics will be the same, but the rifle will be more compact. At the same time, the bullpup configurations require more practice at the shooting range. So you just need to get used to reloading the bullpup rifle because the magazine is located in the rear part of the weapon. I wouldnt say that this is much more difficult than reloading a weapon with the classical configuration, but it just feels unusual. This is why you just need more practice to get used to it. Are you using suppressors and, if so, what kind? Tarantino When it comes to silencers and these suppressors, this very gap is not yet filled, so there is still a lot of room for maneuver and for somebody to enter this field. We do use them. We use several of them. One of them is called Ase Utra, but this one has the option of whats called a gas release function. Ase Utra supressor. (Ase Utra) Another one we have is called Ukrop FAST (Fast-Attach Suppressor Tactical) suppressor. This can be easily attached and detached. But when it comes to active combat and when it comes to automatic mode of firing, these very suppressors lose their resources quite fast, so the wear and tear comes quite fast. Chill Personally, I do not use any suppressors, any sound moderators, because I do not have the tasks that require such equipment. But of course, the other service members who have the appropriate tasks, they use those. Khalepa No, we do not use any kind of those because we are located far from settlements and towns, which is why we do not need any kind of suppressors. Chewie So when it comes to the UAR system, they go in a set with the manufacturer-issued suppressors. So we do use them because they go in a set. And another one that we use is the one called Ase Utra. The reason why we prefer this suppressor that goes in a set with UAR-15 is that it has a function of quick removal. It means that to install it on the gun and to take it out from the gun, it doesnt need much time and it doesnt require any additional fixing of the aiming point. It means that a person can shoot if at some point he or she needs to put on the suppressor, they put on the suppressor and keeps shooting, so there is no need to do another kind of manipulations with the aiming device.  Ase Ultra doesnt have this function. It means that after putting on the suppressor, you still have to adjust the aiming point a little bit. There is only one exception with Ase Ultra suppressors, for the caliber .308, which is the UAR-10. This one has shown its efficiency quite well, and the preciseness of shooting for the distance of approximately 900 yards remains the same with the suppressor and without the suppressor. But thats the only exception. In the past we used to use the UAR-10 much more often, both modifications, the short barrel and long barrel. But right now its more and more rare to use it. UAR-10 semi-auto sniper rifle chambered for 7.62х51mm NATO round. (National Guard of Ukraine) Barman I have used some of the sound moderators, mostly manufactured by the Ukrainian company Zbroyar. Also, some of the American manufactured sound moderators, SureFire RC2, and also the Ukrainian manufactured Mystic Medusa sound moderators. So all of them were used in the automatic fire mode, and they have demonstrated quite a high level of efficiency. Surefire SOCOM556 RC2 Suppressor. (Surefire) But I would say that the Zbroyar-manufactured sound moderators have a slight disadvantage in terms of how the gases are channeled. So, if you fire a weapon like the Heckler & Koch, sometimes while shooting automatic fire bursts, you can have some problems with the gas from firing. It all depends on whether you can regulate the gas block in the weapon system or not. So, for instance, in the UAR systems, there is a possibility to regulate the gas block, and this is why you can adjust your shooting depending on what youre using. But with some of the weapons, you cannot adjust this, and part of the gas just returns to the receiver, causing problems. What about personal defense weapons and submachine guns? Tarantino Yes, we do use some submachineguns. One of them is Heckler & Koch MP5, which has proven itself quite good because this one is quite comfortable to work with, and this one is quite a mobile weapon system and easy to operate. The only drawback of such a weapon is that you can only use it in a few situations. So the variety of usage of this weapon is too narrow. So its quite irrational to use this weapon system in modern combat warfare. The best example where it definitely will serve you well? Id say the drivers of the vehicles use them, or the tank drivers use them, due to the fact that they have to fulfill other missions. The weapon itself is relatively small, so this comes handy for drivers and the tank drivers. Heckler Koch MP5. (Heckler Koch) Chill Well, usually the only self-defense gun which has been used is the handgun, so the pistol. As for the submachine guns, we almost do not use them at all because of their form factors. So the most standard self-defense weapon is either the rifle for every service member, or when there is an opportunity to use a pistol. But submachine guns are not widely used. Khalepa The Fort 20 is the model of the pistol that we are using for personal defense weapons in our unit. And as for the personal weapons, we also use the UAR-15 rifles. Chewie We do not use submachine guns. What our soldiers do use, because they are issued out, are sidearms. Its either Glock 17 or the Fort 20. Barman In terms of submachine guns, I have only used those at shooting ranges, so I do not have any real experience with them. But our sidearms are usually Glock 17 or Fort 20, and also we had some experience with Berettas. What about optics? What red dots and scopes are most used? What works best and what do soldiers see as the positives and negatives of different brands and types, like EOTECH holographic sights versus Holosun or Aimpoint red dots? Tarantino There is one optic thats called Aimpoint, third generation. When it comes to red dot sights, we take what is available commercially. So what has proven its efficiency is the one red dot called Holosun. This one out of everything that is on the market has also proved its efficiency. But we are talking about relatively cheap options right now. Other brands that are quite popular are the EOTECH, Vortex, and Vector Optics. A view of the sight of a rifle, at an undisclosed location next to the Vuhledar frontline, Ukraine March 7, 2023. The frontline around the city of Vuhledar, a strategic rail and road hub south of Bakhmut, resembles an apocalyptic scenario. (Photo by Ignacio Marin Fernandez/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images) Anadolu Chill I have been using the Holosun red dot scope for over three years, and I cannot say that I have any complaints regarding that. It performs its function, and the rest of the possible manufacturers of these devices depend on the unit and depend on their personal budgets as well. So, of course, there are some differences between them. For instance, the Aimpoint has proven itself really reliable. The EOTECH as well. There are some drawbacks related to its dimension. Its pretty large, and it is not appropriate for all the operators. Holosun, I would say that this is the device that shows the best cost-to-quality ratio. So it all depends on the unit. For instance, when we are talking about the service members that are involved in some direct action, for instance, in assault actions, then they might use the EOTECH or the Aimpoint devices. But other service members might as well use the Holosun devices and other brands that are also available on the market. So, as usual, everything is operator-dependent. I wouldnt say that there are any particular problems with them, but maybe the price, the high price, can be called just one of the problems. #Ukraine: Destroyed and captured Russian equipment in Kupiansk-Vuzlovyi, #Kharkiv Oblast a BTR-80-based vehicle and a Tigr-M IMV.Note the prevalence of US-donated M4A1 assault rifles with Aimpoint M68 CCO red dot sights. pic.twitter.com/g0Qx1ypeQ8— Polymarket Intel (@PolymarketIntel) September 28, 2022 The baseline is that everyone is using the rifles with iron sights. But then, if, for instance, the additional optical devices are not provided for by the unit, then the fighters can choose to buy their own optics. It all depends on the unit and the operator. Khalepa In the unit that Im currently serving in, we do not use any kind of these optical devices because we are located very far from the front line. Basically, our positions are in the rear, and since we are concerned with shooting down aerial targets, we do not need to use any of these devices. Chewie So we do use Aimpoint. We use the modifications M5, M4, and also we use the EOTECH. An Azov soldier using an Aimpoint red dot sight on a Heckler Koch HK416 rifle. (Azov) So when it comes to EOTECH, it has one big advantage. It has quite a big screen or quite a big window that allows the operator to see a much wider spectrum, and this allows him to make much more precise aim. But the drawback of this one is that it doesnt have this kind of underbarrel option of having the grenade launcher under the barrel. When it comes to Aimpoint, the aim itself is quite small, but this one is capable of withstanding the launching of the underbarrel grenade launcher. When the grenade is leaving the barrel, the Aimpoint still can remain on the barrel and not be lost. The peculiarity of this EOTECH is the following: when you shoot two or three grenades from the underbarrel grenade launcher, after two or three shots, the aiming stops working correctly. The recoil from the grenade launcher impacts the work of this aiming device, and it’s no longer correct. Barman I have worked both with red dot sights and optical scopes. In terms of the red dot sights, I have experience in using the EOTECH 553 and the EOTECH XPS3. Ive used them with the 3x magnifier, also manufactured by the EOTECH company, and also I have some experience in using the Aimpoint T2 red dot sights, also in combination with the EOTech magnifier. Also, I have used the Vortex Crossfire red dot sight. Its similar to the Aimpoint T2, but its a little bit cheaper and it is intended to be used by sportsmen. EOTECH XPS3 sight. (EOTECH) All of these models have their own advantages. In terms of the EOTECH and Aimpoint, they have the mil-spec certification, which is why they can be more resilient than the other brands. If I were to choose, then I would definitely choose the Aimpoint T2 red dot sight because this is like the classical red dot sight, not the holographic sight, like the EOTECH XPS3. So this means that even with the partial damage of the sight, with the partial damage of the lens, it still gives you the red dot, and you are still able to efficiently shoot with it. Partially we buy them ourselves. Partially we are issued those sights by the state. For instance, in this unit, I was issued the Aimpoint T2 micro kit. So in another unit that we have served before joining this unit, we were issued ACOG sights for the M4A1 rifles, so it really depends. What about scopes? Tarantino When it comes to the scopes, the ones that we use are the ones that zoom in at the 3x or 5x magnification, no more, because 3X and 5x are exactly the ranges that are good enough for you to operate your weapon in an efficient way and to cover that area of responsibility each marksman has. Chill We do not have any organic standard-issue scopes within our unit, but from what I have seen among the operators in our subunits, I have seen the Vortex scopes. So these are the ones that can be used with the AR systems. As for magnification, its either 1-8x or 1-16x. Usually, our operators are using the scopes with variable magnification, and it all depends on the task. But mostly, these scopes are not used for firing, but rather for observation. Khalepa We don’t use scopes. Chewie We do use them. We use mostly four different modification brands. One of them is called Nightforce. Another one is called Schmidt & Bender. Another one is called Kahles, and the last one that we use is called Leupold.  So roughly speaking, Kahles and Leupold are equals and they work quite similar. The differences are that in the Kahles, the aiming matrix is different, but when it comes to Leupold, I would say that the lens is quite clean, so that makes this one very, very much loved. So I do possess the Leupold scopes. This is my main scope I use. It has been through a lot, and it has withstood a lot of explosions, and its still up and running. Its still functioning. A Ukrainian Special Operations Forces soldier with a Leupold scope. (Ukrainian Special Forces) When it comes to this Kahles, again, roughly speaking, it has shown its efficiency quite well. Some modifications to these Kahles scopes allow it to provide a view called parallax. Thats one of the settings. So if a soldier doesnt know how to properly use it, its not possible to set this scope correctly. We do buy a lot of those scopes. Back in the past, volunteers used to help us a lot, and other companies used to buy them for us and simply deliver them to us, but right now the system is such that we do receive from the government from the official line of sustainment very efficient scopes. Barman So currently Im using the Sig Sauer scope. I need to look up the exact model, but its magnification is one to six. Its ballistics are honed for the 5.56 caliber exactly for the M855 cartridge. This is the scope which is most optimal for the usage with the assault rifle. But previously, I also used the Elcan Specter scope and also the EOTECH Vudu. I cannot just select only one scope. One of my favorites is the Elcan Specter. Its quite compact, and its magnification is one to four. At the level of one, it can be used as a red dot sight, and then it can also be used as the classical optical sight to magnify the image. And for shooting at longer ranges, well, I would say that the Sig Sauer is my favorite. So its pretty convenient to be used for shooting at ranges of several hundred meters. Sig Sauer TANGO-MSR COMPACT 1-8x24MM (SFP) rifle scope. (Sig Sauer) How prevalent are thermal scopes? Is there a difference in quality between those used by the Russians and Ukrainians that gives an upper hand? Tarantino When it comes to thermal optics, the one that we use quite often is called Archer. Thats a Ukrainian domestic production thermal vision device, and this one is quite efficient and quite comfortable to use. And when it comes to the night operations, thats definitely a must-have that each soldier is supposed to have. But when it comes to what the enemy is using, what kind of thermals the enemy is using, I cannot give you the clear answer because, in all honesty, I do not know. Chill Within our unit, we do not use thermal scopes, but I know guys who do, and well, its quite a useful thing if your tasks and if your unit imply using the thermal vision scopes. Since we are an unmanned systems regiment, we do not have the kind of tasks that require the use of the thermal scopes. Chewie We do use the thermal scopes and additional adapters to them. But when it comes to Russian thermals and what kind of thermals they use, I will be honest with you. I have never had any chance to get a hold of them and hold them in my hands, so I cannot compare them.  I can only tell you about Ukrainian manufacturers. But when it comes to long-range guns, we use the Archer 7 for this very purpose. When it comes to the .338 caliber, we use guns by Accuracy International, and Sako TRG 42. When it comes to the .375 caliber, we use the Cadex 40 Shadow.  When it comes to UAR-15 5.56, usually we use the Archer 10 for this very purpose. When it comes to simply observational functions, we use either Archer 55 or Archer 8. And I also know about some other units that use thermals called Safran because they have the peculiarity of having coolant inside. Archer TMA 55M thermal scope. (Archer) Barman Ive used thermal vision scopes. First of all, in terms of the Russian thermal vision scopes, unfortunately, I haven’t had any experience of using those, but I have some experience with the Archer manufacturer with the Archer thermal vision scopes. Usually, the TSA-7 models have proven to be quite good, and also I had some experience with the Chinese-manufactured AGM thermal vision scopes, and they are also quite good. Archer TSA-7 thermal scope. (Archer) My favorite is Archer, the TSA-7. We have used it for the longest periods of time, and we are really used to operating with it. So it has the ballistic suggested for every type of ammunition. It has a laser rangefinder. It has a ballistic calculator. So its quite a useful thing, and its easy and convenient to use. What about night vision? Are most troops using night vision goggles and need to set their rifles up for that? Tarantino We use a classical one called the PVS-7. We attach it to our helmets. Chill Night vision devices on assault rifles and other weapons are primarily used by reconnaissance and assault units — particularly during clearing operations. As for the drone component, NVDs are used by drivers for safe and concealed delivery of crews to the positions during the night, as well as the operators themselvs for nighttime work and launches. Khalepa We have some night vision devices, namely Archer 10, but these devices were just issued to the guys to monitor their perimeter during nighttime. We have no need for that because we are located in the rear and we are more concerned with the sky than with whats on the ground. Chewie We do not use the night vision devices installed on the weapon system. We do use them installed on the soldiers helmets, but not on the weapon system. Sometimes our soldiers do use the laser point night vision devices, but they use it only when they use the infrared spectrum. When it comes to installing the aim on the gun, usually the soldier does a zeroing, and if the zeroing is done properly, the efficient range of such a weapon to operate in this infrared spectrum is up to 200 meters. Ukrainian SOFs night vision equipment is one area where Ukraine has an advantage over their Russian counterparts, including GPNVGs. https://t.co/aeGD4XxhHH pic.twitter.com/OjGhZyEELR— Rob Lee (@RALee85) March 5, 2022 Barman We dont use the night vision devices on the weapons systems themselves. We use them attached to the camera, to the helmets, and out of those we use the PVS-14 L3Harris. Thats a monocular. Also, we use the PVS-32. Thats a binocular. The most widely used is the PVS-14. PVS-14 L3Harris night vision monocular. (L3Harris) In my personal opinion, the PVS-14 is simply much more comfortable. I love this one simply because this is a monocular and I use it with my left eye because the right eye I mostly use for the red dot or with the laser beam aiming device. But thats very much an individual opinion because a lot of people in my unit prefer the PVS-32. How much leeway do troops have for customizing their rifles? Tarantino Well, before using any kind of modifiers on any weapon system, the way we deal with that is the following: Before doing that, each soldier is supposed to master how to handle a weapon without any additional modifiers, meaning the default setting of the weapon that he or she receives. He or she is supposed to first get a feel for this and receive some kind of qualification with this one without any additional modifier. Only after a soldier gets used to, and is quite good at, handling the weapon with the mechanical optics that the weapon goes with, can a soldier go to another level. But this is done only if sergeants and commanders see that the soldier has reached some kind of efficiency level, and only after that, the commander or sergeant can give permission to install any kind of additional modifiers on the weapon. Chill The first thing that we always emphasize and that we try to popularize among our personnel is the installment of the red dot sights. We try to explain the advantages of using red dot sights on the weapons. Then, if the weapon does not have the ambidextrous safety, we try to persuade people to install those safety levers that can be switched from both sides ambidextrously, and then the third thing is the buttstock, the pistol grip. So these things are usually not convenient due to the specificities of every persons ergonomics. Ukrainian soldiers of the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade, operating under the call signs Hrek and Mahura, inspect forward infantry positions near the border with Russia on August 28, 2026 in Sumy Region, Ukraine. The two officers arrived at the frontline on quad bikes to evaluate the defensive lines and meet with infantrymen who had held their ground for 59 days before escorting them to an evacuation point. (Photo by Kostiantyn Liberov/Libkos/Getty Images) Libkos Khalepa Apart from just standard procedures like zeroing with the weapon, adjusting the iron sight and so on, we do not customize our weapon. We do not conduct any additional modifications. Chewie We do have some additional modifications when it comes to magazines, when it comes to magnifiers, when it comes to the grasp handles. Some of the soldiers do use the forward grasp handle. Some of the soldiers do use the flashlights that they put underneath the barrel. But its not about sport modification. The primary reason is to make the weapon more comfortable for you, and to make you a much better operator of this weapon. Barman I need to separate it into two parts. The first part is about the insides of the weapon systems. Mostly, we do not change the insides of the weapon systems. There might be some changes with a bolt carriage, but thats mostly the exception. We can work with the suppressors, with the heavy buffer suppressors and optics, red dots, and handles for a better grip. What about sidearms? What sidearms are most prevalent and in what caliber? Tarantino When it comes to the pistols, the most used one is the Fort 20. Thats domestic production. Also Glock. Also the one called Sig Sauer, and the last one that is the CZ. These are all 9mm weapons. Ukrainian soldier with modern CZ P-10 F pistol made by ČZUB. ČZUB supplied Ukraine with a large number of weapons from its stocks, in addition to the CZ P-10 C/F, also CZ Bren 807 or CZ Bren BR. Whether these were a gift from ČZUB or the weapons were donated by the Czech… pic.twitter.com/U8nsFSN92d— ?????? ??? ????? (@praisethesteph) October 31, 2024 Chill Well, previously we used to use Makarov pistols, but now were using the Fort 20 Ukrainian manufactured sidearms, and also I have previously used the Glock pistols. So basically, these are the most common, most widespread pistols that you can come across in Ukraine. Khalepa Currently the Fort 20 and the Glock 17 are the most commonly used pistols. Chewie So as I have already mentioned, the sidearms that we are using are the Glock 17 and the Fort 20. Barman So the main caliber is 9x19mm. Thats the most widely used caliber. When it comes to sidearm brands, the most widely used ones are Fort 20, Glock 17, and this Czech CZ. A Ukrainian soldier firing a Glock 9mm pistol. (Azov) What are considered the best and most reliable and what has been disappointing or considered not as reliable? Tarantino When it comes to these small arms and guns, a lot depends on the anthropometric characteristics of each individual the size of the palm, the grasp that each individual has. But when it comes to reliability, in my experience, the Fort 20 is number one, and when it comes to comfort and efficiency, I would say that Sig Sauer is the best one. I cannot give you a very clear answer about which is the most disappointing, because all of these four weapon systems will be able to fulfill their mission in the hands of a very skilled operator. So those small differences, these are the differences that each individual has as preferences only. But when it comes to functions and functionality, they all will do a good job. When it comes to my favorite weapon systems, its definitely gonna be the Sig Sauer, but I really struggle with the idea of finding the most disappointing one. At some point, Glock might be called one, but Glock is also quite a reliable weapon, and I cannot even tell you assuredly that Glock is the worst. Chill As for my favorite type of pistol, its the Glock, of course. But as for those that do not live up to my expectations, I do not think that I can choose one. Previously, we had some Soviet manufactured sidearm models. For instance, we used the TT Soviet manufactured pistol, so I would say that it was pretty bad. So those were the old Soviet pistols, and they do not live up to the requirements of modern warfare. TT-33 7.62 pistol used by Ukrainian 151st Mechanized Infantry Brigade, February 2024. pic.twitter.com/5vjGONgUQ7— B-AREV (@trip_to_valkiri) February 7, 2024 I like the Glock because, first of all, its convenient. Second, accessibility. Then the shooting precision, and of course their dimensions. Their dimensions are also pretty convenient. Khalepa I would just say that every weapon needs its own approach. So you just need to find the right approach to every weapon. But no, there are no weapons that I wouldnt use. I like the Glock 17 and the Fort 20 because both of these pistols are easy to maintain, especially the Fort 20. Its lightweight. Its not really large, so its quite convenient to use. And as for the Glock pistol, its just the golden classic, the classical example of a handgun. Chewie Well, in terms of Glock 17, from my own combat experience, I would like to say that this is a really good weapon that works pretty well even in mud conditions, even when its dirty. So in 90% of cases, it didnt show any malfunctions, any stoppages, etc. Even in really bad operational conditions. In terms of the Fort 20, its also quite a good weapon. But well, unfortunately, we cannot provide the Glock pistols for all of our service members. But if we had this opportunity, of course, we would provide the Glocks for 100% of our personnel. The primary reason why we cannot provide Glocks for all of our personnel is that currently our unit is not purchasing Glocks because there are no funds for this procurement. And as for the key differences between the Glock and the Fort systems, the Fort is really sensitive to humidity and it gets rusty quite soon. So basically, this can also lead to some malfunctions. I have worked with many pistols, and talking about those that I would never use, these are some of the models manufactured by Beretta. I really didnt like those, both in terms of maintenance, in terms of the recoil of this weapon. They were hard to maintain, and they had too much recoil. Its also not really controllable, especially in field conditions. But of course, this is also a matter of habit. Beretta M9A4 pistol. (Beretta) So you just need to get used to this weapon. Im already used to the weapons that we use, and we can just easily maintain them, even in field conditions. And also, were quite good at operating the weapons. Barman The one that we use in my unit is the Fort 20. But the drawback of this one is that the barrel is very fragile and very much open for any kind of corrosion and rust. So if I could choose one, according to my preferences, I would definitely choose the CZ P-07. Right now we are in the process of rearming the soldiers, meaning that some of the soldiers have already received this weapon system, the rest of us will receive it, I guess, by the end of next year. This is being provided by MoD. Out of those that I had a chance to put my hands on, I didnt like the Beretta much because the way it sits in the hand is not comfortable. It has a pretty strong recoil, and this one is very sensitive and requires much more attention. Do you run red dots on your pistols? If so, what kinds have worked well? What hasnt? Same for pistol lights. Tarantino I have never worked with a pistol with a red dot. I do know that some of the soldiers use it, but for me, it seems mostly like something for the sport world, not the war world.  It goes without saying, but there are some pitfalls and drawbacks of this because when it comes to the red dot on your main gun, its always in your hands. Its always in front of you, so you can control it. But the pistol that the soldiers do have usually is in such a place where you do not completely have control every time you move. That means that, if at some point you fall, or if at some point you are in the dense wood and it might simply knock this red dot off. So a pistol usually is in the holster, and dont always have your eye on the holster or the pistol. While the red dot is on your rifle, you always keep an eye on it. So it simply can fall apart. And thats a bad story when a soldier can only operate the pistol with a red dot, it means that you take the red dot out, and you cannot work with mechanical optics, it will be a very dire situation. I don’t have much expertise in this field when it comes to the flashlights under the barrel of the pistol, and when it comes to any kind of modifications on the pistols. I do know that some reconnaissance soldiers do use the flashlights on the pistols, but thats mostly on very rare occasions. Chill Personally, I have not used any red dot sights with my handguns. The only personnel that I have seen using red dot sights on their pistols are close protection service members, and for them this is justifiable because the pistol is their primary weapon, but for us the pistol is just a sidearm. So this is why we do not concentrate on using red dot sights on our pistols. Glock 19 with a Holosun 507C red dot. (Photo by Valentine CHAPUIS / AFP) VALENTINE CHAPUIS Khalepa No, the effective range of these handguns is 20 to 30 meters, so there is no need, no sense using red dot sights on them. We don’t use pistol lights. Chewie In combat, we do not really use red dot sights on our pistols. Some of our guys can just install red dot sights on their pistols for sports reasons, just for training, for some personal use, etc. But not in combat. In terms of the closed-type [fully enclosed emitter] red dot sights, first of all they are quite pricey, and secondly they can be easily broken. Again, they are susceptible to mud, to humidity, etc. And in terms of the open-type red dot sights, a bit of mud and it doesnt work anymore. At the same time, in terms of the use of the iron sights on the pistol, they are basically fail-proof. And even if they are dirty, even if there is some contamination, some mud, you can just clean them off with your glove and keep on shooting. So they are just fail-proof on the battlefield. And its easier. You dont have to put in and out of your holster without the red dot. My issued weapon doesnt have a red dot sight, and I feel pretty confident in getting it out of the holster and putting it back in the holster. And my personal sidearm a Glock 34 I have a red dot sight on it, and once again, no problems in using the holster. The Glock 34 is a sports weapon I purchased to participate in sports. This is not a self-defense weapon. Barman When it comes to combat and real combat warfare, we do not use the red dots on the pistols. So the war is about the dust and its about being dirty and there is a pretty big and high chance that you might hit your weapon either with a stick or something and simply destroy or break the red dot. That is the reason why most of us stick to mechanical sights. As for pistol lights, we use Olight. What about shotguns? Do you use them for trench warfare? What about for shooting down drones? Tarantino When it comes to military shotguns, unfortunately, I cannot give you a lot of information because we dont have many chances to work with them. Chill Usually they just use shotguns to shoot down drones. I havent really heard anything about using shotguns while conducting any actions in the trenches. Khalepa Well, as of today, we do not use shotguns, because they can be used against FPV drones or other types of small drones, but our unit does not use shotguns to shoot down Shahed drones. Chewie Well, usually we use shotguns for the crews of armored fighting vehicles, but we use shotguns in really rare cases. Mostly, all the personnel are trained to shoot down drones with their primary weapon without using the shotguns. Barman We do not use shotguns at all. The weapon that we operate is our authorized UAR-15 with the very standard M855 round. What shotguns work best for shooting down drones? Tarantino So out of those that I had a chance to get my hands on, is one called Benelli. Thats an Italian production shotgun. I have it in my hands. Thats a very qualitative weapon system, and definitely is a reliable one. Another one that I used in my career is the Winchester, and it also looks and works quite and is quite an efficient weapon system.  Benelli 828 U SUPERSPORT A.I. OVER AND UNDER SHOTGUNS. (Benelli) The one that we know that we use is the one from the Turkish production, and these are the smoothbore weapons. The drawback of all of them is the following: the weapon is the same, but the manufacturers of the same weapon are different. It means that a brand new weapon from one manufacturer can be up and running and working well, but another weapon system from another manufacturer cannot work so smoothly, and it requires additional fixing of some things. The explanation for all this in my mind is quite easy because these all are not military weapons. These are the weapons designed for hunting and for hunters. Chill We do not really have any kind of standardization in this matter. Its either the Turkish manufactured platforms or any platforms that we can get. As a hunter, I prefer the classical platforms, but now we have a lot of different types of shotguns in Ukraine, different form factors, a lot of Turkish-manufactured Hatsan shotguns, both pump-actions and other models, and I would say that the pump-action guns are the most effective that can be used in our conditions of Ukrainian warfare. Seeing more and more visual evidence of shotgun use against drones. Heres a member of the 53rd Mechanised Brigade firing a 12ga 870-pattern shotgun at a Mavic-type drone. Source: https://t.co/483YpwRBKW#UkraineRussiaWar #SALW #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/C2xpLcm2N5— Matthew Moss | The Armourers Bench (@historicfirearm) March 20, 2024 Chewie Currently we are using the Turkish manufactured copy of Benelli and also the Safari [HG-150M]. This is a Ukrainian manufacturer. Do you use a 5.56 fragmentation round for shooting down drones? Tarantino Yes, 5.56 shot rounds are occasionally used. However, the firing effectiveness depends exclusively on the operators skills. Chill No, we do not usually use specialized anti-drone cartridges. Its usually just simple shot cartridges. Khalepa Well, the UAR-15 rifles have the special type of anti-drone ammunition that doesnt have a single bullet, but it has something more similar to the shotgun, which just acts as the fragmentary ammunition that you have described. We have them and we practice using them at the training sites at the shooting ranges, but we havent had any need to use them in the real combat scenario yet. If were looking at the extreme situations and if we imagine that a rifle with the anti-drone munitions is the only thing that you have against the drones, yes, I would say that these anti-drone munitions are better than just simple bullets. They contain small gauge shot, and in comparison with the bullet, they are much more effective in damaging the drones because they can cover a larger area, and the dispersion is larger and better than in just simple cartridges with bullets. Chewie No special cartridges. We just train them to shoot down the drones with what we have, with what they fight. Because when our personnel are somewhere in the tree line and they have contact with the enemy, and they quickly need to shoot down a drone, they will not have time to change the magazine for the one with the anti-drone cartridges, and basically shooting down drones with standard munitions has proven quite efficient. So we train our people to do this. We have quite high results, and we even had cases when our fighters shot down drones with their pistols. Barman The only scenario where we use them is during training on the ranges. But when it comes to combat warfare, usually we do stick to our standard rounds because when it comes to warfare right now, a lot of those attacks happen suddenly, unexpectedly. It means that a soldier simply doesnt have time to change the magazine for the magazine that has those rounds that have these fragments in it. The peculiarity of the fragmentation round is that its range of efficiency is approximately from 40 to 60 meters, while a usual standard round can hit a drone at a distance of 100 to 150 meters, so we simply made our own conclusion and stuck to this. That using a regular round is much better than this fragment round. Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post Which Guns And Optics Are Best According To Battle-Tested Ukrainian Soldiers appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Land, Around The Globe, Assault Rifles, Europe, News & Features, Sidearms, Small Arms, Submachine Guns, Ukraine] [Link to media]

