Crooked Bough News Round-up

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

 

at 6/5/26 5:09pm

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: First Lt. Pamela Blanco-Coca, 319th Missile Squadron missile combat crew commander, and her deputy commander, 2nd Lt. John Anderson, simulate key turns of the Minuteman III Weapon System Feb. 9, 2016, in the E-01 Launch Control Center in the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., Missile Complex. A properly conducted key turn sends a launch vote to any of a number of Minuteman III ICBMs in a missileers flight area, and two launch votes from two separate LCCs will enable a real-world launch when directed by the U.S. president. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Jason Wiese)  Prime Directives: If you want to talk politics, do so respectfully and know that there’s always somebody that isn’t going to agree with you.  If you have political differences, hash it out respectfully, stick to the facts, and no childish name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. If you can’t handle yourself in that manner, then please, discuss virtually anything else. No drive-by garbage political memes. No conspiracy theory rants. Links to crackpot sites will be axed, too. Trolling and shitposting will not be tolerated. No obsessive behavior about other users. Just don’t interact with folks you don’t like.  Do not be a sucker and feed trolls! That’s as much on you as on them. Use the mute button if you don’t like what you see.   So unless you have something of quality to say, know how to treat people with respect, understand that everyone isn’t going to subscribe to your exact same worldview, and have come to terms with the reality that there is no perfect solution when it comes to moderation of a community like this, it’s probably best to just move on.  Finally, as always, report offenders, please. This doesn’t mean reporting people who don’t share your political views, but we really need your help in this regard. The post Bunker Talk: Let’s Talk About All The Things We Did And Didn’t Cover This Week appeared first on The War Zone.

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

— U.S. Shoots Down Iranian Drones Launched At Strait Of Hormuz: Official (Updated)

 

at 6/5/26 4:58pm

In the latest flare-up of tension during a very shaky ceasefire, Iran has launched multiple drones towards the Strait of Hormuz, a U.S. official told us. U.S. forces have taken out at least four of them. The statement comes as unconfirmed reports are emerging online of explosions on Irans Kharg Island. The official, who spoke to us on condition of anonymity to discuss operational issues, declined comment about those claims. Big Development The United States Airforce just launched an intense airstrike on Kharg Island of Iran. Reportedly Air Defence & missile launch site of IRGC has been targeted. pic.twitter.com/qseXJ5g6B7— Baba Banaras (@RealBababanaras) June 5, 2026 BREAKING: Explosions and active air defense engagement at Kharg Island, with preliminary reports of the US conducting strikes.— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) June 5, 2026 Kharg Island, which has come under attack before during Epic Fury, is Irans main oil export facility. An attack on the oil infrastructure would represent a major escalation. News of the U.S. takedown of the drones is the latest kinetic incident in the Strait and comes amid sputtering peace talks. As we wrote last week, the U.S. struck Iranian targets and Iran launched missiles and drones at Kuwait and Bahrain in an exchange that severely damaged Kuwait International Airport, killed several people and injured scores more. You can see video and images of damage from the June 3 attack below. This is what Iran did in my country, Kuwait: it killed innocent civilians by bombing Kuwait International Airport.Violating all international normsهذا مافعلته إيران في وطني الكويت قتلت الأبرياء المدنيين بقصفها مطار الكويت الدوليمنتهكة جميع الاعراف الدولية#إيران_الشر pic.twitter.com/7MpAAnpN42— حمد عبدالكريم السعيد (@Hamad_Alsaid) June 4, 2026 Other exchanges have occurred around the strait, where U.S. Navy ships says vessels, including their own, were fired upon, which resulted in reprisal attacks on shore targets. UPDATE: 6:56 PM EDT CENTCOM confirmed U.S. forces attacked Iranian facilities and shot down Iranian drones.. Moments ago, CENTCOM forces shot down four Iranian one-way attack drones that were launched toward the Strait of Hormuz, the command stated on X. The attack drones posed an immediate threat to regional maritime traffic. U.S. forces subsequently struck Iranian coastal surveillance radar sites in Goruk and on Qeshm Island to defend against further attacks. American forces remain vigilant and postured to respond to unjustified Iranian aggression in self-defense. Moments ago, CENTCOM forces shot down four Iranian one-way attack drones that were launched toward the Strait of Hormuz. The attack drones posed an immediate threat to regional maritime traffic. U.S. forces subsequently struck Iranian coastal surveillance radar sites in Goruk and…— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) June 5, 2026 This is a developing story. Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post U.S. Shoots Down Iranian Drones Launched At Strait Of Hormuz: Official (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