— The Beechcraft M-346N Is The Only Known Aircraft Left In The Navy’s Jet Trainer Competition

 

at 11/4/26 10:36am

The Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) has decided not to propose its Freedom Jet design for the U.S. Navys Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) competition. The field of contenders for UJTS, which aims to find a replacement for the aging T-45 Goshawk jet trainer, has narrowed significantly already this year. The Beechcraft M-346N, put forward by U.S. firm Textron and Italys Leonardo, is now the only known major design left in the running. SNCs decision on UJTS was first reported by Breaking Defense and has since been further confirmed by Aviation Week. In September, Northrop Grumman had announced it was dropping out of its partnership with SNC on the Freedom Jet proposal. General Atomics has also been named in the past as being part of this team. The Navys deadline for bids for its jet trainer competition had come up on October 30. The services stated goal has been to acquire 216 new trainers to replace the just under 200 T-45s that are in its inventory today. “With great respect for the Navy and PMA-273, SNC could not responsibly bid the UJTS program under the current contract structure,” SNC said in a statement to Breaking Defense. “We do remain committed to naval jet training and stand ready to re-engage if the approach is revisited.” Textron Aviation Defense separately confirmed to that outlet that it submitted the M-346N, a navalized version of the Leonardo-developed M-346 Master advanced jet trainer, and said that it was “ready to support the U.S. Navy and its future training needs.” TWZ previously flew aboard the M-346, providing a firsthand look at the aircraft Textron is pitching to the service. Whether or not any other serious bids have been submitted for UJTS is unknown. What impact SNCs decision not to put forward a proposal may now have on the competition is unclear. TWZ has reached out to SNC and Textron Aviation Defense, as well as the Navy, for additional details. Proposals were due on 30 October 2026, the Navys UJTS program office said in response to our queries. The Government is in source selection with the intent to award the UJTS procurement in 4QFY27 [the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2027]. A competition that has steadily narrowed As mentioned, SNCs announcement follows decisions by several other major aerospace companies to pull out of the running for UJTS. Lockheed Martin announced in April that it would not submit a proposal for UJTS. The company had previously planned to submit the TF-50N, a navalized version of the T-50 developed with Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI). Neither firm appears to have given a detailed explanation for this decision. A rendering of the TF-50N. Lockheed Martin Boeing followed suit in June, saying it would not put forward a proposal due to issues tied to the General Electric F404 turbofan and UJTS engine qualification requirements. The company had been expected to submit a bid involving a version of the T-7A Red Hawk being built now for the U.S. Air Force, which is powered by a single F404. A rendering of the TF-50N. Lockheed Martin After Boeings announcement, the Navys competition looked to be down to just two established teams: Textron and Leonardo with the M-346N, and SNC with its Freedom Jet. It is important to note that the M-346N and Freedom Jet are twin-engine aircraft, while the TF-50N and T-7A are single-engine types. SNC had also been the only one in the running with a clean-sheet design. Now the field has dwindled to just one major contender, the Textron/Leonardo team, at least that we know of, barring the emergence of a surprise entrant. The Navy has not confirmed how many bids it ultimately received for UJTS. The service could also potentially reopen the UJTS competition or otherwise restructure its T-45 replacement plans. A changing naval aviation training landscape Since the early 1990s, the Navy has been using variants of the T-45 Goshawk to train future naval aviators destined to fly tactical jets and other carrier-based aircraft. This includes members of the U.S. Marine Corps and foreign student aviators. The Goshawks are currently the services only fast jet trainer aircraft. The winning UJTS design will replace the Navys T-45 jet trainers, one of which is seen here. U.S. Navy Despite having received various upgrades over the years, the T-45 fleet continues to age and has faced significant struggles. This includes a spate of reported hypoxia-like physiological episodes among pilots that led to the development of a new oxygen system. There have been several Goshawk crashes in recent years due to a variety of factors, the most recent of which came just this past May. The pilots of that aircraft involved in that mishap thankfully survived. As such, there has been a growing imperative to replace the T-45s, which led to the UJTS program. UJTS also reflects broader changes to how future naval aviators are trained. One of the most significant developments already has been the elimination of carrier qualification requirements, including touch-and-goes and full landings, from the syllabus for students in the tactical air aviator training pipeline. Those individuals can still get carrier qualifications in T-45s, if there is time and space available. There is currently still a carrier qualification requirement for future E-2 Hawkeye pilots and foreign student aviators in order to graduate and earn their coveted wings of gold. At present, prospective naval aviators training to fly fixed-wing carrier-based aircraft do still have to conduct so-called Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) at facilities ashore. FCLP is structured in such a way that it “simulates, as near as practicable, the conditions encountered during carrier landing operations,” per the Navy. This is all set to change further with the acquisition of new trainers through UJTS. Unlike the T-45, the Navys future jet trainers are not required to have features to support full carrier-based operations, touch-and-goes on those ships, or even FCLP training at bases on land. The Navys decision to alter what have long been considered vital aspects of the naval aviator training pipeline has been and continues to be controversial. Concerns and criticisms have been raised about safety and other ramifications of cutting carrier qualification and other requirements. For its part, the Navy has argued that other modernization efforts have fundamentally changed what is necessary to train naval aviators. The service regularly points to the development of new live, virtual, and constructive training capabilities and associated constructs, as well as assisted carrier landing capabilities, such as Magic Carpet and its successors. The Navy has also said that the changes help move student aviators through training faster, helping to address chronic pilot shortages. There is a cost-benefit argument to be made here, too. It is important to note here that with Freedom Jet, SNC had made an explicit and deliberate decision to develop an aircraft that could still perform carrier qualifications and FCLP training. The company said it did so to preserve those capabilities and give the Navy flexibility to alter its naval aviator training plans in the future. The T-45 replacement schedule continues to slip Beyond the further narrowing of the field of competitors, the UJTS program has already faced delays and other hurdles. The Navy had originally hoped to see its new jet trainers begin entering service in 2028. That schedule subsequently slipped multiple times. The stated plan earlier this year was to at least award the UJTS contract by March 2027. As mentioned earlier, the contract award timeline has now shifted again to sometime in the fourth quarter of the current fiscal cycle, which runs between next July and September. Earlier this year, the Navy also confirmed that it had increased the total cost ceiling for the prospective UJTS contract from approximately $1.8 billion to $2.7 billion. The cost structure has raised concerns as the Navy has detailed an initial award cost of $52.8 million in fiscal 2027 and $181 million for fiscal 2028, according to Aviation Weeks report today. With all this in mind, the M-346N does offer an option that is powered by established Honeywell F124 turbofan engines and that can leverage significant existing supply chains. Other versions of the M-346 are already in service with multiple air forces globally, and more operators are on the horizon. Another rendering of the M-346N. Textron At the same time, SNCs withdrawal and other prior setbacks for the UJTS program can only raise questions about how the competition might now proceed with only one major entrant left. SNCs statement to Breaking Defense makes clear the company is willing to re-engage with the Navy if there is a further shake-up in the T-45 replacement plans. For the Navy, acquiring a successor to the T-45 is only becoming an ever-more pressing priority. That being said, with how the UJTS effort has already proceeded to date, another change of tack cannot be entirely ruled out. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post The Beechcraft M-346N Is The Only Known Aircraft Left In The Navys Jet Trainer Competition appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Air, Navies, Sea, Trainers, U.S. Navy] [Link to media]

— USAF Widens Lower-Cost Cruise Missile Effort To Also Include Glide Bombs

 

at 11/4/26 6:24am

The U.S. Air Force is seeking options for a new unpowered 500-pound air-launched glide bomb as part of a new spiral to its Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program. The service has already been acquiring two different lower-cost jet-powered cruise missiles under ERAM, including batches of these munitions for Ukraine. Adding glide bombs to the mix could create additional streams of even cheaper weapons that still offer valuable extended reach. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Centers Stand-In Strike division (AFLCMC/EBI) put out a request for information (RFI) for what it is currently calling Extended Range Attack Munition Glide (ERAM Glide) on Monday. AFLCMC/EBI also put out a separate RFI for additional powered ERAM options. The Rusty Dagger lower-cost cruise missile, seen here under the wing of a US Air Force F-16 during a test, is one of two munitions the service has already been acquiring under the ERAM program. USAF For ERAM Glide, a 500lb class weapon desired, with the equivalent warhead with approximately 105lbs of explosive and associated fuzes, according to the contracting notice. The warhead has to be capable of blast / frag / and limited penetration effects. For navigation, proposed munitions have to use M-Code GPS with a CRPA [Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna] antenna capable of operating in a GPS degraded environment, the notice adds. It does not call for any particular form of guidance in the terminal phase. However, ERAM Glide munitions will need to have an accuracy of CEP [Circular Error Probable] 50 w/in 10m both in non-EMI (Electromagnetic Interference) and high EMI environments (includes GPS degraded). This means they hit, on average, within 10 meters, or approximately 33 feet, of the specified impact point at least 50 percent of the time. This also happens to be the stated accuracy requirement in the original ERAM RFI put out back in 2024. A sequence of images showing a Rusty Dagger munition hitting a target during a test. USAF The ERAM Glide contracting notice notably does not include a range target, but does specify glide ratio of at least 10:1, and >15:1. When it comes to unpowered glide munitions, range is especially dependent on the speed and altitude of the launch platform. Tactics like toss bombing can also help extend the reach of glide munitions even when the launching aircraft starts at a lower altitude. The Air Force is also looking for munition designs that are already at a high level of developmental and production maturity for ERAM Glide. There are potentially relevant munitions in production today in the United States. A prime example is Boeings Joint Direct Attack Munition-Extended Range (JDAM-ER). The JDAM-ER is really more of a kit that turns various types of unguided bombs into the warheads for the resulting precision-guided munitions. JDAM-ER builds on the basic JDAM concept by adding a pop-out wing kit that allows the weapons to glide out to a maximum range of around 45 miles (72.4 kilometers) depending on the aforementioned launch factors. A standard JDAM can also glide, but only for around 15 miles (24 kilometers) at most, according to the Air Force. JDAM-ER kits are available in 500-, 1,000-, and 2,000-pound-class flavors. There are other glide bomb options on the open market in the U.S. and elsewhere globally today, as well. This includes the SPICE family from Israels Rafael and the French AASM 250 Hammer, among others. However, many of them are smaller than the 500-pound-class weapons the Air Force is seeking for ERAM Glide. The GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), examples of which are seen here, is another example of a glide bomb in production today. However, it is also a 250-pound-class munition. USAF For ERAM Glide, prospective vendors might also put forward unpowered derivatives of lower-cost cruise missiles. Eliminating the need for an engine and fuel to power it could free up additional space and weight for larger warheads or other payloads, or just lower overall weight. Reduced weight could, in turn, translate to extended glide range. Developing an unpowered variation of an existing design could also offer sustainment and manufacturing benefits, as well as reduce unit costs. There might even be a possibility for a modular design that can be readily configured for powered or unpowered use. As already mentioned, the Air Force is already acquiring two lower-cost cruise missile designs through ERAM. These are the Rusty Dagger from Zone 5 Technologies (now a subsidiary of Norwegian defense company Kongsberg) and CoAspires Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile (RAACM). Zone 5 and CoAspire are already developing extended-range variants and derivatives of their respective designs for air- and surface-launched applications through two other U.S. military programs called Low-Cost Containerized Missile (LCCM) and Consolidated Affordable Ordnance System (CHAOS). CoAspires original RAACM lower-cost cruise missile design, in front, together with the extended-range RAACM-ER, behind. CoAspire ERAM, as well as CHAOS, are also heavily focused on providing lower-cost extended-range strike options to allies and partners. Ukraine was notably the first known recipient of munitions through ERAM. At the same time, the ERAM effort, and its subsequent spirals, have also been feeding into the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program for the U.S. Air Forces own use. ERAM Glide could similarly help provide additional munition streams for the U.S. military, as well as for export. A 2025 US Air Force briefing slide showing the parallel relationship between FAMM and ERAM, as well as other lower-cost munition efforts. USAF Overall, the broadening of the ERAM program to include ERAM Glide speaks to growing demand within the U.S. military, and elsewhere globally, for enlarged and more diversified supply chains for munitions. The Air Force alone plans to acquire 28,000 lower-cost cruise missiles in multiple different configurations over the next five years through FAMM. The war with Iran, as well as other crises around the Middle East in recent years, together with the conflict in Ukraine, have made clear that just stockpiling munitions ahead of a major fight is not enough. There also have to be realistic mechanisms to readily replenish those inventories, and do so in a cost-effective manner. There has already been an explosion globally in the development of lower-cost air- and surface-launched cruise missiles for programs like ERAM. Many of these designs also blur the line between traditional cruise missiles, longer-range one-way-attack drones, and decoys. As noted earlier, the Air Force has also put out a call for new powered ERAM designs as part of the latest spiral to the program. As these trends continue to grow, the Air Force is now looking to expand the ERAM program to include both powered and unpowered munitions. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post USAF Widens Lower-Cost Cruise Missile Effort To Also Include Glide Bombs appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Air, Air Force Munitions, Air Forces, Air-To-Ground, News & Features, U.S. Air Force] [Link to media]