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

— U.S. Shoots Down Iranian Drones Launched At Strait Of Hormuz: Official

 

at 6/5/26 4:39pm

In the latest flare-up of tension during a very shaky ceasefire, Iran has launched multiple drones towards the Strait of Hormuz, a U.S. official told us. U.S. forces have taken out at least four of them. The statement comes as unconfirmed reports are emerging online of explosions on Irans Kharg Island. The official, who spoke to us on condition of anonymity to discuss operational issues, declined comment about those claims. Big Development The United States Airforce just launched an intense airstrike on Kharg Island of Iran. Reportedly Air Defence & missile launch site of IRGC has been targeted. pic.twitter.com/qseXJ5g6B7— Baba Banaras (@RealBababanaras) June 5, 2026 BREAKING: Explosions and active air defense engagement at Kharg Island, with preliminary reports of the US conducting strikes.— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) June 5, 2026 Kharg Island, which has come under attack before during Epic Fury, is Irans main oil export facility. An attack on the oil infrastructure would represent a major escalation. News of the U.S. takedown of the drones is the latest kinetic incident in the Strait and comes amid sputtering peace talks. As we wrote last week, the U.S. struck Iranian targets and Iran launched missiles and drones at Kuwait and Bahrain in an exchange that severely damaged Kuwait International Airport, killed several people and injured scores more. You can see video and images of damage from the June 3 attack below. This is what Iran did in my country, Kuwait: it killed innocent civilians by bombing Kuwait International Airport.Violating all international normsهذا مافعلته إيران في وطني الكويت قتلت الأبرياء المدنيين بقصفها مطار الكويت الدوليمنتهكة جميع الاعراف الدولية#إيران_الشر pic.twitter.com/7MpAAnpN42— حمد عبدالكريم السعيد (@Hamad_Alsaid) June 4, 2026 Other exchanges have occurred around the strait, where U.S. Navy ships says vessels, including their own, were fired upon, which resulted in reprisal attacks on shore targets. This is a developing story. Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post U.S. Shoots Down Iranian Drones Launched At Strait Of Hormuz: Official appeared first on The War Zone.

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

— Area 51 Mystery Aircraft Prompts Interest In “Christmas Tree” Stealth Fighter Concept

 

at 6/5/26 3:58pm

Yesterday, TWZ published an analysis of a thermal image purportedly showing a previously unseen advanced aircraft design, which appears to be a precursor to the U.S. Air Forces forthcoming F-47 fighter from Boeing. The image, which went viral online and is from a video that has now been released, is said to have been captured near the U.S. militarys secretive Groom Lake test base, better known as Area 51. It turns out, as a number of our readers have pointed out, there may be some interesting similarities between this secret aircraft and a Christmas tree fighter design concept crafted decades ago by Darold Cummings, one of the top minds behind Northrops YF-23 Black Widow. You can find our full initial assessment of what we may be seeing in the viral image, first posted online by the Project Fear YouTube channel earlier this week, here. What we saw initially, as shown below, appeared to feature what could be described as a double arrowhead profile to its forward fuselage. This is a very distinct design cue, but it could also be a result of the low quality of the image and the artifacts that come with consumer-grade thermal imagers, which was what the aircraft was recorded with. A close-up look at what is visible in the viral thermal image. Capture via Project Fear Project Fear has now released the full video it says it captured near Area 51, seen below, and it underscores the aforementioned points about image quality. So, it is possible the aircraft has a more traditional low-observable shovel nose, instead. Nonetheless, the Christmas tree fighter is an interesting trip down lesser-known fighter development memory lane that is worth examining, in particular what such a unique nose configuration would provide an advanced fighter aircraft. The full clip of the mysterious aircraft passing by starts at around 49:34 in the runtime of the video below if it does not automatically start playing at that point. People are asking why it would be running a very bright light. Multiple reasons, could have had an emergency for all we know. But most likely, would be to keep its silhouette from being seen from certain aspects from the ground. Bright lights are established practice for… https://t.co/mxEvG2EUkz— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) June 5, 2026 In a post on LinkedIn around the end of last year, Darold Cummings shared an intriguing blueprint of a relevant-looking advanced fighter concept, along with additional details about the design and its genesis. Cummings is currently the founder and president of ForzAero, but has an extensive resume in the aviation industry dating back decades. As noted, he was a key figure at Northrop in the development of the YF-23, which ultimately lost out to what became Lockheeds F-22 Raptor. He also led the team at Boeing that developed the X-40A Space Maneuver Vehicle, which was used as a testbed in support of work on what evolved into the X-37B reusable spaceplane. He was Chief Engineer/Chief Designer of Rockwells Ranger 2000 Jet Trainer, as well. I was hired by Bob Sandusky in 1982 to be the Chief Configurator for the Northrop ATF [Advanced Tactical Fighter] program (YF-23). In early 1983 Bob said that Northrop had tried to develop a 4-spike (like the B-2) fighter, but it couldnt be done, since a flying wing fighter was not possible, Cummings wrote in his post on LinkedIn. I told him I could design one, and he said to give it a try. The only way to accomplish this was with a series of highly swept (55 degree) surfaces over the entire length of the aircraft. The result was the DP-21, created in June of 1983. 4-spike here essentially refers to the total number of radar cross-section hot-spots and where they are located, each pointing in a different direction in azimuth. The fewer spikes a low-observable (stealthy) aircraft has, the easier it is to manage its radar signature, and to make it harder to detect and lock onto, but its also where those spikes are located that matter. The blueprint of the DP-21 Christmas Tree fighter concept. Darold Cummings A four-spike design like the B-2 critically has nothing from the head-on aspect, as well as from the rear, which helps immensely with survivability. These are the most critical signature areas, especially the front as the aircraft is heading into hostile territory. Also, because these are located along the path of flight, these spikes can stay consistent on a threat radar as the aircraft moves directly toward or away from the sensor, and are not fleeting in nature like those from the side. So a four spike aircraft would be very attractive for a tactical fighter meant to persist in contested territory. I never considered this to be a serious contender for the ATF program, as the aircraft was unstable beyond 10 degrees angle of attack! he also noted. Back in 1983, the Christmas Tree DP-21 would have been difficult to fly. However, with modern flight control systems, this design could be controlled, even at high angle of attack, Cummings told TWZ directly today after we reached out for more information. Low observability is always better served with long edges on the design, so the small arrow-shaped foreplane is not ideal, but it still has low RCS characteristics, just not the optimum. Wing shaping is always a trade-off for maximizing LO. Most of the trades have to do with the leading edge contour, which is a large contributor to signature, he continued. The canard has to be designed to be ported during penetration, as this minimizes the signature. On the YF-23, the V-Tail was ported in penetration for the same reason. This is certainly possible with modern flight control systems. Ported in this instance refers to keeping the control surface locked in the same geometric plane as the wing while cruising. A top-down look at the YF-23 during a flight test. USAF We also asked Cummings directly whether it was possible his DP-21 concept had an influence on what is seen in the viral thermal image, assuming it is authentic. And we asked for his take on what impacts Boeings experimental X-36 and Bird of Prey designs may have had on the F-47, as well. My DP-21 aircraft image has been available publicly for quite some time, so it is possible it had some influence, but that is only speculation on my part, he told us. I believe the X-36 and Bird of Prey have both influenced the F-47 design. I have always been impressed by the X-36, as it seemed to be ahead of its time. Boeings X-36 demonstrator. NASA/Carla Thomas Boeings Bird of Prey. USAF The Groom Lake images are truly intriguing, he also noted. It is a viable concept. I think the main thing to remember is that NO ONE thought a 4-spike design (like the B-2) was possible, and my DP-21 was an example of how it was possible, he added. A 4-spike design for the F-47 would truly be impressive! An official rendering of the F-47. USAF As TWZ already wrote yesterday, based on what is