— What Trump’s Drastic Reduction Of U.S. Military Aid To Israel Could Mean

 

at 11/3/26 4:15pm

By the end of the year, the U.S. will stop providing Israel with billions of dollars in annual assistance, President Donald Trump proclaimed Tuesday morning. The announcement was delivered as both Washington and Jerusalem are mulling plans for a new wave of attacks on Iran and amid increasing American voter antipathy toward the Israel in the wake of the Gaza war and Americas involvement in the war with Iran. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu has openly discussed weaning his country off direct U.S. assistance in favor of more cooperation on weapons development, the Trump announcement still caught many there by surprise. It also raises a lot of questions about Congressional authorization and the impact on future sales of advanced arms from U.S. manufacturers, many of which are planned, that still have to be answered. “As far as paying Israel, Bibi Netanyahu and I have made a deal that we give Israel $4 billion a year and we made a deal months ago that were stopping,” Trump told Fox & Friends Tuesday morning during his message to American voters going to the polls for the midterm election. “And theyre fine with it because you know they have become a very successful country. They don’t need it, and we wont be paying anymore to Israel, so its just a wasted thing because weve already agreed that by the end of this year we wont be paying Israel.” “Now well help Israel if they need it,” the American leader added. “You know theyve been a great ally, and weve been the greatest of all allies to many many countries.” BREAKING: President Trump says the U.S. will end roughly $4 billion in annual aid to Israel by the end of the year, revealing that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to the decision.“Because they don’t need it,” Trump said during an exclusive interview on @foxandfriends,… pic.twitter.com/ItBUcMrtuZ— Fox News (@FoxNews) November 3, 2026 Trump did not elaborate on what specific expenditures he was referring to, and we’ve reached out to the White House for more details. However, the president was almost certainly talking about the ongoing decade-long Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Israel. The MoU calls for providing $3.8 billion in annual aid and it is drawing to a close. Set to run through 2028, the vast majority of that funding is for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to purchase weaponry mostly from American manufacturers. U.S. military aid to Israel by the year. (Congressional Research Service) “In 2016, the U.S. and Israeli governments signed their third 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on military aid, covering [Fiscal Year] 2019 to [Fiscal Year] 2028,” according to a 2025 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. “Under the terms of the MOU, the United States pledged to provide—subject to congressional appropriation—$38 billion in military aid ($33 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grants plus $5 billion in missile defense appropriations) to Israel.” The MoU is merely a promise and not legally binding. Congress has to approve any funding requests. A New Deal Washington and Jerusalem began negotiating a new MoU in June, according to the Israeli Defense Ministry (MoD). “The new framework, reflecting the strategic vision of Israel’s Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, is designed to strengthen the IDF’s qualitative military edge through expanded joint investment in research, development, and co-production, deepen the U.S.-Israel partnership demonstrated during Operation Roaring Lion, and gradually transition from aid to a completely reciprocal partnership,” MoD explained. Netanyahu has been warning Israel for months that it would have to face reduced assistance from the U.S. “If you think we will continue receiving what I secured twice — tens of billions of dollars in American aid for the defense budget — you’d better prepare yourselves and get used to the idea that this will not continue,” he told Israeli media last month, according to Bloomberg News. “That is because America has changed, not because Israel has changed. It will end. It is only a matter of time.” Netanyahu added that Israel has two more years with Trump, but must prepare for a less favorable Washington after he leaves power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told Israel for months it will have to rely less on U.S. military aid. (Photo by Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images) Alexi Rosenfeld In January, the Israeli leader said he wanted to reduce Israel’s reliance on American aid. He told The Economist that he was not seeking the full renewal of the MoU, which has to be renegotiated by 2028.  “I want to taper off the military aid within the next 10 years,” Netanyahu told the publication. Asked if he meant “to taper it off to zero,” Netanyahu said “yes.” “We want to be as independent as possible,” the Israeli leader proffered. Referring to his meeting with the the American president in Florida in late December, Netanyahu added: “In my visit to President Trump, I said we very deeply appreciate the military aid that America has given us over the years, but here too we’ve come of age, and we’ve developed incredible capacities.” For Israel, the MoU “now matters less for the money it provides than for what it signifies: a gauge of the depth and durability of U.S. support,” the Crisis Group think tank argued in August. “To be sure, FMF has enabled Israel to build up its military power without fully bearing the cost, and phasing out this assistance would impose real burdens. Israel would have to pay for critical U.S. weapons from its own budget.” However, with its annual GDP now exceeding $700 billion and defense spending above $40 billion, “Israel has found increasing difficulty in arguing that it requires an additional $3.3 billion each year for military purchases,” Crisis Group posited. “Netanyahu has asked the finance ministry to allocate billions of dollars in additional funding for the defense budget over the next decade, a large portion of which would be earmarked to procure U.S. fighter jets, on the assumption that Israel will no longer receive the funds necessary for these purchases from Washington.” Israeli Air Force F-15 Baz fighters. (Amit Agronov) Since the attack by Hamas, U.S. money from the MoU has made up a smaller percentage of the Israeli MoD’s overall budget as the country has increased its own defense spending. Those funds have also been bolstered by several large tranches of U.S. supplemental aid to procure bombs and other weapons. “For most of the last 15 years, the $3.3 billion Israel receives annually in FMF made up roughly 20% of Israel’s defense budget, which was itself 5-6% of Israel’s GDP in the same period,” the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) explained in May. “Both Israeli defense spending and the share coming from U.S. aid slowly declined amid major economic growth throughout the 2010s, and then spiked in 2023 following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and ensuing wars.  IPF stated that after the Hamas incursion, “Israel sharply increased defense spending (both within the regular budget framework and in extraordinary expenditures) to 8-9% of GDP, and the U.S. gave Israel several large supplemental security assistance packages between late 2023 and early 2026 in addition to the MOU-directed security aid.” “The net result, taking into account both much higher Israeli spending and large amounts of American aid, is that in 2024 U.S. assistance briefly accounted for more than one third of Israel’s defense budget,” IPF noted. “In 2025 this figure dropped to close to 10%, with Israel spending an estimated NIS 168 billion ($52 billion) on defense in that year.” Until recently, “Israel had been given a partial exemption” on the requirement that FMF funds be allocated for American products, the Crisis Group noted. This allowed Israel to “invest a portion of the money in its own defense industry, Crisis Group explained. “This carveout, in turn, has made Israeli firms more competitive in the arms export market.” Heavy Reliance On American Hardware Israel, which has received more than $175 billion in U.S. aid since its creation in 1948, relies heavily on American weaponry. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) tactical aviation fleet consists of U.S.-built F-15s, F-16s, F-35s and AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, among other U.S. types. Israel also made deals for a number of other platforms including KC-46A aerial refueling tankers and CH-53K heavy-lift helicopters and it uses large amounts of American precision munitions. Meanwhile, Israeli missile defense systems like Iron Dome and Arrow 3 have been developed with significant assistance from the U.S. Israeli F-35I Adir fighters. (Israel Defense Forces) A top Israeli MoD official told The Times of Israel (ToI) last month that his country wants to flip the switch to add value to the American defense industry by using its experience developing weapons as it fights seemingly constant wars. The continual threats from regional actors and terror groups allow Israel to serve as a testing ground for U.S. defense technologies, Aviram Hasson, director of the Defense Ministry’s mission to the US and Canada, explained. “Hasson pointed to engineering breakthroughs and intellectual property emerging through development of Israel’s active-defense systems, saying every US government request for technology arising from the long-range anti-ballistic missile Arrow 3 program has been fulfilled,” the publication noted. “It is clear on both sides of the ocean that this cooperation is a strategic need of both powers, not only of Israel,” Hasson told ToI. U.S. Has Paid Far More Than $4B A Year For Israels Defense Beyond direct financial aid, the U.S. has expended a great deal of resources defending Israel over the past several years. This has included defending against multiple Iranian missile barrages on Israel on top of participating directly in two wars. In addition, there were the constant drone and missile battles in the Red Sea with the Houthis, who began attacking shipping there in response to Israel’s war in Gaza. Part of the U.S. operation against the Houthis was also providing a layer of protection against long-range missile and drone launches at Israel by the rebel group. During the course of all these events, the U.S. deployed a very large number of its available warships, aircraft, and air defenses, as well as thousands of personnel, to the Middle East at great expense, both in dollars and the toll on troops and equipment. ISMAILIA, EGYPT MARCH 14: An U.S. aircraft carrier transits the Suez Canal in the city of Ismailia, Egypt, which connects the Mediterranean and Red Seas, on March 14, 2026. (Photo by Stringer/Anadolu via Getty Images) Anadolu Just this year alone, 23 U.S. troops have died and nearly 900 have been injured since the launch of Epic Fury in February. Dozens of aircraft have been destroyed and U.S. bases in the region have been partially destroyed and will take billions to repair. The U.S. has also fired off a large amount of its own munitions defending Israel from attacks by Iran and its proxies. This has contributed heavily to shortfalls in Americas own stockpiles. All told, the U.S. has spent nearly $50 billion just on the most current conflict with Iran, far exceeding the $4 billion Israel gets per year in annual direct aid. Then there is the opportunity cost of the massive wear and tear on the force and the U.S. militarys overall capacity to fight in the near and medium term due to all these engagements. All that being said, it can be argued that the U.S. had major interests in participating in these conflicts beyond just the defense of Israel. It is rarely just that simple. The Iran nuclear program, for instance, has impacts much farther than the Middle East and Israel. Still, the U.S. has poured unprecedented resources into Israels defense and these investments far eclipse the $4B being discussed today. Surprise In Israel Many Israeli government officials were caught completely off guard by the Trump announcement, according to Politico. Officials in the Finance Ministry say they were surprised by U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement that military aid to Israel would cease by the end of the year, the publication reported. “No formal document was submitted from the Prime Minister’s Office regarding the end of aid, Politico added. The ministry was aware of the intention to end it, but was surprised by the intention to do so immediately.” Officials in the Defense Ministry and the military were also reportedly surprised by the announcement, according to the Post. “We did not expect this announcement, certainly not today,” a senior defense official told Israeli media. “There is ongoing dialogue with the Americans, and we can say that we were surprised. We will study the implications of the decision, which has yet to reach professional officials,” the official is quoted as saying. Trump’s off-hand remark about U.S. aid to Israel ending “by the end of this year” triggers global “political and financial earthquake."Israel’s Finance Ministry was “entirely unaware” of the supposed plan, which Trump casually revealed earlier this morning to “Fox & Friends.” pic.twitter.com/IYh5SuifcD— Alexander Willis (@ReporterWillis) November 3, 2026 As for Netanyahu, he has yet to weigh in on Trump’s statement. However, one of his main rivals in the closely fought Israeli parliamentary election that could unseat him has commented. “The fact that Israel’s defense establishment is learning of a shift in our strategic relationship through the media, at the same time as the Israeli public, shows just how dangerous Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct is,” Gadi Eisenkot said in a statement. “He can no longer be trusted and must be replaced.” In his comments to Fox & Friends, Trump conceded that the midterm election played a role in his decision. The annual assistance to Israel is a “bad talking point” for Democrats, including Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, the president proclaimed. “The left uses the $4 billion payment … as a signal of unfairness. And we can’t allow that to happen, Trump stated. I don’t like that. … It’s almost too easy to target There are many unknowns surrounding Trump’s statement about diminishing U.S. support for Israel. The MoU, if that is what he is talking about, still has two years left, and almost $8 billion worth of anticipated funding, the vast majority earmarked for procurement of U.S. arms.  As we noted at the top of this piece, the MoU itself isnt legally binding but the aid is authorized by law and appropriated by Congress each year. Ending it early would mean Congress either not appropriating the money or changing the law. Will Congress agree to cut the deal off by December? What about the U.S. defense industry? It is unclear at the moment how, or if, this move would affect American defense contractors selling arms to Israel. These companies depend in large measure on predictability and taking this agreement off the table two years early could be problematic. It is not exactly clear at this point which U.S. arms makers will be hit the hardest by Trumps announcement. There are billions of dollars in contracts for the future procurement of aircraft, munitions and other equipment to companies like Boeing for F-15Is and KC-46As, Lockheed Martin for F-35Is and AM General for Joint Light Tactical Vehicles. While Israel has bumped up its defense budget, it is not really known at this point how it will cover these costs without that lost U.S. aid. Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post What Trumps Drastic Reduction Of U.S. Military Aid To Israel Could Mean appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: News & Features, Around The Globe, Israel, Middle East, POTUS] [Link to media]

— This Is Naval Group’s Concept For A Stealthy, Drone-Armed Future Destroyer

 

at 11/3/26 12:01pm

France’s Naval Group has unveiled the SCX26, a future warship concept exploring how large surface combatants could evolve to meet the demands of naval warfare in the coming decades. Heavily influenced by lessons from recent conflicts and emerging technologies, Naval Group describes it as a platform for testing ideas about future naval combat, rather than a design intended for immediate construction. However, it provides an interesting case study into what the next generation of destroyers could look like. A digital rendering of the SCX26 future warship concept. Naval Group In terms of the destroyer as a floating base for multiple types of drones, the potential of even smaller and cheaper drones to vastly increase the combat flexibility and overall capabilities of an advanced warship — especially when the drones can be employed in swarms — is something that TWZ has addressed in detail in the past. Key features of the new design include a stealth-focused hull, distributed sensors, a substantial missile arsenal, and a large internal mission bay for uncrewed systems. Its most distinctive features are two widely separated superstructures that also act as sensor towers and extensive facilities for operating, maintaining, and potentially even manufacturing drones. Vincent @VincentLamigeon sait prendre de belles photos du concept ship @navalgroup du SCX26 au @SalonEuronaval #Euronaval2026 pic.twitter.com/QXyr8FxIZ3— Philippe Top-Action (@top_force) November 3, 2026 The SCX26 measures approximately 558 feet long and 79 feet wide, with a reported full-load displacement of around 8,000 metric tons. That makes it considerably larger than Naval Group’s FDI frigates. These innovative vessels, which you can read more about here, have a displacement of around 4,460 metric tons. These warships are 400 feet long and are 59 feet wide. The Amiral Ronarc’h, the first of the French Navy’s new class of so-called defense and intervention frigates (FDI). Naval Group Unveiled today at the Euronaval 2026 exhibition, taking place this week in Paris, the new ship is designed for a maximum speed of 30 knots and a range of up to 8,000 nautical miles. Its proposed propulsion system is CODLAG, or combined diesel-electric and gas turbine propulsion. In contrast, the French Navy’s FDIs are capable of speeds of 27 knots, driven by a combined diesel and diesel (CODAD) propulsion arrangement.  The concept artwork shows a long, low hull with smooth sides and minimal external clutter. Its angular superstructures reflect an emphasis on reducing radar signatures, while its wave-piercing, knife-like bow recalls that of the FDI design. Extra! Extra! Inédito e exclusivo: a Naval Group revelou hoje na #Euronaval2026 o SCX26, navio conceito de 8.000 toneladas. Canhão eletromagnético, ao menos 64 células de mísseis e drones. Fotos em primeira mão: https://t.co/fgETVISAjN pic.twitter.com/yftbqq4bBV— Revista Conexão Naval (@conexaonaval) November 3, 2026 Naval Group also says the design considers detection from above, including by radar satellites, with particular attention to the upper surfaces of its superstructures. The SCX26’s most distinctive external feature is its split-superstructure arrangement. Twin-island superstructures remain a highly unusual arrangement in which a ship’s functions are divided between two separate deckhouses rather than concentrated in one. On aviation-focused vessels such as the U.K. Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth class carriers, this allows navigation and flight operations to be managed separately. The same configuration was also studied for France’s future carrier, before it settled on a more conventional design. HMS Prince of Wales at night in Norway, displaying the twin-island superstructure. Crown Copyright On the SCX26, the arrangement also distributes sensors and bridges between two structures. The forward tower is broad, with large square radar panels integrated into its faceted sides. Mer et Marine reports that the largest panels are intended for a new-generation UHF radar, complemented by a multifunction active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar derived from the Sea Fire family used on the FDI frigate. The aft tower is taller and narrower, topped by a pole mast. Separating the sensor installations could provide wider coverage, reduce blind arcs, and improve resilience by distributing critical equipment across two structures. The arrangement also supports Naval Group’s emphasis on redundancy and survivability. The choice of a UHF radar system reflects the requirement to improve long-range detection of demanding targets, including ballistic and hypersonic threats. Anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) and hypersonic weapons present some of the most demanding challenges for naval air defenses, and these types of threats are only set to proliferate. Their extreme speeds, combined in some cases with the ability to maneuver unpredictably during flight, compress the time available to detect, track, and intercept them. An infographic showing ASBM types used by the Houthis. ©2023, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, originally published on https://iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/01/houthi-anti-ship-missile-systems-getting-better-all-the-time/ (reproduced with permission) A large open deck area separates the two towers. Naval Group describes this as a flexible central zone for additional mission equipment, including modular weapons and remotely operated systems. In a video also released today, the company presented mass-launcher boxes for drones. While these are shown in the video installed on an FDI frigate, they could equally occupy this central zone on the destroyer design. #FDI Because high intensity demands high density and high flexibility. #Euronaval pic.twitter.com/FUTop05xgI— Naval Group (@navalgroup) November 3, 2026 The proposed weapons fit includes 12 Sylver vertical-launch installations: eight forward and four aft. Depending on launcher configuration, these could accommodate up to 96 missiles, including Aster 30 surface-to-air missiles and MdCN land-attack cruise missiles. Launch of an Aster 30 surface-to-air missile from an Italian warship: Naval Group also identifies options for increasing the missile capacity beyond 100, including quad-packed CAMM missiles and future Sylver NG launchers. Modern destroyers increasingly rely on large vertical launch system (VLS) arrays to carry a mixture of long- and short-range air-defense missiles, as well as other weapons. This capacity is particularly important in an era of massed missile and drone attacks, since ships have limited opportunities to replenish their missile stocks at sea and can quickly expend expensive interceptors defending against successive waves of threats. In addition to the missiles loaded in the VLS cells, the ship would also carry two multifunctional Rampart launchers for short-range missiles, guided rockets, and decoys. On the model of the SCX26 shown at Euronaval, Rampart launchers are seen on either side of the rear of the ship, just forward of the flight deck. The SCX26 concept includes several weapons that remain developmental or conceptual. Its primary gun is described as a large-caliber electromagnetic weapon capable of firing rapid salvos. A conventional 57mm gun is also included. Both these guns are housed in shrouded cupolas, helping preserve the low-observable characteristics of the warship. Electromagnetic railguns use powerful electrical currents and magnetic fields to accelerate projectiles to extremely high velocities, rather than relying on conventional gunpowder propellants. They promise long ranges, high rates of fire, and relatively inexpensive ammunition, potentially giving warships another way to engage air, surface, and land targets without consuming valuable missile stocks. So far, however, these systems have been dogged by significant technical challenges, especially when it comes to power generation and sustained operation, including barrel wear. Testing of a prototype electromagnetic railgun aboard the Japanese warship Asuka last year. This was the first time anyone successfully fired a ship-mounted railgun at an actual target vessel. Japan’s Acquisition Technology Logistics Agency Another novel weapon system for the SCX26 is a proposed 100-kilowatt laser that would be mounted high on the forward superstructure, providing an elevated field of engagement against drones, missiles, and other threats. High-energy lasers offer warships a potentially economical way to engage drones, small boats, and other relatively inexpensive threats without expending costly conventional missiles. They can engage targets at the speed of light and, provided sufficient electrical power and cooling are available, offer a virtually inexhaustible magazine compared with conventional weapons. On the other hand, their effectiveness is constrained by atmospheric conditions, range, and the need to maintain a sustained beam on the target. As a result, the SCX26 design considers the laser weapon as a supplement, rather than a replacement for traditional missiles. With an output in the 100-kilowatt class, the laser would be comparable to the U.S. Navy Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) Mk 2 Mod 0 that was installed in the San Antonio class amphibious warfare ship USS Portland in 2019, as seen in the video below: The SCX26’s aviation facilities occupy a substantial portion of the stern. A large internal mission bay beneath the flight deck would accommodate helicopters and other uncrewed aerial, surface, and underwater vehicles. A large elevator connects the mission bay to the flight deck, allowing systems to be moved between the two. As seen in the model displayed at Euronaval, the flight deck has spots for a single medium (NH90-sized) helicopter and two smaller spots for vertical takeoff and landing drones. Naval Group describes the mission bay as a small onboard drone factory, with potential additive manufacturing capabilities alongside maintenance and repair facilities and spare-parts storage. The arrangement would allow the SCX26 to carry and support a varied drone complement for intelligence gathering, surveillance, electronic warfare, strike, and other missions. The drone-centric design of the SCX26 reflects the fact that warships are increasingly being conceived as motherships for uncrewed aerial, surface, and underwater vehicles, and not just simply platforms that can be adapted to support a handful of remotely operated systems. Drones can extend a vessel’s surveillance and targeting reach, conduct electronic warfare, support anti-submarine operations, and deliver weapons, while keeping crewed ships farther from danger. The kind of asymmetric advantage that drones can provide in a maritime context is something that Ukraine has employed with notable success against the Russian Navy in the Black Sea. Naval Group ultimately envisions the SCX26 operating as a command and connectivity hub within a wider naval force, coordinating crewed vessels, aircraft, and autonomous platforms. Its proposed combat system would use a data-centric architecture, advanced processing, and artificial intelligence to manage information and coordinate unmanned systems. The ship would have a crew of approximately 150, with accommodation for another 100 personnel. The additional capacity could support an embarked command staff, drone operators, and special mission personnel. Naval Group sees automation as a way to augment the crew while enabling the ship to manage a much larger network of systems. At this point, the company considers the SCX26 as a research project rather than a production design. Already, however, its architecture has undergone substantial design work and reportedly includes model testing in a towing tank. The concept provides an indication of the company’s thinking about future surface combatants: large, stealthy platforms with distributed sensors, layered defenses, flexible mission spaces, and extensive uncrewed systems. All of these factors will be addressed as France looks toward fielding a replacement for its current Horizon class air-defense destroyers. The French Navy Horizon class destroyer Forbin transits through the Andaman Sea. U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kyle Carlstrom Whether these ideas eventually inform a future French or export warship remains to be seen. However, the SCX26 underscores the pace of change that naval warfare is undergoing, with future destroyers expected to not just be heavily armed, but to have the facilities to operate and support a large family of uncrewed systems, too. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post This Is Naval Group’s Concept For A Stealthy, Drone-Armed Future Destroyer appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Sea, Destroyers, French Navy, Navies] [Link to media]

— Prototype X-BAT VTOL ‘Fighter’ Drone Unveiled

 

at 11/3/26 11:33am

Shield AI has shared the first look at a full-scale prototype of its X-BAT jet-powered stealth ‘fighter’ drone, which is designed to both take off and land vertically from a tail-sitting position. This is the companys latest step toward proving out what remains an extremely ambitious aircraft concept. The tailless X-BAT has already received a significant vote of confidence from the U.S. Navy, which is hoping to see the drone develop into a real operational capability on a very aggressive timeline. A video showing X-BAT 001, the first of two full-scale prototypes Shield AI plans to build, was released earlier today and is seen below. The drone is in the process of being moved from the companys main hub in Frisco, Texas, to its flight test facility in Newton, Kansas. These sites are also known as X-Forge 1 and X-Forge 2, respectively. X-BAT was revealed to the public last year, as TWZ was first to report on in depth. X-BAT has already evolved significantly since its unveiling. In April, a half-scale model was displayed at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space 2026 exposition, showing major changes to the core design. The entire planform was reworked from a ‘cranked kite’ type arrangement to one with an arrowhead-shaped profile featuring a straight leading edge with a more dramatic sweep. The configuration of the X-BAT 001 prototype is broadly reflective of the model seen at Sea-Air-Space this year, as well as more recent computer renderings. However, there are some notable differences. For one, the prototypes thrust-vectoring exhaust nozzle extends significantly to the rear of the drone beyond the trailing edges of the wings. Previously shown models and renders had the nozzle in a position more inset in the rear fuselage. A side-by-side comparison of X-BAT 001s exhaust nozzle configuration, at left, and the arrangement of the nozzle seen on the half-scale model at Sea-Air-Space 2026 in April. Shield AI capture/Jamie Hunter There are also two pronounced bulges toward the rear of the central body, one on either side of X-BAT 001s dorsal spine. These do not appear to be present on any models or renderings shown in the past. Each one of the bulges also has a small opening at the front. There are two circular openings on top of the spine with mesh screens covering them, as well. Small fans may be visible inside them. The purpose of these features on top is unknown, and Shield AI declined to comment when asked for more information. They could be tied to the drones propulsion arrangement. The drones thrust-vectoring exhaust nozzle only provides pitch and yaw control. Shield AI has said in the past that bleed air routed through thrusters in the wings will be used for roll control. A top-down look at X-BAT 001, showing the bulges on either side of the dorsal spine, as well as the circular openings. Shield AI capture Various panel lines with circular edges are also visible across the top of the drone. This is distinctly different from the saw-tooth-edged paneling depicted on previously shown models and renders. Another full look at X-BAT 001 from the front quarter. Shield AI capture As an aside, the prototype also features an insignia on the top of its left wing with a skull and other motifs, which the company says is meant to pay homage to all four branches of the U.S. military. A close-up look at the skull insignia. Shield AI capture X-BAT 001 is a development aircraft, so the design will evolve as we test and refine it, a Shield AI spokesperson also told TWZ today. Shield AI had previously said that the prototype nozzle arrangement would lack low-observable (LO) attributes, but also that this would change after initial testing. From what we can see now, the experimental nozzle is well blended considering the current stage of development. Beyond that, it has what appears to be remarkably good low-observable (stealthy) optimization, especially true for a prototype. Initial examples of new designs are often cluttered with elements that are eliminated later on, like antennas and air data probes. Some of these features could be added to X-BAT 001 prior to flight testing. In an interview with TWZ last month, Shield AI’s Armor Harris, Senior Vice President and General Manager of the company’s aircraft division, had also compared the expected differences between the full-scale prototypes and production version as like X-35 versus F-35. This is a reference to Lockheed Martin’s X-35 demonstrators, which were broadly similar, but also distinctly different from the production variants of the Joint Strike Fighter. “That’s a full-scale vehicle,” Harris also stressed when talking about the configuration of the full-scale prototypes. “It’s got the outer mold line, it’s got the F110 engine, the full propulsion path, everything in it.” The propulsion path mentioned here, which includes the aforementioned exhaust nozzle and thrusters, is absolutely critical to the X-BAT concept. The design leverages past work on an Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle (AVEN), first developed in the 1990s for an experimental thrust-vectoring F-16 fighter. Shield AI has been using the original test nozzle, which had been in storage for decades, as part of the development process. No runway, no problem.Shield AI and @GE_Aerospace just cleared a critical path to vertical flight, completing engine light-off testing of the Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle (AVEN) for X-BAT.Engineers from both companies integrated the AVEN into GE Aerospaces… pic.twitter.com/OxV3y3sRKB— Shield (@shieldaitech) July 20, 2026 X-BATs ability to take off and land vertically comes down to this propulsion arrangement combined with guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) systems. The GNC elements will leverage Shield AIs experience with the much smaller, internal combustion-engine-powered, tail-sitting V-BAT. This, in turn, creates benefits from the design perspective, especially obviating the need for any kind of landing gear, and opens the door to a host of new operational possibilities. X-BAT is designed to be launched and recovered via a trailer-based system that can be deployed on land and on ships with sufficient deck space, all with a minimal footprint. “The launch and recovery vehicle is actually critical to the operation of the X-BAT weapon system because it enables survivability on the ground. So when you’re operating in a land-based environment, it enables basically shoot-and-scoot tactics,” Shield AIs Harris told us last month. “Enemy transporter-erector-launchers [for missiles] are like pretty hard to find because they’re constantly moving around. Just like X-BAT, when it’s mated onto the launch and recovery vehicle, [it] is always moving around, makes it hard to track, hard to find, hard to destroy.” A graphic highlighting various options for deploying X-BATs on land and at sea. Shield AI Land-based deployment concepts could be particularly attractive for expeditionary and distribution operations scenarios, especially in the Pacific. This is something TWZ has explored in more detail in the past. On the maritime side, Shield AI envisions X-BATs on their launch and recovery trailers – potentially dozens at a time – being embarked on a variety of ships, including amphibious warfare and expeditionary sea base-type vessels. The company notably touts the concept as offering additional air combat capacity without having to sacrifice space for crewed planes on aircraft carriers. A rendering depicting X-BAT drones on the deck of the US Navy’s future America class amphibious assault ship USS Bougainville. Shield AI “So when you think about the number of carrier air wings that the Navy has to deploy, deploying X-BAT across all these other ships basically significantly increases the number of carrier air wings,” Harris said in his interview with us in October. Once in the air, X-BAT is designed to operate as a multi-mission tactical platform capable of carrying munitions internally and on hardpoints under the wings. The drones will also be able to carry various sensors, electronic warfare packages, and other mission systems. Shield AI plans to leverage its Hivemind software to give X-BATs a high degree of autonomy when carrying out any assigned task. Those multirole abilities put X-BAT in a very different category from Air Force Increment 1 CCAs. Those are much smaller aircraft, focused exclusively on air-to-air, Shield AIs Harris wrote in an extended statement today. X-BAT is twice the size, has the capacity for air-to-ground strike missions, and carries many more sensors on board. The F110 engine with thrust vectoring also gives X-BAT a much more fighter-like flight envelope than those smaller aircraft with Williams-type engines. Before any of these operational capabilities can be demonstrated, the core X-BAT concept still very much needs to be proven out. There have been several unsuccessful attempts to operationalize broadly similar designs in the past, which Shield AI itself has acknowledged. In the past year, Shield AI has conducted “wind tunnel testing, engine testing, thermal testing, all kinds of stuff to basically take the major risks in the program, [and] burn them down, so we can move confidently into the production design,” Harris told TWZ last month. The plan for the prototypes now is to start with the vehicle horizontal, sitting on that launch and recovery vehicle, running the engine. Then we bring it up vertical, run the engine vertically, run the vehicle vertically.” “Then we have one of the biggest cranes in the world that’s getting set up at our test site in Kansas right now, and we hang the vehicle suspended from that crane and do a bunch of testing while it’s hanging from the crane in free flight,” he added. “Then we take the crane away, and then we do the actual untethered flights.” A rendering of the X-Forge 2 test facility in Kansas. Shield AI As mentioned, the U.S. Navy is already actively supporting development of X-BAT with a clear eye toward fielding the drones operationally in the future. Just this year, Shield AI has received $200 million in funding from the Navy in support of a program called Runway Independent Maritime Expeditionary Strike (RIMES). Some of this money has come via the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment. The company has also committed an equal amount of internal funding to the project. “The Department of the Navy Rapid Capabilities Office (DONRCO), in partnership with the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), is aggressively accelerating development and testing of RIMES in order to deliver a runway-independent, long-range maritime strike capability to the fleet at the speed of relevance, a Navy spokesperson told TWZ last week. Specific timelines for achieving operational capability will be determined by operational evaluations, flight-test performance, and subsequent fleet requirements. RIMES is distinct from the Navys program pursuing carrier-based Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) type drones. Shield AI has said previously that the goal is to fly a fully missionized X-BAT in 2028 and start series production the following year. The company has also raised the prospect of achieving at least a limited degree of operational capability in 2029. As we have noted in the past, X-BAT reaching any real level of operational maturity within three years is, to say the least, an extraordinarily ambitious timeline. How fast Shield AI progresses with testing of its initial prototypes, the first of which we have now seen, will speak to its ability to keep to this schedule. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post Prototype X-BAT VTOL ‘Fighter’ Drone Unveiled appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: News & Features, Air, Drones, Unmanned] [Link to media]

— Airborne Laser Weapon For Tactical Aircraft Being Developed By Germany

 

at 11/3/26 9:29am

Germany has launched a new effort to develop an airborne laser weapon. MBDA Deutschland has received a contract to build a pod-based demonstrator intended to lay the technological foundations that could lead to future directed-energy capabilities aboard Luftwaffe aircraft. The new contract is Germany’s first formal foray into airborne laser weapons, but builds on years of German investment and maritime laser weapon trials. As we have explored in the past, translating that progress into a practical aircraft-mounted weapon presents a much greater engineering challenge. While hurdles apply to lasers in general, they are particularly acute in airborne applications. PRESSEMITTEILUNG MBDA ERHÄLT AUFTRAG FÜR AIRBORNE-LASER-DEMONSTRATOR VON BUNDESWEHR: MBDA in Deutschland hat vom @BaainBw einen Auftrag zum Bau eines Demonstrators für einen luftgestützten #Laser erhalten. Ziel ist es, die technologischen Grundlagen für zukünftige Laserwaffen… pic.twitter.com/OK2lzmwDur— MBDA Deutschland (@MBDADeutschland) November 2, 2026 MBDA announced today that it had been contracted by the Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw) to undertake the development effort. The project centers on a pod-based demonstrator system, with essential components already being designed. According to MBDA, the longer-term objective is to develop an airborne laser capability that could be used to shoot down enemy drones and cruise missiles. There are other potential use cases, which we will come back to later on. An accompanying rendering also showed a pair of large, stealthy, fighter-like uncrewed aircraft with laser pods under the fuselage. MBDA rendering showing large, stealthy, fighter-like uncrewed aircraft with laser pods under the fuselages. MBDA The company described airborne laser development as the “supreme discipline” of laser weapon technology, citing the particularly demanding requirements for size, weight, and resistance to the stresses associated with flight. The announcement provides few details about the demonstrator’s technical specifications, intended host aircraft, laser output, or anticipated development schedule. No contract value or timeline has been disclosed. U.S. Air Force art depicting a future dogfight with laser weapons. U.S. Air Force The airborne demonstrator builds on a longer-running German effort to develop directed-energy technology. According to MBDA, laser technology has been considered a strategic priority for German research and development since 2019. It is also designated a key national technology under the German government’s National Security and Defense Industry Strategy (SVI Strategy). MBDA is a fairly well-established industrial partner in this effort, having worked on laser effectors and weapons for all branches of the German armed forces. The company also highlights substantial investments of its own in recent years, which it says have enabled it to advance the underlying technologies and build and test various demonstrators. An existing domestic technology base could provide MBDA with a head start in developing the airborne system. Experience with laser sources, beam control, tracking, and thermal management could potentially be carried over into the laser pod. MBDA’s airborne project builds on a substantial history of German laser weapon development. The company says it has been working on the necessary technologies since 2008, conducting successive demonstrations and technology trials. It claims to have demonstrated the functionality of a complete laser weapon system as early as 2012. A particularly important milestone came through cooperation with Rheinmetall. In 2021, the two companies received a BAAINBw contract to develop a maritime laser weapon demonstrator for the German Navy. The system was subsequently installed aboard the F124 frigate Sachsen in June 2022 and underwent an extensive series of sea trials that continued until September 2023. The MBDA/Rheinmetall maritime laser weapon demonstrator installed aboard the German Navy frigate Sachsen. Bundeswehr During six test campaigns spanning nearly a year, the demonstrator conducted more than 100 test firings against different targets under increasingly complex conditions. The trials included tracking highly agile targets, integrating sensors and command systems, and engaging targets with the high-energy laser. A drone was also successfully shot down during a demonstration. First live fire exercise of a laser weapon used by the German Navy. The Frigate “Sachsen” successfully shot down an UAV. pic.twitter.com/WG8AMfwhnw— (((Tendar))) (@Tendar) October 28, 2022 MBDA subsequently continued developing more compact and modular laser weapon configurations, seeking to move beyond the container-based demonstrator used aboard Sachsen. In September 2024, MBDA and Rheinmetall signed a further cooperation agreement aimed at developing a marketable maritime laser weapon, particularly for countering drones. However, there is a big difference between a maritime laser weapon demonstration and adapting that same technology to aircraft. The power, cooling, weight, vibration, volume, and aerodynamic constraints of airborne operations bring a very different set of engineering challenges. The attraction of an airborne laser weapon lies in its ability to engage incoming threats without expending conventional missiles, offering a functionally unlimited magazine depth as long as there is available electrical power and cooling capacity. This could be particularly valuable when facing down large waves of drones and/or cruise missiles, which, as mentioned, are the primary targets MBDA is envisioning for a future podded airborne laser weapon. The increasing proliferation of relatively inexpensive longer-range one-way attack drones is already driving particularly significant demand for new, lower-cost anti-air intercept options and greater magazine depth. The transformation of the 70mm laser-guided Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rocket, originally designed for air-to-surface attacks, into a highly effective counter-drone weapon that aircraft can carry in large numbers is a prime example of this. A US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle carrying a load of 42 APKWS II rockets in six seven-shot pods, as well as traditional air-to-air missiles. CENTCOM The other potential use cases for a podded airborne laser weapon, as well, include attacking targets on the surface. In this mode, lasers offer the additional benefit of being silent and largely invisible to the naked eye, creating additional dilemmas for opponents who may not know where an attack is coming from. Still, this would be very limited to certain types of soft targets, if any at all. Furthermore, crewed and uncrewed aircraft could also use laser pods for protecting themselves or other critical aerial assets against incoming threats, such as surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles. Drones with these pods could also potentially be able to shoot down missiles streaking toward high-value assets like airborne early warning aircraft, tankers, and other platforms. At the same time, as we have discussed in the past, putting a high-energy laser aboard an aircraft presents a difficult combination of power, weight, thermal-management, and optical-control requirements. The system must accommodate the laser, its power-generation and conditioning equipment, cooling systems, beam director, tracking sensors, and associated electronics within a relatively constrained package. Waste heat is a particularly important consideration. High-energy lasers generate considerable thermal loads, which must be removed without compromising the weapon or the aircraft’s other systems. Concept art from Lockheed Martin showing a notional sixth-generation stealth fighter firing a high-energy laser weapon. Lockheed Martin An externally mounted pod must also withstand aerodynamic loads, vibration, acceleration, and temperature variations. Its optical system must maintain precise beam alignment despite aircraft movement and vibration. Atmospheric conditions introduce another limitation. Moisture, dust, and turbulence can absorb, scatter, or distort laser energy, reducing the amount reaching a target. Operating at altitude would offer some advantages, but it does not eliminate these effects and is not ideal for many drone and cruise missile targets. Ultimately, a laser’s nominal power rating tells only part of the story. Beam quality, tracking accuracy, engagement range, atmospheric conditions, and the dwell time required to achieve a kill at various distances are equally important. Germany’s effort comes as the U.S. military continues to reassess several high-profile directed-energy programs. American laser weapon initiatives have encountered significant difficulties moving from technology demonstrations toward operational deployment. The Air Force’s Self-protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD) program was intended to develop a podded laser weapon capable of protecting fighter aircraft against incoming missiles and possibly engage other kinds of targets. Despite considerable development work in recent years, the program ended quietly and unceremoniously without achieving its central objective of demonstrating a complete laser weapon aboard a fighter aircraft. Members of the SHiELD program and the Boeing contractor team inspect the newly arrived SHiELD pod in February 2021. Boeing Another ambitious effort, the Airborne High Energy Laser (AHEL) program, sought to equip the AC-130J Ghostrider gunship with a directed-energy weapon. This would be used against targets on the ground, a potential mission for a future fighter-mounted pod, too. The AHEL effort also encountered technical difficulties, and plans to test the system aboard the aircraft were abandoned. A rendering depicting an older AC-130U Spooky II gunship employing a laser along with its other weapons. U.S. Air Force The Army’s 50-kilowatt Directed Energy Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (DE M-SHORAD) program has likewise highlighted the difficulties of integrating high-energy lasers into operational military platforms, particularly in terms of thermal management, power requirements, and reliability. The Army has since had more success with lower-powered LOCUST systems in the counter-drone role, prompting Marine Corps and Navy interest, too. Meanwhile, the Army and Navy continue to push ahead on higher-powered lasers for ground- and ship-based applications. These experiences underscore the fact that successfully engaging selected targets under controlled conditions is worlds apart from delivering a reliable combat capability. For the German Defense Ministry and MBDA, the most important milestones will be demonstrating that the laser, beam director, tracking system, power supply, and cooling equipment can operate together within a practical airborne package. Subsequent flight testing and engagements against representative targets would then provide a much clearer indication of its potential. Germany’s designation of laser technology as a strategic priority since 2019 indicates that the new contract forms part of a longer-term effort to build national expertise in directed-energy weapons. The German effort comes amid a broader international push to develop directed-energy weapons, with ground-based and naval systems generally further along than airborne applications. In Europe, the United Kingdom is preparing to install its Dragonfire laser aboard a Royal Navy destroyer, while Germany, the Netherlands, and other NATO countries are pursuing laser systems for countering drones and other aerial threats. A Dragonfire night shot during tests on the U.K. Ministry of Defence’s ranges in the Hebrides, Scotland. Crown Copyright China is also investing heavily in directed-energy technology, including mobile ground-based systems and naval lasers. These efforts reflect growing interest in using lasers to counter increasingly numerous and inexpensive threats, but they also highlight the gap between successful demonstrations and reliable operational capabilities. For Germany, there is a lot of work to be done to bridge the gap between industrial investment, technological demonstrators, strategic prioritization, and deployable, reliable weapons. The experience of U.S. programs provides a reminder that the path from promising laser demonstrations to dependable operational systems is far from certain. MBDA and the Bundeswehr have taken another step toward an airborne laser capability. But before an airborne laser pod gets close to being fielded, Germany has to overcome the many challenges that have complicated similar efforts elsewhere. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post Airborne Laser Weapon For Tactical Aircraft Being Developed By Germany appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Air, Airborne Directred Energy Weapons, Around The Globe, Europe, Germany, News & Features] [Link to media]