visible in the image: The image shows an exotic design by any interpretation. The aft-set lambda-type wings appear to have a camber and wingtip droop, as on the Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator. There are very large canard foreplanes — a feature that appears prominently on F-47 renderings and which we have written in detail about in the past. The broad nose, too, is something that has been included in depictions of the F-47, although we have really no idea to what degree these are based in reality. It’s worth noting that in this new thermal image, it has a distinctive double-arrowhead shape, tapering in again in front of the canards. Even the canards themselves may have more than one plane, with the outer tips being drooped, matching similar architecture as the wing. The fuselage then tapers down in the center before the wing roots begin. The aircraft is very likely to be tailless, a feature common to most sixth-generation concepts seen so far. However, since it’s seen from below, we cannot be sure about this aspect of its configuration. As for the powerplant, it is most likely a twin-engine design, like the F-47, a theory reinforced by the sawtooth-type trailing edge. There is no obvious suggestion of any exhaust plumes, which seems odd, but that could be the result of the sensor being used in combination with the aircraft’s power setting at the time of recording, as well as general thermal signature reduction capabilities that are part of the design. Soon after Boeing won the contract for the F-47, we looked at how it might have been influenced by the Phantom Works X-36, also a tailless-canard design. Another official rendering of the F-47. USAF As mentioned earlier, the full video Project Fear released today does raise new questions about the exact profile of the front of the design seen in the footage. The idea of using a shovel nose profile on a stealthy aircraft dates back to Northrops Tacit Blue demonstrator, and it was found in its modern form the YF-23. It has since become common to see on low-observable (stealthy) designs, and has been notably present in official renders of the F-47 released to date. Beyond the nose end, there are still some very broad similarities in the shaping of the wing and main body of the aircraft seen in the footage and Cummings DP-21 concept. To date, there are no indications that an F-47 EMD prototype has flown. Air Force officials have said on multiple occasions now that first flight of the services new sixth-generation fighter is expected to come in 2028. We do know that Boeing and Lockheed built flying demonstrator designs that fed into the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative, under which initial development of what has become the F-47 was carried out. Past reports have raised the possibility that there was a third NGAD demonstrator, which might have been built by Northrop Grumman. That company voluntarily dropped out of the NGAD combat jet competition around 2023, and is said to have been on the verge of being cut at the time. As we noted yesterday, what is seen in the viral thermal image could be unrelated entirely to the F-47. The Navy has also been pursuing a carrier-based sixth-generation fighter, commonly referred to as F/A-XX, in recent years. There has been at least some crossover between F/A-XX and the Air Forces NGAD effort. A rendering Boeing has shared of its proposed F/A-XX design looks very much in line with what has been shown of F-47 to date. Northrop Grumman is the other company currently competing to build the Navys sixth-generation carrier fighter, and has released its own renderings. Boeings F/A-XX render. Boeing Were bringing tomorrow’s horizon into focus, faster, stronger and ready when the warfighter needs it.#SAS2026 pic.twitter.com/r0uORyR5kM— Northrop Grumman (@northropgrumman) April 20, 2026 In addition, it should be said that official F-47 and F/A-XX renderings released to date will have been carefully manipulated to maximize security of the programs, both of which remain highly classified, and to provide disinformation to adversaries. As an aside, Darold Cummings also shared his take on a prospective navalized version of the F-47 in a separate post on LinkedIn last year. At that time he wrote: I received a DM asking if I had envisioned a Navy version of my recent F-47 fighter concept,  such as  the F-35A to F-35C approach. I recently completed my F-47 Navy version, which I call the F-47N. However, the approach I took was somewhat different: The F-35C used a larger wing for low speed lift, whereas I used my original F-47 wing planform, and added a canard for more low speed lift and control. The canard design (inspired by the X-36), coupled with the Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring (inspired by the X-44), provided a very reasonable first cut at a Navy version. In general, a canard layout has been treated as adding more radar signature to a fighter. However, on the YF-23 we found that if the all-moving surface (it was a V-tail on the YF-23) was kept ported, in this case aligned with the wing plane during cruise, the impact on LO was not a large impediment to signature reduction. The ability to keep the canard ported is achievable using thrust vectoring for trim in cruise and penetration modes. Cummings interpretation of the F-47 design at that time notably did not reflect his previous DP-21 concept. The X-44 design he mentioned is also known as the Multi-Axis No-Tail Aircraft (MANTA), and was derived from F-22. At least to our knowledge, the MANTA never came to be. The designation was recycled for an entirely unrelated flying wing-type drone, the existence of which was first reported by TWZ. Darold Cummings drawing of his notional F-47N. Darold Cummings Renderings of the X-44A MANTA. Lockheed Martin/NASA Its also worth noting that the design in the newly emerged thermal video could be tied to one of many other programs, including uncrewed ones. Still, it is very much in line with what we would expect to see from a design related to the F-47 and it seems very likely this is the Boeing NGAD demonstrator, if the video is indeed authentic, which it appears to be. It would be nice to say that we will have to wait and see whether this aircraft turns out to have a more traditional shovel-shaped nose, or even a mild Christmas tree-like design, but we may never see it again. Hopefully that is not the case, especially after the F-47 goes public, but the final design will have significant differences from its technology demonstrator forebears. Special thanks to @ElectroFluidSys on X for bringing Darold Cummings posts on LinkedIn to our attention. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post Area 51 Mystery Aircraft Prompts Interest In Christmas Tree Stealth Fighter Concept appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Air, Area 51, F-47, Fighters, NGAD, Stealth] [Link to media]