— A Nuclear Strike On Iran? It Sounds Absurd Because It Is. Let’s Talk About It

 

at 11/2/26 5:49pm

On Sunday evening, commentator Tucker Carlson made a chilling claim: U.S. President Donald Trump may soon use nuclear weapons against Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain facility. Carlson’s comments were posted on X just two days ahead of the Nov. 3 U.S. midterm elections, which Trump has frequently used as a timeframe for when he would conduct a new wave of airstrikes on Iran if he so decides. However, earlier on Monday, Trump downplayed that deadline, answering no when asked by reporters whether he was considering attacking after the election is over. Regardless, Carlsons claim runs counter to the presidents previous stance on the nuclear weapons issue. Trump has publicly eschewed their use, and while he has discussed attacking Pickaxe Mountain, he’s made it clear it would be by a conventional weapon if he made the call. Monday afternoon, the White House dismissed Carlsons asssertion. President Trump has a wide range of options available regarding Iran, and he will do what is right to keep the American people safe, a White House official told us. Tucker Carlson lost his way long ago due to a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and he has no insight into military planning or the Commander-in-Chiefs thinking. We dont know the source of Carlson’s information or if it is in any way accurate. Carlson has experienced a major rift with Trump and has said plenty of shocking things in recent years, especially in regard to Trumps second term and the war with Iran. Still, he is a very connected figure in right-wing media. Regardless, as TWZ editor-in-chief Tyler Rogoway noted on X, even conjecture that has gone viral about the potential use of a nuclear weapon for the first time since the U.S. bombed Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945, merits discussion. It would have such profound and irrevocable repercussions that it should not be ignored. We addressed the same concerns in regard to Russia and Ukraine in 2022. A dense column of smoke rises more than 60,000 feet into the air over the Japanese industrial port of Nagasaki, the result of an atomic bomb, the second ever used in warfare, Aug. 9, 1945. (Courtesy of the National Archives/Newsmakers) National Archives “If a nuclear weapon were used on [Pickaxe Mountain] in Iran by the US or Israel or an empty field in Ukraine by Russia etc, it doesn’t matter, it would open up Pandora’s box and would make the U.S. and the world dramatically less safe,” Rogoway stated. “This isn’t even a question of how big of a disaster the use, in any manner, of a nuclear weapon would be. It would represent the largest foreign policy error ever by the United States if we were involved. We can only hope this claim isn’t accurate in any way.” “And I have no idea if this claim has merit, but this is important nonetheless,” he added in his X thread. “It is massively viral on my X feed. It has to be addressed.” If a nuclear weapon were used on Pick Axe mountain in Iran by the US or Israel or an empty field in Ukraine by Russia etc, it doesn’t matter, it would open up Pandora’s box and would make the U.S. and the world dramatically less safe. This isn’t even a question of how big of a…— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) November 2, 2026 Pickaxe Mountain, a very hardened Iranian facility also known as Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, is located in central Iran. As we have noted previously, it is deeply buried and would be a very difficult target to effectively destroy. In the past, Iran has openly discussed plans to produce centrifuges to support its nuclear enrichment efforts at the newer facility located there. It is also estimated to be large enough to house an actual enrichment plant, as well as other nuclear infrastructure, but exactly what is inside remains unconfirmed. Our previous reporting provides deeper insights into Pickaxe Mountain and Iran’s possible intentions for it. Irans Pickaxe Mountain facility. (Satellite image ©2026 Vantor) What Carlson said “Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran,” Carlson stated on X. “The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place.” “The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one,” the commentator added. “‘Bibi calls Trump about it every day,’ says an informed observer. Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war.” What Trump has said about using nuclear weapons We dont need it. Why do I need it?” Trump responded in April when asked if he would use nuclear weapons against Iran. “Why would a stupid question like that be asked? Why would I use a nuclear weapon where weve totally in a very conventional way decimated them without it.  A nuclear weapon should never be allowed to be used by anybody, he added. The American leader reiterated that stance in August. “They’re totally defeated militarily, so I defeat them, and now I should use a nuclear weapon on top of them? What a stupid question,” Trump responded on Aug. 31 when again asked by a reporter if he would use nuclear weapons against Iran. Still, Trump sparked concerns about whether he would use nuclear weapons when he threatened to obliterate Iran in April in a social media post. A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” Trump stated on his Truth Social site. “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.” Several experts we spoke with downplayed the chances that Trump would order a nuclear strike on Pickaxe Mountain, but they did not completely rule it out. “Is it likely? No, Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA) and publisher and contributor for the organization’s monthly journal, Arms Control Today, said when we asked if he thought Trump would order a nuclear strike. “Is it possible that an unstable desperate president who has sole authority to authorize nuclear weapons use, would do so, yes. Given the situation, it is crucial that responsible U.S. voices and international leaders speak out against a massive U.S. strike on Iran of any kind.” “That is highly unlikely,” Hans Kristensen — director, Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists, explained to us. He also writes the bi-monthly Nuclear Notebook and the world nuclear forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook. “There is nothing at all in Iran that justifies breaking the 81-year absence of nuclear weapons use. It would be a violation of the international Laws of War, have devastating consequences for U.S. foreign policy and the efforts to prevent proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons. It would be the kind of act where one would hope the people in the nuclear chain of command would refuse to carry out the president’s order.” “I honestly don’t know that anyone knows that Trump will or won’t do, including Trump,” Stephen I. Schwartz, nonresident senior fellow at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, told us. “ for many years, often without prompting, he has spoken with a mix of wariness and awe about the tremendous power of nuclear weapons. But he has also publicly and repeatedly threatened to utterly annihilate North Korea, Afghanistan, and Iran. So, really, who knows?” What weapon could the U.S. use if Trump ordered a nuclear strike? As we have reported in the past, the B61-11 is the only air-delivered nuclear weapon in the U.S. stockpile today that is specifically designed to address this target set.  “The B61-11 is based on the earlier B61-7, but is substantially different in form and function. It has a heavily reinforced outer shell, possibly with a depleted uranium penetrating nose section, and a rocket booster at the rear to help it penetrate down into underground facilities. Sources differ on the maximum yield of the B61-11, but it is said to either be between 340 and 360 kilotons (identical to that of the B61-7) or to be closer to 400 kilotons. There are also reportedly fewer than 100 of these bombs in the stockpile.” The first B61-11 versions entered service in the 1960s. We have written extensively about the entire family of these weapons. An example of the B61-11, or more likely an inert version thereof. This is the only specialized air-delivered deep-penetrating weapon known to be in the U.S. nuclear stockpile today. (Public Domain) Given the yield of the B61-11, “one could probably do the job” of rendering Pickaxe Mountain unusable, Kristensen told us. “The collateral damage from 400 kilotons would be considerable; even if some very deep structures potentially survived, the damage to the overall infrastructure — plus the residual radiation in the soil — would probably make the site unusable. Other potential options include more conventional penetrator attacks to take out access points and accessible infrastructure, or potentially cyber attacks to sabotage or disable equipment and functions.” “I think there are many non-nuclear options the United States and/or Israel could utilize to prevent Iran from restarting its nuclear weapons program (if, indeed, Iran has made a decision to do that),” argued Schwartz. “That would include using guided conventional bombs to target any entrances to the facility, impeding efforts of personnel to gain access and also complicating/preventing the movement of any materials out of the mountain.” “Using an ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] would not be a good option,” he added. “For one thing, any ICBM would have to fly over Russia to reach Iran, which would be risky in more ways than one, even if Putin somehow agreed to allow that to happen. For another, ICBM warheads are not designed to penetrate the earth, at least not to any significant depth, so the force of the explosion would largely be ‘wasted’ on the surface, with everything that implies about lethal radioactive fallout. (Using an SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic missile] from a Trident submarine stationed closer to Iran would avoid the overflight risks but would also still be perceived as a threat by Russia and perhaps China after launch, even if we notify them in advance. But W76 and W76-1 warheads are not earth-penetrators, and I doubt we would want to use a 455-kiloton W88, our largest ballistic missile warhead, also not a deep earth-penetrator.) The W88 Alt 370 arming, fuzing, and firing assembly. (NNSA) Israel has a nuclear weapons program that it does not publicly acknowledge and can deliver warheads via its Jericho ballistic missiles, some tactical jets and maybe even submarines. Its possible a special operations forces teams could attempt to raid the facility, access its interior and place a nuclear device inside it, although such a mission would be immensely challenging and extremely risky. We have also talked about the possibility of irradiating the facilities from the inside without using a nuclear warhead, but instead planting and detonating a kind of dirty bomb. There are many other ways to do it, including one on a Jericho BM, or even raiding the place and planing a device inside. We have talked about even irradiating the interior for years.— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) November 2, 2026 What are the alternatives to nuclear weapons? As we noted earlier in this story, Trump has brought up the issue of conventional weapons to attack Pickaxe Mountain. In July, he said it was ripe for a “nice big fat shot right in the front door.” At the time, we discussed how difficult it would be to effectively destroy or render inoperable a hardened, deeply buried facility like Pickaxe. For years, experts have talked about the likelihood that the main caverns under the mountain are beyond the reach of even the largest known conventional bunker buster bomb in U.S. inventory, the 30,000-pound-class GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). The MOP was developed, at least in part, specifically to hold underground facilities in Iran at risk. Construction at Pickaxe Mountain, especially in the past five years, is a clear response to U.S. threats. MOPs were the centerpiece during the June 2025 Operation Midnight Hammer strikes, with 12 being dropped on Fordow and another two on Natanz. To get at the actual targets at Fordow, six MOPs were dropped on two specific ventilation shafts, with each successive bomb burrowing deeper down into the complex below. This underscores the challenges that would be involved in attempting a similar operation against Pickaxe Mountain. It is unclear how many MOPs the U.S. has left or whether there are enough to have the same kind of effects on Pickaxe Mountain as they had on Fordow and Natanz. We also dont even know if any features of the installation, like the ventilation shafts, even exist there to be exploited. CBS News reported last month that the White House and Pentagon “have prepared plans to use a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb [MOAB] to hit military sites in Iran,” including Pickaxe Mountain, “if ordered by President Trump.” However, the 22,000-pound-class MOAB, also designated the GBU-43/B, is not a deep-penetrating munition, its a fuel-air bomb, and it was not immediately clear from that story how the weapon might be employed. The bomb is also only known to be currently cleared for employment via C-130-type aircraft. It has only been used in combat once, in Afghanistan in 2017, where the skies above were entirely permissive.  The MOAB sitting on its pallet. The weapon is released out of the rear cargo ramp of a C-130. (DoD) MOAB’s use case would be limited against sites like Pickaxe Mountain. While its unique overpressure effects could harm any personnel exposed inside tunnel systems that are open to the outside world, it is unlikely to destroy or even heavily damage the hardened facilities themselves. It could cause damage to external support infrastructure and act as a psychological weapon in its own right, but it is not a bunker buster in any way. As mentioned earlier, although for a nuclear weapon insertion mission, a much more dangerous option for American forces would be sending U.S. troops directly into Iran to secure and destroy the facility. “Special Operations Forces [SOF] could render the site off-limits, at least for a time, but that would be a much riskier operation,” Schwartz noted.  We addressed the SOF option earlier this year in an interview with former U.S. Central Command commander Joseph Votel, who discussed the enormous challenges of putting boots on the ground so deep into Iranian territory. We have frequently discussed the complexities, and pros and cons of a commando raid on an underground nuclear facility. In a 2024 raid on a Syrian underground missile site, Israeli special operations forces used explosives they brought with them in order to blow up the underground facility, including sophisticated machinery, from inside. Still doing this deep in Iran could require a relatively large force and an operation that could last days and would include occupying and defending a key area within the country as teams try to access the caverns. It depends on just how accessible and defended Pickaxe Mountain is. The fallout dangers of using a nuclear weapon against Iran The B61-11 “would dig up and disperse into the atmosphere large amounts of radioactive material,” Kristensen told us.  He pointed to the results he derived from the NUKEMAP nuclear weapons explosion effects simulation site to offer a sense of what could happen. “A surface burst would, depending on wind conditions, spread debris nearly 300 km downwind,” he explained. “Perhaps further, because the simulation calculates a surface bust, while the B61-11 would penetrate a few meters into the rock and therefore increase the fallout issue.” A screenshot of a simulation of effects of a U.S. B61-11 nuclear bomb if dropped on Pickaxe Mountain. (NUKEMAP) If highly enriched uranium was stored underground, it would be hard to determine what would happen to it in such an attack, Kristensen added. “It depends on how the attack is carried out,” Kristensen noted. “It could potentially be entombed or some of it could be lifted up into the atmosphere.” “U.S. politicians and some civilian military leaders have, since the first Gulf War, periodically and misleadingly claimed that earth-penetrating nuclear weapons can safely and reliably destroy deeply-buried and hardened underground targets with no significant consequences above ground,” Schwartz proffered. “Nothing could be further from the truth, for the simple reason that earth-penetrating nuclear weapons have to, you know, penetrate the earth. That leaves a hole out of which radioactive dirt and gases will spew following any nuclear explosion (as happened more than once at the Nevada Test Site during the Cold War, when nuclear test shafts thought to be properly and fully stemmed or sealed failed, releasing vast and dangerous amounts of radioactive debris, contaminating both the test site and areas downwind.”) 55 years ago this morning, BANEBERRY—a 10-kiloton, weapons-related, underground nuclear test 912 feet beneath the Nevada Test Site—accidentally vented, releasing 6.7 million curies of radioactive debris, including 80,000 curies of iodine-131, the second largest venting in US history. (THREAD)— Stephen Schwartz (@atomicanalyst.bsky.social) 2025-12-18T13:30:48.030Z “The larger the explosion, the larger the venting,” Schwartz added. “Depending on which way the winds are blowing, downwind of Pickaxe Mountain could include Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.” What about the geopolitical fallout? In his X post, Carlson offered a blunt assessment of the geopolitical ramifications of a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran. “An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent,” he stated. “The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable.” As we have frequently reported, Putin has rattled the nuclear saber against the West as well as in Ukraine since the early days of his full-on invasion of that country. “The United States has, Republican and Democratic administrations alike, worked hard to ensure that the achievement of no nuclear weapons use since 1945 is continued,” Kristensen told us. “If the Trump regime were to break that taboo, especially in a situation where there is no imminent or executed Iranian nuclear threat to the United States or its allies, it would turn the United States into the nuclear pariah. It would threaten political relations with allies that have also worked to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. And, yes, if the United States were to break the taboo, other nuclear armed states would feel less inhibited — Putin included.” “If Trump decides to attack Iran with nuclear weapons in a purely preventive war of choice (with Iran presenting no imminent or probably even short-term threat, making such an attack illegal under international law), it will almost certainly unleash both global condemnation (apart from Israel) and a new wave of nuclear proliferation that will be extremely difficult if not impossible to stop,” said Schwartz. “That would be highly counterproductive for the United States and its allies. And while I am not an economist, it’s not hard to imagine there will be severe and negative global economic repercussions as well.” The sentiments expressed by the nuclear experts echo what Rogoway stated on X. “The potential game trees for many potential hotspots around the globe post use would be so terrifying its hard to comprehend,” he wrote. “All the softer levers the U.S. once had to deter such a thing, which has been effective for the better part of a century would vanish. Proliferation would explode. The U.S. would likely no longer be a superpower beyond its military capabilities and likely short-term wealth. [Every] ounce of moral highground would evaporate. The entire world would be on the brink by default.” He also stated that this would quickly destroy key alliances. The potential game trees for many potential hotspots around the globe post use would be so terrifying its hard to comprehend. All the softer levers the U.S. once had to deter such a thing, which has been effective for the better part of a century would vanish. Proliferation…— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) November 2, 2026 We have no direct information about whether Trump is even contemplating the use a nuclear weapons against Iran or not. However, a discussion of the wide-ranging ramifications of such an unprecedented act is a worthwhile exercise, especially in these uncertain times, and even more so if this possibility has actually been floated within the administration. Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post A Nuclear Strike On Iran? It Sounds Absurd Because It Is. Lets Talk About It appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Nuclear, Air Launched Nuclear Missles, Around The Globe, Iran, Iran Nuclear Crisis, Middle East, News & Features, Nuclear Bombs, Nuclear Proliferation, POTUS] [Link to media]

— Counter-Drone Laser Weapon Now Guarding Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Alongside SAMs

 

at 11/2/26 3:54pm

At least one AeroVironment LOCUST laser counter-drone system is part of the array of anti-air defenses that have popped up around President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, in recent weeks. Versions of LOCUST have been seeing steadily increasing use within the U.S. military in recent years, including deployments now along the border with Mexico. Though there has been much progress in the development of practical laser directed-energy weapons in recent years, the technology has continued to face hurdles to more widespread adoption. The LOCUST system at Mar-a-Lago, which is mounted on a 44 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), is seen in two pictures that Gettys Andrew Harnik took on October 31. When exactly the laser-directed energy weapon was deployed is unclear. Laser Wars was the first to spot the system in one of Harniks pictures and confirm its deployment. Harniks main focus was a pair of Humvee-based AN/TWQ-1 Avenger short-range air defense systems on a floating platform in Lake Worth Lagoon near the edge of the estate, which were first deployed there just over two weeks ago. Additional Avengers have also been positioned around Donald J. Trump International Airport, which is situated some three miles to the west. The U.S. military has also set up elements of Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System Fly-Away Kits, including Ku-band radar, electronic support measures (ESM), jammers, and 360-degree infrared search and track systems nearby. TWZ covered the presence of the Avengers and the Fly-Away Kits in a report last Friday. The JLTV-based LOCUST counter-drone laser system can be seen here, at right, between two palm trees. Two Humvee-based AN/TWQ-1 Avenger short-range air defense systems are also seen, at left, on a floating platform. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images A stock picture of a JLTV-based LOCUST system. AeroVironment This heightened security comes amid signs that a new round of major hostilities with Iran could be on the horizon, as well as the run-up to tomorrows mid-term elections. The regime in Tehran has threatened Trumps life on several occasions over the years. The President has already been the subject of several domestic assassination attempts and threats. “At the request of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) and under NORAD [the U.S.-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command] and USNORTHCOM [U.S. Northern Command] authorities, NORAD and USNORTHCOM recently deployed ground-based air defense [GBAD] assets and Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System capabilities in and around Mar-a-Lago, Florida,” the commands told us in a statement last week. “These assets add a complementary layer of technology to enhance protection. Due to operational security, we are unable to provide additional details. For further detail, we refer you to the USSS.” “The U.S. Secret Service is operating in a heightened threat environment, and we continuously adapt our protective operations to incorporate cutting-edge tools, technology, and methods to safeguard our protectees,” the Secret Service also told us in a prior statement. “At the request of the U.S. Secret Service, NORAD and U.S. Northern Command are providing Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System capabilities in support of our protective operations.” The U.S. Army began receiving the JLTV-based versions of LOCUST, along with examples mounted on the smaller 44 Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) last year through a program called the Army Multi-Purpose High Energy Laser (AMP-HEL). This followed the delivery of palletized LOCUST systems under a rapid prototyping effort called the Palletized-High Energy Laser (P-HEL) in the early 2020s. The Army is now acquiring LOCUST X3 systems under its Enduring-High Energy Laser (E-HEL) program. LOCUST has become something of a star more broadly within the directed energy space across the U.S. military. The U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy have also been exploring the use of versions of LOCUST in ground-based and shipboard contexts. A close-up look at the turret on an earlier palletized version of LOCUST acquired by the Army. US Army To date, all versions of LOCUST consist of a turret with the laser beam projector, as well as built-in electro-optical and infrared video cameras for target acquisition and tracking. The complete system also includes power generation and cooling components. LOCUST variants can also be cued using offboard sensors, including small-form-factor high-frequency radars and passive radio frequency signal detection systems on host vehicles or located off-platform nearby, like what the Fly-Away Kit provides. One of the Armys ISV-mounted LOCUST systems. Note the small form factor radars on top of the cab, as well as at the rear of the vehicle. US Army The stated power rating for LOCUST varies from version to version, with the latest X3 being a 30-kilowatt type. Though the system is categorized as a high-energy laser, this is at the lower end of the power spectrum for weapons of this type, and it is explicitly geared toward the countering small drones mission set. Layering LOCUST in with other hard- and soft-kill counter-drone and air defense systems in a potentially high-threat area, as we are seeing now at Mar-a-Lago, makes good sense. A promitional image showing a JLTV-mounted LOCUST X3, as well as a stand-alone configuration of the system. AeroVironment As mentioned, Mar-a-Lago is not the first time a LOCUST has been deployed in a real-world context. In 2022, the Army confirmed the operational deployment of two P-HEL systems to unspecified foreign locales. Earlier this year, JLTV- and ISV-based AMP-HELs have appeared along the border with Mexico. One of the systems was part of the chain of events that led to the shutdown of airspace around El Paso, Texas, in February. That incident, in turn, prompted the Pentagon to craft a new agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding the use of laser directed energy weapons within the United States. A JLTV-based LOCUST system seen deployed somewhere near the border with Mexico. US Army As TWZ has written in the past: In general, laser directed energy weapons offer the promise of functionally unlimited magazine depth, as long as there is sufficient power and cooling capacity. They also present a drastically lower cost-per-intercept proposition compared to traditional anti-air interceptors. This is all advantageous for engaging drones, particularly smaller and cheaper designs that can still present very significant threats. The dangers posed by uncrewed aerial systems are only set to grow as networked swarming and automated targeting capabilities, enabled by advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning, become more accessible. Defenders already face real risks of just being overwhelmed by attacks involving volumes of drones. At the same time, a laser like LOCUST can only engage a single target at once. Lower-powered lasers need to dwell on their targets for a longer period of time in order to cause significant damage by burning a hole in them, as well. This limits the number of targets a single system can engage in a given window of time. In addition, the power of any laser beam drops as it propagates through the atmosphere further and further away from its source. Weather and other environmental factors like smoke and dust can also distort the beam and reduce its power. All of this only adds to the aforementioned dwell time. Adaptive optics, and just more power overall, can help produce useful effects at greater distances, but laser weapons continue to have short ranges, typically measured in handfuls of miles, as a general rule. The Army, as well as other branches of the U.S. military, have repeatedly acknowledged challenges in fielding laser directed energy weapon systems. Sensitivity to vibration, humidity, dust, and sand, as well as fragile optics and cooling demands, have all created further complications for operating and sustaining these systems in real-world environments.  A picture that the Army released in 2022 of quadcopter-type drones damaged during testing of P-HEL systems. US Army Army officials just recently touted the benefits of laser directed energy weapons like LOCUST, while also acknowledging again that there is still work to be done at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual convention last month. “Lasers are real. We can do it. We can go out. We can shoot things,” Kirk Williams, Chief Engineer at the Army’s Directed Energy Project Office, another one of the panelists, said. “But what we got to do now is make these systems reliable enough so that the soldiers have the faith in them when they need them, and that’s really the main point that we’re trying to go after right now.” “We’re getting to the point where the systems are reliable enough, but we still have to make them maintainable and repairable because this is an Army system,” he continued. “It’s going to be on a battlefield. Things are going to break. We can break things in very creative ways, right? So if it’s not reliable, or if it’s not maintainable, if it’s not repairable, that’s a problem.” At least one LOCUST system is now participating in a very high-profile mission to help protect President Trump. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post Counter-Drone Laser Weapon Now Guarding Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Alongside SAMs appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: News & Features, Counter-Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (C-UAS), Directed Energy, Land, Lasers, POTUS] [Link to media]

— New CB90 CX Is Bigger, Optionally Crewed Evolution Of Saab’s Proven Combat Boat

 

at 11/2/26 11:50am

Saab is taking its well-established CB90 combat boat in a notably more ambitious direction, introducing a larger, optionally crewed version that’s intended to do much more than ferry troops and conduct raids. The new Combat Boat 90 Capability X (CB90 CX) is being developed as a multi-mission combat platform capable of carrying sensors and weapons for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), anti-surface warfare, and short-range air defense (SHORAD). The new boat represents a significant evolution of a design that has been adopted by naval forces around the world for littoral operations. Compared to the original design, however, the CX adds greater payload capacity, updated onboard systems, and the ability to operate with or without a crew. A rendering showing the CB90 CX in its initial three mission versions, from left to right: anti-surface warfare, ISR, and SHORADS. Saab Saab says the CB90 CX is currently in production for Sweden, which will be the launch customer, with 36 craft under contract for the Swedish Amphibious Battalion. With the Swedish Armed Forces, the new boat will operate alongside the existing, smaller CB90 NG rather than immediately replacing it. Swedish attack divers of the Stockholm Amphibious Regiment perform an exercise with a CB90 at naval station Berga, Sweden, on May 7, 2024. Photo by Ida Marie Odgaard / Ritzau Scanpix / AFP / Denmark OUT The development reflects several broader shifts in naval warfare, including the use of smaller combatants to contribute directly to the fight rather than simply transport personnel or support larger ships. At the same time, the ability of the CB90 CX to operate without personnel on board is indicative of the rapid advances being made in the uncrewed surface vessel (USV) space. “The future of naval operations is not just about having more platforms; it is about distributing greater combat capability across the force,” Anders Hellman, head of Saab’s Docksta business unit, said in the announcement. Hellman also pointed to recent operations in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the Red Sea to highlight the kinds of areas and missions the CB90 CX has been designed to face. In the Baltic, this includes protection of critical infrastructure as the threat from Russia continues to grow. In the Black Sea, Russia and Ukraine have been engaged in extensive naval warfare, increasingly using USVs to undertake missions including attacks on shipping and against ground targets, as well as SHORAD. Finally, the Red Sea has seen USVs, aerial drones, and cruise missiles attack commercial shipping, with the sheer volume of these strikes putting traditional naval air defenses under extreme pressure. U.S. Navy sailors watch a CB90 from aboard the Wasp class amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge on June 5, 2022, as the ship makes its way from Stockholm to the Baltic Sea to participate in the BALTOPS 22 exercise. Photo by JONATHAN NACKSTRAND/AFP via Getty Images The baseline CB90 has already established its reputation through a combination of speed, maneuverability, and the ability to operate in confined coastal waters. While developed specifically with Swedish naval operations in mind, it has also been adopted by close to a dozen navies around the world. Among its operators, U.S. Navy examples are designated as the Riverine Command Boat. More unusually, Russia has fielded a locally developed clone of the CB90 design, known as the Raptor class. The CB90 CX keeps those features but combines them with a larger hull and increased payload capacity, meaning it can accommodate a wider range of mission systems and weapons. The ability for the CX to operate as an optionally crewed boat is derived from Saab’s proprietary Autonomous Ocean Core system. The company has not yet disclosed the full details of the autonomous operating modes but says that human supervision will be required as part of the decision-making process. Saab also says that every CB90 CX will come with the option of autonomous operations, with the decision falling upon the operator, based on the particular mission requirements. A standard CB90 with Saab Barracuda marine camouflage netting. Saab Clearly, the combination of a larger platform and autonomous operation opens up a range of possibilities for employing the boat in situations where putting a crew at risk may be undesirable. The CX is also designed to operate across a wider range of sea states. In terms of specifications, the CB90 CX has an overall length of 59 feet, compared to 54.5 feet for the CB90 NG variant. It is powered by a pair of 1,100-horsepower engines driving waterjets, giving a maximum speed of over 40 knots, at which it can travel for more than 300 nautical miles. In crewed configuration, it can carry up to 10 personnel. The ISR variant is designed to provide enhanced situational awareness across multiple domains. It incorporates Saab’s Giraffe 1X X-band 3D surveillance radar, which can detect and track threats in the air and on the surface, out to a range of over 62 miles against aerial targets. The radar is mounted on a 36-foot extending mast to increase its range over the horizon and in littoral zones. CB90 CX ISR variant with radar mast folded down. Saab The anti-ship warfare configuration is intended to provide over-the-horizon strike capability against surface vessels. Saab has shown a rendering of this version armed with a pair of MBDA’s Marte ER anti-ship missiles in angled canisters. Marte ER is a lightweight, long-range missile designed to be deployed from a wide range of platforms, including aircraft, coastal batteries, and smaller naval vessels. It has a range of over 62 miles and operates on a sea-skimming ‘fire-and-forget’ principle, guided by an active radar seeker. The missile can also be employed against land targets, a capability that Saab doesn’t explicitly mention. However, Marte ER is just one option for the CB90 CX, and Saab has confirmed that Sweden will arm the boats with a different, undisclosed missile. CB90 CX ISR variant with radar mast folded down. Saab Furthermore, both the ISR and anti-ship versions are armed with a 12.7mm or 30mm Trackfire Remote Weapon Station for self-defense. Trackfire Remote Weapon Station on a standard CB90. Saab The SHORAD configuration, meanwhile, is designed to address the growing threat posed by drones. It will employ Rheinmetall’s Seasnake 30mm autocannon, giving the boat a dedicated close-range air defense role. As well as drones, the gun, which has a nominal maximum rate of fire of 1,100 rounds per minute, can be used to engage helicopters, and it has a secondary role against surface targets, including USVs. CB90 CX anti-surface warfare variant with Marte ER missiles. Saab The latter capability is particularly notable as navies increasingly face the challenge of defending themselves against relatively inexpensive drones that can threaten even sophisticated warships. Rheinmetall’s Seasnake 30mm autocannon. Rheinmetall Beyond these three initial mission variants, Saab says it is developing an option to launch drones from the CB90 CX. Both tube-launched drones and quadcopters are being examined. Torpedo armament is also planned as an option. The broader concept behind the CB90 CX involves the distribution of sensors and weapons across a larger number of smaller, more flexible platforms, which may or may not be crewed. Operators could employ multiple CB90 CX boats in complementary roles. ISR-equipped boats could help detect and track threats, while anti-ship variants provide additional strike options, and SHORAD-equipped boats help protect the force against aerial threats. Operating together, the different configurations could create a more distributed and more resilient combat fleet, particularly in coastal environments where geography, island chains, and confined waterways complicate operations. Furthermore, the optionally crewed version would allow the boats to operate in higher-risk areas or undertake missions that would otherwise expose personnel to unacceptable danger. The ISR variant, in particular, could be of use in a scenario like the current crisis with Iran, for instance. Vessels equipped with the Sea Giraffe radar could form a picket line across the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and Gulf of Oman to detect incoming drones and cruise missiles, and also provide data on surface movements. A counter-drone variants could be used for force protection. The idea that these could even be uncrewed makes such an application even more attractive considering the threats posed to vessels in this region and especially in or near the strait. For Sweden, the introduction of the CX alongside the CB90 NG means that a more capable combat boat can be introduced alongside the smaller platform, which remains useful for more traditional troop transport and raiding party missions. Soldiers from the Swedish Amphibious Corps on a CB90 during the exercise Archipelago Endeavor 23 at Mallsten Island in the Stockholm archipelago on September 13, 2023. Photo by JONATHAN NACKSTRAND/AFP via Getty Images The CB90 CX also represents an effort to expand the utility of the basic design out of its traditional littoral environment and into a more demanding and increasingly complex operational environment. At the same time, broad commonality with the CB90 NG should make the new design more attractive to established customers. The company has not yet disclosed a timeline for deliveries but says the first boat for Sweden is now undergoing final acceptance trials. Saab has also confirmed it aims to produce the CB90 CX alongside the previous CB90 NG, making use of a new production site to handle expected demand. While the original CB90 made its name moving troops around the littorals, the CX is an altogether more ambitious development. At the same time, Saab will face competition from a growing number of USVs and optionally crewed boats, as these vessels continue to proliferate and be adapted for more roles. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post New CB90 CX Is Bigger, Optionally Crewed Evolution Of Saab’s Proven Combat Boat appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Sea, Around The Globe, Baltic Sea, Europe, News & Features, Special Warfare, Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs)] [Link to media]

— New X-Plane To Be Announced At Max Power Airshow: NASA Administrator Isaacman

 

at 11/2/26 11:15am

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman says a new X-plane will be announced at the Max Power exhibition at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida this coming weekend. He insisted, however, that this is unrelated to an SR-71 Blackbird that mysteriously disappeared from public display earlier this year. Isaacman also deflected a direct question about that SR-71 and the possibility that it could fly again, quipping that were just cleaning it, man. Isaacman made his new remarks about the SR-71 that had been on display, commonly referred to by the tail number 844, and NASAs broader X-plane plans on a new edition of NASASpaceflights The Flame Trench podcast, which was posted online last Friday. 844 had been on display at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center, which is co-located at Edwards Air Force Base in California, following its retirement in 1999. This particular SR-71 had been the last flying Blackbird. SR-71 tail number 844 seen in NASA service in the 1990s. NASA I gotta ask, has 844 been powered on yet? Eric Johnson, a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics educator and streamer, who was also on the podcast, asked Isaacman. So, were just cleaning it, man, Isaacman said in response, with a smile and a small laugh. It was so dusty out there in the desert, and it just felt like it needed a cleaning. "Were just cleaning it man"Amid speculation that it could be returning to flight, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman teases to NSF that NASA is "just cleaning" their SR-71 Blackbird pic.twitter.com/t8uBwaK4s1— NSF NASASpaceflight.com (@NASASpaceflight) November 1, 2026 The possibility that NASA has at least been exploring returning an SR-71 to flight in some configuration has been a hot topic of discussion since September. At a conference that month, Isaacman appeared to tease that possibility, or that his agency was eyeing a follow-on of some kind, with cryptic remarks and an image of a distinctly Blackbird-like silhouette. The matter of the missing SR-71, as well as reports that NASA has been courting former SR-71 program members for a return-to-flight effort, subsequently emerged. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman showed this image during a presentation last week while talking about plans for new X-planes. NASA Since I didnt answer your question that you asked before, I will give you some insight that we will announce a new X-plane at it [Max Power], and it is not the one youre thinking about, the NASA director said in an ensuing discussion on the podcast about that event, which is set to kick off on Saturday. I am gonna deliver on the promise there will be more X-planes. Isaacman has openly pledged to revitalize NASAs X-plane portfolio on several occasions, including during a town hall with NASA staff on just his second day on the job in December 2025. While on The Flame Trench podcast, Isaacman also noted that he had just been out to Armstrong recently, primarily to mark the naming of Troy Asher as the facilitys new director. They know to speed up when we go past the outdoor museum. They definitely dont want me out – the head of NASA said of that recent trip, before Johnson interjected with a tongue-in-cheek remark that they didnt want him cleaning more planes, right? I was like, is there anything else? Isaacman added immediately afterward. You know the F-16 VISTA, pretty cool plane. Got some cool jets. The F-16 VISTA mentioned here is the Variable Stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft, a heavily modified two-seat F-16D Viper fighter that is now designated as an X-plane, the X-62A. The X-62A is in active U.S. Air Force service as a testbed based at Edwards. NASAs museum at Armstrong does have several other retired jet-powered X-planes on display, including a delta-winged F-16XL and an X-29 with its distinctive reverse-swept wings. The X-62A VISTA test jet. USAF A stock picture of the X-62A VISTA test jet. USAF A satellite image taken in 2018 showing SR-71, tail number 844, as well as other retired X-planes, on display outside of the Armstrong Flight Research Center in California. Google Earth As noted, Isaacman is an outspoken advocate for new X-planes, including types that could be capable of supersonic or even hypersonic flight. This has been reflected in NASA budget proposals and the prior announcement of a new Aeronautics Flight Accelerator (AFA) initiative. At the aforementioned conference in September, Isaacman had also pushed back on the idea that the silhouette he had shown in his presentation was of an SR-71, despite it having a host of features in line with the Blackbirds iconic shape. He declined to elaborate further at that time, but did say that NASA is getting back in the business of flying high and fast again. “NASA has a long history of building and flying experimental aircraft that push the boundaries of what is possible, NASA told TWZ at that time when asked for more information. As Administrator Isaacman has said, we want to see more X-planes flying in the years ahead, developing the technologies that will allow us to fly higher, farther, and faster than we have in decades. We look forward to sharing more as those efforts progress. “NASA has a long history of pushing the boundaries of experimental aviation, and we continue to explore opportunities to build on that legacy, the agency told us again following the initial story on the disappearance of 844 from Aviation Week. As Administrator Isaacman has said, we want to see NASA flying higher, farther, and faster than we have in decades. We recognize the interest in the SR-71 and its remarkable history at NASA but have no additional information to share regarding the aircraft at this time. TWZ has reached back out to NASA today in light of Isaacmans latest comments. SR-71 tail number 844 during its service with NASA. This picture was taken on October 31, 1997, during a flight in support of the NASA/Rocketdyne/Lockheed Martin Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE). NASA There do continue to be significant questions about the viability and practicality of returning even one SR-71 to flight, as we have detailed in our previous reporting. At the same time, getting a Blackbird flying again could be seen as being worth the cost and complexity given the unique high-flying, high-speed testbed the aircraft would offer. This entire discussion comes at a time when very high-speed flight is back in vogue, particularly within the U.S. military, but also in Americas commercial aviation sector. One of the reasons why there’s interest in this speed regime, it was neglected for a number of years. The focus was on hypersonics. If you proposed anything going back, say, 15 years in the Mach 3.5 speed regime, it was ignored, Tim Conners, an engineer who worked on the SR-71 program at NASA, told us in an exclusive interview published last month. The glitz and glamour was on hypersonics. Hypersonics is great tactically for certain scenarios, but the weaknesses of hypersonics are now becoming apparent. And as far as countermeasures, hypersonics still has a place. Don’t get me wrong, but every system cannot be hypersonic from an affordability standpoint. So, now you’ve seen it over the last, say, five years. A lot of systems are coming back on the scene that operate in the Mach 2 to Mach 4 regime, and there’s a reason they’re all fitting in there, right? Conners, who is now technical director for advanced weapons systems at Tiberius Aerospace, continued. You stay below the speed limit that requires more exotic metallics. You stay in the titanium regime. You can fly, of course, up to [Mach] 3.5 with brief excursions up to about [Mach] 4, so that is tactically relevant against a lot of military targets and defensive systems. So here it is. You know we now have a potential flying test bed that can carry engines in the J58 size class. They probably are not going to do this for — or trying to do this — for aerodynamic reasons. You can do CFD [computational fluid dynamics]-based modeling in this speed regime all day long and very accurately in this day and age. It does not take a lot of time or money to do that, he also added. What you cannot do is an accurate representation of a new type of engine integrated into a high-speed airframe. You can do the conceptual modeling of it. Of course, it’s difficult to get the final installed answer, especially if it involves an engine that operates at long duration. That is where I think they’re going with this. I believe that they’re developing basically a high-speed engine test bed. That would make the most sense to me. TWZ has also laid out in detail how the process itself of making an SR-71 flyable could be immensely valuable, including for informing follow-on developments. As we have noted in the past, it is possible that what NASA is doing with 844 now could be intended as a stepping stone to a new X-plane. There is also a potential for the aircraft to re-emerge in a substantially reworked form, potentially configured for pilot-optional or even completely uncrewed operation. However, any such conversion effort would be a different kind of major undertaking. An SR-71 undergoing maintenance. NASA How any of this may or may not relate to the plans for the new X-plane that Isaacman mentioned remains to be seen. Even within the context of high-speed flight, NASA is publicly pursuing advanced technology developments in various different directions. The main face of the agencys X-plane work currently is the X-59 Quiet SuperSonic Technology (QueSST) jet, which has now flown 41 test flights since taking to the skies for the first time in October 2025. The X-59, which will also be present at Max Power, has been able to reach a top speed of Mach 1.53 and get up to an altitude of 56,000 feet in the course of that testing. The central goal of the QueSST program is to prove out technologies that could eventually enable commercial supersonic flight over land with a substantially reduced sonic boom. With this in mind, the X-59 has been in no way designed for the kind of extreme speeds the SR-71 is capable of reaching. One year. New heights. Faster speeds. Since its first flight on Oct. 28, 2025, NASAs X-59 has continued pushing the boundaries of aviation.See how far weve come in just one year!https://t.co/N7ew2vnCtI#NASAaero #Quesst pic.twitter.com/FApl6F9gnY— NASA Aeronautics (@NASAaero) October 28, 2026 Max Power is turning into a big exposition. I think youre going to have a lot of stuff on display there, from space to VTOLs [vertical takeoff and landing designs], [and] drones. And for sure an air show will be a component to it, NASAs Isaacman said on The Flame Trench podcast. From here forward, we might be trying to make a run at putting some real infrastructure on that next to that runway [at the Kennedy Space Center], and trying to create our own kind of Paris/Farnborough type, Dubai type, event here. Isaacman was referring here to the Paris Air Show, Farnborough International Air Show, and Dubai Airshow, all of which are major biennial events that aerospace firms globally routinely use as showcases for new developments. In the meantime, what we do know now for sure is that we are set to get details about at least one new NASA X-plane this coming weekend at Max Power. There may also be new hints about what the future holds for SR-71 tail number 844. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post New X-Plane To Be Announced At Max Power Airshow: NASA Administrator Isaacman appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Air, Manned ISR, NASA, News & Features, Space, SR-71] [Link to media]

— These Are The U.S. Weapons Most At Risk In The Looming Rare Earths Supply Crisis

 

at 11/2/26 9:40am

A new report from the think tank founded by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt quantifies the grim realities of the U.S. defense industrial bases dependence on China for critical rare earth minerals. It also details which weapons systems might face the most impact if that delicate supply relationship breaks down. The white paper, exclusively obtained from the Special Competitive Studies Project, uses AI intelligence from the supply chain tech firm Exiger to assess how many unique components, identified by National Item Identification Number, or NIIN, contain critical minerals, such as antimony, gallium, germanium and tungsten. Americas arsenal depends on a steady flow of rare earths, and especially its most advanced weapons. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech Sgt. Thomas Barley Tech. Sgt. Thomas Barley From an assessment of almost nine million parts and 3,000 U.S. military weapon systems, the company identified more than 28,000 unique components  across 1,400 weapons systems containing just these four rare earths. The isolation of these parts is relevant in particular because of a near-term crisis: the expiration of a suspension on Chinese export controls set to take effect in November. Disruption to weapons fielding plans, as well as operational readiness and sustainment activities, according to the white paper, is very much a possibility. Yet according to Kit Conklin, chief strategy and global affairs officer at Exiger, the crisis is already here.  In an interview with TWZ, he pointed to Japan, which is facing the prospect of a manufacturing halt after China choked off supply of some rare earths to the tune of more than 80% earlier this year. Theres no question that right now its a crisis for a lot of companies that are trying to get licenses approved by China and just not getting the licenses, Conklin said. So theres real risk to current production, and when I think about us and scaling, whether its the drone industrial base or trying to scale our interceptor capacity to 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 interceptors a year, I mean, these are real choke points that we have that are impacting our ability to deliver these to the warfighter right now. Among the weapons systems most at risk for supply chain and manufacturing disruption, according to the data, is the vital Virginia-class submarine, which requires more than 300 critical NIINs containing the four elements, including 190 parts requiring germanium. USS Virginia (SSN 774), the leader of the Virginia class that serves as the backbone of the U.S. Navys fast attack submarine force. U.S. Navy photo by General Dynamics Electric Boat U.S. Navy Germanium, used in optics, night vision systems, EO/IR equipment and more, is a byproduct of zinc ore. In January, the Pentagon announced an $18 million investment in the countrys only germanium production facility in St. George, Utah to expand refining capacity sevenfold to more than 20 metric tons annually by an unspecified deadline. China controls some 68% of the worlds refined germanium. It has a far greater chokehold on gallium, used in semiconductors and solar cells, and especially advanced radars, controlling up to 99% of production. Each Virginia-class sub requires 50 unique parts containing gallium. China controls about half the production of antimony, used to harden ammunition and to manufacture optics and electronics; and up to 80% of the supply of tungsten, used in manufacturing tools, warheads and heat-resistant components. While it doesnt break down components by weight, the report notes that the rare earth requirements for the Virginia-class sub are also considerable by mass: each sub required 9,200 pounds of the elements, while an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet requires 900 pounds. Special Competitive Studies Project The Virginia-class submarine is America’s only in-production fast-attack nuclear-powered sub that has been in service since 2004. Twenty three of these critical vessels are in service today, or roughly half of the total planned program, with the remaining boats yet to be built. Its notable in the context of the paper because it has multiple points of exposure to supply chain disruption. Another of these exposure points: its 1,700 mission or safety-critical parts requiring casting, forging or extrusion. As the report lays out, supply chain bottlenecks around limited metal casting, forging and extruding capacity are delaying production timelines and putting manufacturing at risk. China, again, produces about half of the worlds casting output and is often the sole option for large castings, the paper found. The analysis shows that more than half, or nearly 8,000, unique supply items containing steel castings have delivery lead times of more than 36 weeks. More than 9,400 items containing extruded aluminum, about 47% of these parts, have lead times that long. A large metal casting for a port crane. Voestalpine Foundry Group Virginia-class submarines, already threatened by U.S. reliance on China for critical minerals, are reportedly also three years behind schedule, potentially due in part to the lack of domestic large-scale casting capacity, the report finds. An analysis of Navy construction timelines published earlier this year does indeed find that 10 of the 12 Virginia subs now under construction face delays of 36-44 months. Alarmingly, a recent war game simulation found that the U.S. could not replace ships, planes and missiles lost to combat specifically due to casting and forging shortfalls, the report notes. Thats despite a $2 billion Pentagon initiative launched in 2024 aimed at revitalizing this industry. Beyond submarines, the report shows that aircraft, including some of the nations workhorse fighter jets, face outsized production and sustainment risk due to rare-earth elements and casting/forging dependencies. The B-2 Spirit bomber – the nations only nuclear-armed stealth bomber until fielding begins on the B-21 Raider sometime next year – requires 782 parts containing the four rare-earth elements isolated in the report. Special Competitive Studies Project The F/A-18 Hornet family of fighters flown by the Navy and Marine Corps, including the Navys Growler electronic warfare variant, tops the list for dependency on steel castings, with 3,800 individual parts requiring the process. Following is the KC-135 Stratotanker, with 2,570 parts. All 10 of the systems requiring the most metal castings for production are aircraft, the analysis shows. The legacy Hornet and the KC-135 have been out of production for decades, while the Navys Super Hornet will see its production line go cold in 2027. Any ongoing demand for castings for these systems would thus be in spares and repair parts.  Special Competitive Studies Project Military aircraft also represent the highest-need category among weapons systems requiring cadmium plating, a process used to make aerospace components corrosion-resistant.  The domestic supplier base has shrunk due to EPA safety limitations established in 2008. All of the top 10 weapons systems requiring the most cadmium-plated parts are aircraft, with the KC-135 topping the list with 2,780 unique components. The C-130 Hercules transport, B-52 Stratofortress bomber and Galaxy C-5 transport all have more than 2,000 parts. Special Competitive Studies Project The B-52, which is undergoing a service life extension to take it into the 2050s – past its century mark – may run into modernization delays not only over cadmium-plated and steel-casted components, but also due to overly rigid military specifications, which increase lead time and delays. The white paper cites the bombers rib airfoil and fuel vent valve components, which both have lead times of more than 400 days due in part to production being burdened with dozens of mil-spec compliance requirements, which the authors say have not kept pace with todays commercial practices. The requirement for a part to meet so many mil-specs, if not reasonably necessary, may limit the number of possible suppliers of that part, potentially increasing its lead time and bottlenecking production, they write. For the B-52, this could inhibit current modernization efforts intended to keep the airplane operational through the 2050s. A B-52H Stratofortress undergoing programmed depot maintenance is towed into a hangar at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, July 28, 2025. U.S. Air Force photo by Paul Shirk Paul Shirk A final risk the paper addresses is workforce shortages and dangers from limited suppliers creating single points of failure. Across defense, the number of small suppliers has decreased by 43% in the last decade, it notes. It cites, as a case study, the February 2025 fire that forced the closure of SPS Technologies in Jenkintown, Penn. – a fastener maker that produced components for more than 1,000 weapons systems and was deemed critical for 90, including the Nimitz-class carrier, the F/A-18 fighter and the M1 Abrams tank. For systems including the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile and the MH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, the facility was a single-source supplier. With operations offline until at least 2028, the supply chain has been actively disrupted due to the outage of just one facility, according to the paper. This case underscores the risk of single sourcing in the defense industrial base and the need to qualify alternate sources to avoid such significant chokepoints, the authors write. The paper hails work that has already begun to invest in domestic critical minerals production and shore up the defense industrial base. But it does hint that these efforts may be too late to avoid a crash if China shuts off or severely reduces exports. The paper notes that, on average, it takes the U.S. 29 years to open a new mine. The U.S. has one established domestic mine: The Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility, just outside of Las Vegas. Initially established in 1952 and reopened in 2018 after a long hiatus, it now produces more than 50,000 tons of rare earth oxides annually. Last year, for the first time in seven decades, a new domestic rare-earth mine opened in Wyoming, stating plans to start producing ores extracted from coal, including gallium and germanium, by 2029. Production is projected to total 456 tons of rare earths per year. The project had been in development for more than a decade before opening.  The Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility. MP Materials Conklin said a July executive order aimed at developing domestic production of rare earths while collecting data on what elements systems required created opportunities for smart policy creation – perhaps in the next National Defense Authorization Act – around holistically attacking the problem.  I would love for us to figure out a way to get out of thinking about these supply chain risks system by system. We tend to have disparate requirements to look at the nuclear triad or subs or interceptors, he said. I think with the executive order that came out earlier this year, theres a real opportunity for Congress to legislate on some of these issues beyond just figuring out what the risk [is] for antimony in the sub industrial base, and thinking about it a little bit more holistically. One potential solution he proposed: an agency within the executive branch (led, perhaps, by a critical minerals czar) who can coordinate production needs and resourcing and develop the most efficient pathways to secure needed materials. There are few weapons that are not impacted by the scarcity of robust sources for rare earths. RTX While no U.S. defense manufacturer has yet publicly cited manufacturing disruptions due to rare earth availability, signs are increasing that the federal government is taking supply concerns seriously. In addition to Project Vault, a $12 billion White House initiative announced in February that would create a strategic stockpile of rare earths akin to existing stockpiles of critical medical supplies and petroleum, the U.S. Army has begun extending long-term leases on military land to companies seeking to build critical mineral processing facilities. Conklin said he doesnt anticipate major changes in rare earth exports between now and the end of the year, describing the U.S.-China supply relationship as in a bit of a détente. That said, with new policies pending, we could be only days away from new revelations about the extent of the impact of these materials on the defense manufacturing enterprise. Contact the editor: Tyler@twz.com The post These Are The U.S. Weapons Most At Risk In The Looming Rare Earths Supply Crisis appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: News & Features, Air, Around The Globe, B-2, B-52, Bombers, China, Indo-Pacific, Nuclear Attack Submarines (SSNs), Sea, Submarines, Virginia Class] [Link to media]

— Surface-To-Air Missiles Deployed To Protect Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Estate

 

at 10/30/26 6:19pm

U.S. Army Humvee-based AN/TWQ-1Avenger short-range air defense systems (SHORADS) have been set up near President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, as well as at Donald J. Trump International Airport, about three miles to the west. The Avengers were deployed about two weeks ago amid heightened concerns about the president’s safety. Iran threatened Trumps life long before he ordered the joint attack with Israel on the Islamic Republic in February. Airstrikes wiped out much of Iran’s senior leadership structure at the onset of Operation Epic Fury. Now the American leader is mulling over plans to renew attacks on Iran as early as next week. In addition, Trump has been the target of assassination attempts and threats not connected to Iran. There may also be elevated security concerns surrounding the midterm elections. Officials would not provide any specific reasons for the presence of the SAM systems when we asked. “At the request of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) and under NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] and USNORTHCOM [U.S. Northern Command] authorities, NORAD and USNORTHCOM recently deployed ground-based air defense [GBAD] assets and Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System capabilities in and around Mar-a-Lago, Florida,” the commands told us in a statement. “These assets add a complementary layer of technology to enhance protection. Due to operational security, we are unable to provide additional details. For further detail, we refer you to the USSS.” The U.S. Secret Service is operating in a heightened threat environment, and we continuously adapt our protective operations to incorporate cutting-edge tools, technology, and methods to safeguard our protectees, the Secret Service told us. At the request of the U.S. Secret Service, NORAD and U.S. Northern Command are providing Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System capabilities in support of our protective operations. NORAD/NORTHCOM declined to say what kinds of ground-based air defense assets are involved or where they are set up. However, Getty Images photographs show two Avenger systems set up on a floating platform in Lake Worth Lagoon on the Mar-a-Lago shoreline and one on the beach. Avenger air defense systems seen at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, on October 16, 2026, ahead of President Donald Trumps first landing at the newly renamed President Donald J. Trump International Airport. (Photo by Christopher Beckett/NurPhoto) Christopher Beckett There are also at least two Avengers at nearby Trump International Airport. A military service member stands atop an AN/TWQ-1 Avenger air defense system on the tarmac near a C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft at President Donald J. Trump International Airport (DJT) in West Palm Beach, Florida, on October 15, 2026. (Photo by Christopher Beckett/NurPhoto) Christopher Beckett The command did confirm to us that it sent its Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System Fly-Away Kits to support these operations. These are rapidly deployable systems to react to drone threats or ongoing incursions consisting of passive and active sensor systems, such as electro-optical and infrared cameras, Ku-band radar, and electronic support measures, to help spot, classify and track drones. Electronic warfare systems can also be deployed as part of these fly-away kits. A NORTHCOM/NORAD counter-drone Fly-Away kit. (U.S. Military) The Avenger is a turreted system with two launchers, each capable of holding four Stinger heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles. The Stinger missiles they fire have been upgraded to deal with drones. Avengers are meant for point defense of forces on-the-go but have also played a major homeland defense role since 9/11. One is even hard-mounted on a rooftop near the White House for air defense purposes. The deployment of these systems illustrates just how seriously the U.S. Secret Service is taking the threat of drones. Drone technology, including first-person view types and those equipped with fiber optics, is rapidly proliferating around the world and Iran has been both a user and distributor of these weapons. The Islamic Republic has long-range kamikaze drones, which could be a particular threat, especially considering Trumps estates close proximity to the sea, which offers a most likely launch option. Its also worth noting that traditional aircraft are also a threat and the Stingers are capable of dealing with them too. An Army Avenger air defense system stands ready during a NORAD Temporary Flight Restriction enforcement mission in Bedminster, New Jersey, Aug. 9, 2026. (U.S. Air Force photo by Lt. Col. Andrew Scott) Lt. Col. Andrew Scott These assets are meant to augment the NORAD-enforced temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) over the Mar-a-Lago airspace. There is a standing TFR that runs through Oct. 20, 2027. Additional ones are created when Trump visits the area. The Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) imposed over Mar-a-Lago. (FAA) “More than 160 planes and drones have breached the airspace over Palm Beach since the restrictions took effect in October 2025, according to an Aug. 11 FAA filing in federal court” that was first reported that month by the Palm Beach Daily News. The most recent publicly announced incursion took place Oct. 24. “A NORAD F-16 fighter aircraft intercepted a general aviation aircraft over Palm Beach, Florida, at approximately 12:20 p.m. EST today after the aircraft entered a NORAD-enforced FAA Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) area over Mar-a-Lago,” the command stated in a media release at the time. “After the fighter jet executed a standard headbutt maneuver to gain the pilot’s attention, the civilian aircraft established communication and safely exited the restricted airspace in full compliance with flight instructions.” These combat air patrols (CAPs) are standard for presidential visits. Even when Trump is at Mar-a-Lago for days, there are usually CAPs flying overhead, which are extremely resource-intensive, as we explained in a previous story about one that took place during Trump’s first term. The deployments of Avengers to Florida mark at least the second time since August that these systems have been used to protect Trump. Avengers were seen on Aug. 9, when Trump was attending the final round of the LIV Golf Bedminster tournament at his New Jersey golf course. In that situation, NORAD told us that when deployed to assist the Secret Service in protecting POTUS, the Avenger systems are operated by the 263rd Army Air and Missile Defense Command. The command today declined to say if that is the case with the current deployments. On Aug. 1, the White House shared a video of Trump talking with soldiers at Bedminster. In the background was an Avenger. .@POTUS visits with our great military armed forces in NJ pic.twitter.com/ee5jqRLfTW— Margo Martin (@MargoMartin47) August 1, 2026 Trump, as we noted earlier in this story, has already been the subject of several assassination attempts and threats. The most notable came on July 13, 2024, at a campaign event in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a man fired a shot at Trump, then the Republican presidential nominee. Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, was killed, and a bloodied Trump was whisked away. U.S. Secret Service agents remove Republican presidential candidate former president Donald Trump from the stage with blood on his face during a campaign rally at Butler Farm Show Inc. in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday, July 13, 2024. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images) The Washington Post Prior to those attempts, Iran made a golf-related threat against Trump. An image highly suggestive of a drone targeting the then-former President Trump on a golf course in a “vengeance” strike in retaliation for the death of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was posted on Twitter by an account for Iran’s then-Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The U.S. military killed Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq in January 2020, which had already prompted public threats from Iranian officials, including against Trump specifically. Twitter suspended the @khamenei_site account around 15 hours after the post when the image first appeared on Jan. 21, 2020. Khamenei himself was killed Feb. 28 during the opening night of Operation Epic Fury. An X account tied to Iran’s former supreme leader posted this image of a drone looming over Donald Trump as he played golf. (X) There has been extreme concern for Trump’s safety following the launch of that operation, with an Iranian revenge hit on the president being more plausible now than ever. This has triggered major changes in safety protocols, some of which have made headline news. Alarms were raised earlier this month after U.S. intelligence found Iran has substantially increased its efforts to target American diplomats and officials in the Middle East and beyond, with lethal plots reaching advanced stages,' Axios reported, citing an Oct. 23 memo to Secretary of State Marco Rubio the outlet obtained. The Avengers are the most visible indication of increased efforts to protect Trump amongst threats that are unlikely to recede anytime soon. Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post Surface-To-Air Missiles Deployed To Protect Trumps Mar-a-Lago Estate appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Land, Counter-Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (C-UAS), News & Features, POTUS, Short-Range Air Defense Systems (SHORADS)] [Link to media]

— Stealthy GJ-21 Drone Has Launched And Recovered From Type 076 Amphibious Assault Ship, China Claims

 

at 10/30/26 3:32pm

A GJ-21 stealthy flying-wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV) has successfully launched from and recovered aboard the Type 076 amphibious assault ship Sichuan, according to Chinas Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). Visual confirmation of this milestone has yet to emerge, but there have been steady signs of preparations for flight trials from the Sichuan, which features an electromagnetic catapult. GJ-21s have already been spotted flying from airfields on land. A picture of a GJ-21 drone that previously emerged online. Chinese internet The GJ-21 and the land-based GJ-11 Mysterious Dragon it is based on are prime examples of Chinas major investments in UCAVs and other flying-wing-type drones. These developments stand in particular contrast to the U.S. military’s eschewing of such designs, at least publicly. This is despite significant past U.S. achievements in this arena, including in the development of carrier-based UCAVs. The PLA Navy (PLAN) now looks to be on track to be the first country to field an operational capability of this kind. A stock picture of the Type 076 amphibious assault ship Sichuan. PLA China’s first ship-borne stealth reconnaissance and attack drone GJ-21 recently made its first successful take-off and landing on [the Type] 076 amphibious assault ship, the Sichuan (Hull 51), according to a post today from the China Military Bugle account on X, an official PLA mouthpiece. This is another significant breakthrough in the development of Chinas amphibious assault ship, indicating that the Chinese Navy now has the capability to operate fixed-wing stealth drones from large maritime combat platforms. At the time of writing, neither the PLA nor Chinese state media have shared where or when these trials occurred or provided any other additional details, including how many total launches and recoveries were conducted. No official pictures or videos from the testing have been released so far. A graphic that accompanied the post on the China Military Bugles account on X regarding the GJ-21 and the Type 076. PLA/China Military Bugle Unconfirmed claims that a GJ-21 had been launched from Sichuan had already begun circulating on social media earlier this month. As an aside, the GJ-21 is readily discernible from the land-based GJ-11 by the catapult bar on its nose landing gear strut. Two interesting Type 076 News:2. Via Temstar/SDF:"Yankee confirmed on tonights Chahuahui that 076 has launched a GJ-21. He said it in a very straight forward way too, basically "you guys can stop guessing, I can tell you straight: yes they launched a GJ-21"." pic.twitter.com/ODkl6Kki9A— @Rupprecht_A (@RupprechtDeino) October 15, 2026 A review of satellite imagery from Planet Labs does show Sichuan was at its usual berth at Hudong-Zhonghua in Shanghai as of October 13, but absent four days later. When exactly it left port is unclear. The one-of-a-kind Type 076 does not appear to have returned until October 26. TWZ has also obtained a satellite image of Hudong-Zhonghua taken just today from Vantor, with the ship still seen sitting at the pier, as seen at the top of this story and below. GJ-21 drones, or more likely mockups thereof, have also been present on the pier for some time. The Type 076 amphibious assault ship Sichuan at the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard on October 10, 2026. What is widely assessed to be a mothership for large uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUV) is also seen at right. Satellite image ©2026 Vantor Even while Sichuan was still under construction, there were growing signs that a navalized version of the GJ-11, as well as other uncrewed platforms, would be major components of its future air wing. With its electromagnetic catapult and notably large overall size, the Type 076 is unlike any other big-deck amphibious warship in service today globally, as TWZ has previously explored in depth. A pair of apparent GJ-11 mockups at a test and/or training site on Changxing Island in Shanghai in May 2024, near where the Type 076 was under construction at the time. Google Earth As mentioned, there have been further signs that the PLA has been preparing Sichuan for real launches and recoveries, especially of GJ-21s, since last year. Pictures emerged online in October 2025 showing a red-colored test ‘truck’ on the ships flight deck, indicating the start of catapult testing. Video from those tests has since been released. Weighted trucks like this have long been used to test catapults on aircraft carriers during construction or following maintenance. The Type 076 left port for the first time in November 2025. 小紅車上線了 pic.twitter.com/zrptPDwu2X— 飞刀 (@chaoyinsukandao) October 28, 2025 Weighted carts catapult test on Type 076 LHDthree lines marked directly under and outside the wheels of the Red cart to ensure it is centeredthe parallel alignment markings flanking the catapult slot serve as visual tips for precise positioning https://t.co/KJkC2ZrLgS pic.twitter.com/pZa0Vx56jG— David Wang (@DavidWangPLA) August 1, 2026 Two GJ-21 aircraft were displayed at the victory parade in September 2025, reportedly having entered PLAN service in mid-2025, according to Andreas Rupprecht, an expert on Chinese aviation and contributor to TWZ. By late 2025, several GJ-21 aircraft were reportedly undergoing simulated EMALS launches and arrested landings at the PLAN’s land-based facility at Huangdicun. In February of this year, GJ-21 mockups were spotted on Sichuans flight deck and riding on the ships port-side elevator to the hangar deck as part of what appeared to be deck-handling trials. After the first Type 076 LHD/LAH "Sichuan" was seen yesterday with a GJ-21 UCAV mock-up on deck, the GJ-21 was seen for the first time with its wings folded and later lowered to the hangar deck on one of the elevators. (Images @鼎盛大彪 from Weibo) pic.twitter.com/eMyz2QLHQX— @Rupprecht_A (@RupprechtDeino) February 1, 2026 More recent satellite imagery had shown that the Type 076s flight deck had received additional markings in line with progress toward real flight operations. Fittings for three arresting cables also became plainly visible. Those cables are also notably depicted in the graphic that the China Military Bugle shared online today. The arresting gear fittings as seen in the October 30, 2026, satellite image from Vantor, at left, as well as how they are depicted in the graphic from the China Military Bugle. Satellite image ©2026 Vantor/PLA The GJ-21 will of course not be the only aircraft in the Type 076s future air wing. The ship is also expected to carry a variety of other uncrewed aircraft, as well as crewed helicopters. China has shown a range of other combat drone designs in recent years. Navalized versions could well be developed for deployment on Sichuan, as well as PLANs growing fleet of traditional carriers and other suitable configured vessels. Loading the Type 076 with operational UCAVs would only underscore the significance of this particular ship. As we have previously written: “The potential value to the PLAN of having a fleet of very large deck amphibious assault ships that are highly capable of large-scale drone operations as well as traditional amphibious assaults is clear. These ships could be used to launch and recover UCAVs like the GJ-11 and other types of drones to perform a host of missions from maritime strike to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). They could be used to provide additional ‘mass’ in support of the operations of larger carrier strike groups and help to free the air wings of flattops like Fujian up for tasks they might be better suited for. In addition, they could provide a lower tier of naval aviation support that could be employed independently.” … “Simply having more naval aviation capacity overall would give the PLAN added flexibility for various operations closer to the mainland, including a potential military intervention against Taiwan or defending its expansive and largely unrecognized territorial claims in places like the South China Sea. Type 076s could also help project naval and air power further from China’s shores, something that has also been a driving factor behind the country’s broader carrier ambitions.” … “The Type 076 could help provide support during humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations. Big deck amphibious warfare ships, in general, provide their operators with immensely valuable platforms for projecting both hard and soft power.” Last year, the PLA separately confirmed that the GJ-11 had entered at least limited operational service. That followed a steady ramp-up in testing of that drone based on what could be seen in satellite imagery and video clips that had emerged online. This included evidence of near-daily flights at Malan Air Base, a major hub for testing uncrewed platforms. GJ-11s had also been spotted at an operational air base in China’s Tibet Autonomous Region. New video out from the Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) of China shows the new GJ-11 stealth drone (UCAV), and also the J-20 stealth fighter firing a live PL-15 air-to-air missile: pic.twitter.com/wraDqyMOht— The STRATCOM Bureau (@OSPSF) November 11, 2025 As mentioned earlier, the continued development of the GJ-11 and GJ-21 are reflective of the PLAs broader pursuit of stealthy flying-wing drones, which is not limited to UCAVs. Several larger designs that look most immediately suited to high-altitude, long-endurance ISR missions have also broken cover in the country in the past few years. There is something of a trend in this regard globally, with Russia, India, Turkey, and France also pursuing flying-wing drone designs. The U.S. military continues to be markedly absent from this space, at least that we know, despite major investments and real demonstrations of relevant capability, before various programs were abandoned for reasons that still remain largely unclear. In the late 2010s, the U.S. Navy notably looked to be right on the edge of fielding a carrier-based UCAV, before changing course entirely to an uncrewed tanker instead. There are some signs now that the service may be taking another look at the capabilities it passed over. It is still to be seen how quickly the PLAs official statement today will be followed by real confirmation of the launching and recovery of a GJ-21 from the Sichuan. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post Stealthy GJ-21 Drone Has Launched And Recovered From Type 076 Amphibious Assault Ship, China Claims appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: Air, Amphibious Assault Ships, Around The Globe, China, Drones, Indo-Pacific, News & Features, Sea, UCAVs, Unmanned] [Link to media]

— Iran Used Limpet Mine Placed On Ship’s Hull In Latest Strait Of Hormuz Attack: Report

 

at 10/30/26 12:33pm

A small boat in the Strait of Hormuz approached a tanker and placed two explosive devices on the hull above the waterline, causing a blast that started a fire in the engine room, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) center reported. The attack on the Dubai-owned tanker Louise 1 was carried out by Iranians using limpet mines, Financial Times reported. The incident took place Thursday and was the first of its kind since June 2019, when a Japanese and a Norwegian ship were hit with limpets, the publication noted. This is the first indication of the successful use of these mines during the current Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) wave of strikes against shipping in the Strait of Hormuz following Operation Epic Fury. The attack also highlights the challenges of keeping ships safe in a busy and complex littoral. The apparent ability of a small craft to approach a transiting tanker, deploy explosive devices and withdraw presents a significant security concern, particularly in the Straits congested shipping lanes, Greece-based maritime ​risk management group Marisks said ​on ⁠Friday, Reuters reported. TWZ covered the 2019 attacks extensively, including sharing the following video showing an Iranian Navy or IRGC fast boat going back to remove a dud limpet mine from the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous’s damaged hull. Earlier Friday morning, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander Adm. Brad Cooper said the waterway was cleared of sea mines. He was not addressing the limpet mine claim. He stated on X that after we sank Irans navy earlier this year, we also successfully cleared the straits internationally recognized primary transit routes of Iranian sea mines, and today U.S. forces remain highly vigilant and present to ensure that all primary transit routes in the Strait of Hormuz remain free and clear. This week we reached a significant milestone, having now assisted Gulf partners in exporting more than 1.5 billion barrels of crude oil since summer, Cooper added. Recalling a recent flight over the Strait of Hormuz, Cooper noted that he “saw our U.S. assets in the air and on the water, including a squadron of advanced sea drones that were on patrol supporting a defensive layer. Heres what I didnt see: I didnt see the IRGC out there at all.” Also known as uncrewed surface vessels (USVs), the sea drones are part of an increasingly uncrewed armada of air, land and sea assets that are supporting the safe corridor through the Strait. The USV type shown in the following video, a Saronic Corsair, made history twice in the battle against Iran. In July, the USVs were used as a strike weapon in combat for the first time by the U.S. A month earlier, a Saronic Corsair USV rescued the crew of a U.S. Army AH-64 Apache that crashed in the Gulf of Oman after it was downed by Iran. Update from CENTCOM Commander: pic.twitter.com/oipZRRCJuE— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) October 30, 2026 Despite the heavy presence of CENTCOM forces, this month is turning out to be particularly dangerous for shipping in the region. “October has seen the highest number of ship attacks on record,” Noam Raydan, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said last week, according to the BOE Report, an oil industry publication. “Raydan, who maintains the institute’s interactive shipping incident map, has recorded 28 confirmed and reported attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding waterways in October and 113 since the US-Israeli war with Iran began on February 28. These strikes, combined with ongoing Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabias oil infrastructure, have already placed tremendous pressure on a global economy relying heavily on fossil fuel from the region. As of Friday morning, Brent crude topped $117 per barrel, the highest level in more than four years, according to OilPrice.com. The American oil industry, meanwhile, is making a fortune on this situation. The war with Iran has been very lucrative for American oil companies, which have earned more than $130 billion in profit as people pay much higher prices for gasoline, diesel and other fuel, The New York Times reported on Friday. That is a conservative estimate based on the performance of more than 50 large U.S. oil and gas companies, most of them producers or refiners, in the six months from April through September. It does not reflect profits earned in March, the first month of the war, or in October. “The United States oil and gas business is making hundreds of billions of dollars,” Trump said at an Oct. 24 campaign rally, describing how the war is affecting the industry. TRUMP on HIGH GAS PRICES: We’re making money like we’ve never made before. They’ll say: President Trump is bragging about all the money theyre making while people are suffering at the pump. I don’t give a damn. We’re making a freaking fortune. pic.twitter.com/KZ2pYsTPyR— Acyn (@Acyn) October 25, 2026 The Latest Qatari mediators returned to Tehran on Friday in another bid to try to pull the Middle East region back from the brink of war. The visit takes place as the U.S. and Israel are gearing up for a possible new round of strikes against Iran that could come as soon as next week after America’s midterm elections. U.S. President Donald Trump has frequently stated that he could order new strikes, likely with Israeli assistance, after control of the next Congress is settled. While Trump could be gearing up to hit Iran again, leaks about war planning could also be messaging to compel Tehran back to the bargaining table. “It’s going to get wrapped up soon,” Trump said Friday morning in an interview with Kansas City radio station KCMO. “We need a guarantee there’ll never be a nuclear weapon.” Whether this latest Qatari effort can stop the clock winding down toward a resumption of hostilities remains questionable. Washington and Tehran seem far apart in their goals for achieving an agreement to stave off war. The U.S. wants nuclear issues ​included from the start of negotiations while Tehran ​demands that the U.S. first end its port blockade ‌and ⁠lift oil export sanctions, Reuters reported on Friday. A senior Iranian official has already dismissed a plan presented by Qatar as “unacceptable,” the outlet added. “The proposal presented by Qatar sets ​a seven-day timeline addressing both Tehrans and Washingtons concerns, laying out daily confidence-building steps that each side must take,” the news outlet reported on Oct. 28, citing an official briefed on the negotiations. The Qatari mediation is the latest diplomatic effort to prevent new fighting. On Monday, major regional powers met in Tehran to find a peaceful way forward. Regardless, American forces are locked and loaded for a possible new round of strikes against Iran. Israel also continues ramping up attack plans in coordination with the U.S. in the wake of a so-far inconclusive national election that could result in the end of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s career. “Cooper rarely briefs Trump in person, so the meeting could signal that the U.S. is moving closer to significant military operations,” the publication stated. “He met with the president in July, when the two huddled with Hegseth and Caine on Air Force One in Delaware.” U.S. Navy Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command (left), and U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Brandon Tegtmeier, 82nd Airborne Division commander (right), observe commercial traffic transiting the Strait of Hormuz while flying over the international waterway in a U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook, Oct. 25, 2026. (U.S. Central Command photo) Senior Chief Petty Officer Amanda Dunford CENTCOM declined comment when we asked to confirm the meeting as described. The Pentagon referred us to the White House, and the White House did not respond to our request for comment. While the Journal offered no specific details about the plans discussed at the White House meeting, previous reporting has suggested Trump is seeking a short, intense bombing campaign. According to several people familiar with the war plans, any new US-Israeli assault would be intense, lasting some three days and targeting nuclear facilities, regime assets and civilian infrastructure including power plants, Financial Times reported on Thursday. A top Democratic senator said he was briefed on plans and was shocked by what he heard. “I will just say this: their plan is insane,” Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said. “It will lead to devastating escalation and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law.” “Theres been open reporting as to what we may be planning and the civilian infrastructure that we may be targeting,” Murphy added. “The plan that they have developed will lead, in my view, to a prolongment and an escalation of this war that will be devastating for our security interests. Trump is reportedly planning to restart war with Iran after the election.Some of us have been briefed on the war plan. And while I cannot disclose any details, I can say this: the plan is insane. It will not achieve objectives and will set off a new cycle of escalation. pic.twitter.com/adWJfHVIok— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) October 29, 2026 As the White House continues to put the finishing touches on new attack plans, the U.S. is bolstering its forces in the Middle East as we noted at the top of this story. “The U.S. military is sending an additional Patriot system to Israel from Texas to beef up its missile defenses in the country, according to flight-tracking data and two officials with knowledge of the movement,” the Journal reported on Wednesday. “The U.S. has also moved troops off bases in the Middle East where they were vulnerable in preparation for an escalation.” “U.S. forces in the region have been restocking their munitions, and bomber aircraft and jet fighters are preparing for strikes, some of the officials said.” The U.S. is reportedly sending an additional Patriot system to Israel. (U.S. Army photo by Capt. Russell Shirley-Jones) Capt. Russell Shirley-Jones As we previously noted, there have been other signs that a major new round of U.S. and/or Israeli strikes on Iran might be looming on the horizon. Fox News reported that the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and the rest of its carrier strike group, as well as the Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group carrying the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), are heading to the Middle East, citing unnamed U.S. officials. “The ships will arrive in the Middle East by the end of November,” the officials said, according to a post on X from Fox’s Jennifer Griffin on Tuesday. “These new deployments will add about 10,000 sailors and Marines to the Middle East.” You can find out more about the locations of the U.S. Navys fleet of flattops in our Where Are The Aircraft Carriers? feature. Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) is reportedly heading to the Middle East. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Luke McCall) Petty Officer 1st Class Luke McCall There have been indications of increased U.S. military air activity in the Middle East recently, as well. Observers have called attention to the particularly significant influx of aerial refueling tankers to bases in the region, as well as in Europe, which would be critical to any new major air campaign. US Tanker Fleet Update 21/OCT/2026 #IranWar‌ Overall numbers across CENTCOM and Europe have now stabilised back to the levels they were at back at the start of September, around 190-195. There are a few tankers dotted around at other sites temporarily (Glasgow Prestwick and… pic.twitter.com/taKi8op7Tv— DefenceGeek (@DefenceGeek) October 21, 2026 America and Israel struck hard at Iranian logistics during Operation Epic Fury, and the U.S. Navy maintains a blockade on Iranian ports. Still, the IRGC has managed to bring in materiel critical to its drone and missile programs. A new Reuters investigation examines how. “Iran has created a secret network of military agencies with global reach to import at least $2 billion in hardware, explosives and heavy-duty trucks since January 2025, evading both the US naval blockade and Western sanctions,” the investigation found. “Hidden behind names starting with the letters MOD, for the Ministry of Defense, are more than 5,000 agencies that form a formidable financial and military machine. Their financial footprints are on bills of lading and other shipping data dating back to 2016. Some are tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and to business conglomerates known as bonyads that are controlled by Irans elite.” “The findings offer a window into one of the war’s great mysteries,” the outlet explained. “How is the IRGC replenishing its missile and drone arsenals while firing them in their thousands?” Amid events in the Persian Gulf region, fighting between the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels of Yemen and Saudi Arabia rages on. On Friday, Saudi Arabia said it intercepted and destroyed a Houthi drone near Islam’s holiest city, a claim the Houthis denied. On Thursday, the Houthis claimed attacks on a half dozen targets across the kingdom, including oil facilities and airports. Saudi officials, for their part, said they intercepted ballistic missiles. Adding to regional jitters, there were fresh reports of explosions near Iran’s Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz Thursday night. However, these incidents often turn out to be air defense activity, warning shots fired at ships or nothing at all. CENTCOM on Friday pushed back against claims that the command acknowledged attacks on Iranian targets. The reported notion that CENTCOM claimed any recent attacks is false, Capt. Tim Hawkins, the commands spokesman, told TWZ. For now, the world is waiting nervously to see whether the Middle East again erupts into war. We should have a clearer picture in the coming days. Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post Iran Used Limpet Mine Placed On Ships Hull In Latest Strait Of Hormuz Attack: Report appeared first on TWZ.

[Category: News & Features, Around The Globe, Iran, Middle East, POTUS] [Link to media]

As of 11/8/26 1:50am. Last new 11/6/26 5:44pm.