— USAF Scrambling To Buy What Few MQ-9 Reapers It Can Find After Epic Fury Losses

 

at 6/5/26 3:19pm

After reportedly losing dozens of MQ-9 Reaper drones while battling Iran, the Air Force on Friday confirmed to TWZ that it is planning to purchase an undisclosed number of unused ones from General Atomics, who made the aircraft. The company, however, said it has less than 10 of these drones to offer, and it remains unclear where else the Air Force can find more. All of this continues to raise serious questions about the Air Forces near-term ability to plug gaps left by the losses fighting against Iran and in other recent operations in and around the Middle East. The downed Reapers have a reported combined value of about $1 billion. The Air Force has reportedly lost dozens of MQ-9 Reaper drones. (USAF) Furthermore, despite the top Air Force officer recently praising Reaper as perhaps the most valuable player in the air war against Iran, the aircraft have been in the crosshairs of service officials. They have openly questioned the drones survivability and, by extension, general value in future operations. The Air Force has made several half-hearted efforts, without success, to find a successor. It is now in the early stages of a new attempt at acquiring an MQ-9 Next. You can read more about that effort in our story here An MQ-9 Reaper. (USAF) It will be years, if ever, before MQ-9 Next comes on line. Meanwhile, the search is on for existing replacements. The USAF intends to purchase several unused MQ-9A Block 5 from GA-ASI [General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.], a spokesperson for the service told TWZ today. A number of MQ-9A Block 5 aircraft were manufactured based on forecasted purchases for other customers but are no longer needed. The available aircraft are currently GA-ASI owned aircraft. The USAF has received funds to begin the acquisition process, they added. A U.S. Air Force service member assigned to the 46th Expeditionary Attack Squadron, conducts pre-flight checks on an MQ-9 aircraft in preparation for an Operation Agile Spartan mission departing from Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait, August 21, 2023. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Isaac Garden) Tech. Sgt. Isaac Garden The Air Force was responding to our questions about congressional testimony from a top officer highlighting the service’s plans to backfill the combat losses.  “We’re looking at options to buy back as many of the MQ-9As as we possibly can right now, Air Force Lt. Gen. David Tabor, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, had told members of Congress at a hearing back on May 13. So there’s a bit of a short-term effort to buy back things immediately, in this fiscal year.” Tabor also said at that time that the Air Forces total MQ-9A fleet had shrunk to 135 aircraft. Official budget documents say the Air Force had 165 Reapers in inventory as of the start of Fiscal Year 2026, which began on October 1 of last year. This had already marked a significant year-over-year decrease, down from 231 MQ-9As at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2025. Despite Air Force needs, General Atomics told us the number of available Reapers is in short supply. Between parts in stock for new builds, and company-owned Reapers with some number of flight hours on them, there are less than 10 total new MQ-9As available to any customers anywhere in the world, General Atomics spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley told TWZ earlier this week. There are some number of decommissioned Reapers out there, and some number of those could potentially be brought back into service. MQ-9A Reaper in flight. (General Atomics) One place the Air Force won’t be able to find any Reapers is in storage.  “The 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (The Boneyard) has zero MQ-9s in storage nor have they ever regenerated a MQ-9 back into service,” the spokesperson told us. The MQ-9A is out of production. General Atomics has moved on to the MQ-9B, and currently offers those drones in multiple configurations. Though an evolution of the original Reaper, the core B model design differs in significant ways from its predecessor. Any new Air Force purchases of drones in this broader family would have to be of the B model and worked into the existing production schedule. How many MQ-9As the Air Force has lost in operations in and around the Middle East since January 2025 is unclear, but is understood to be substantial. As of May, “nearly 30 MQ-9 Reapers have been lost in the course of Operation Epic Fury against Iran, Air & Space Forces Magazine reported, citing “people familiar with the matter.” This is on top of dozens of Reapers reportedly downed while conducting operations targeting Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen in the past year or so. Air Force Chief: MQ-9 Reaper ‘Most Valuable Player’ of Iran War Despite Losseshttps://t.co/qZB4xRh2jA— Air & Space Forces Magazine (@ASForcesMag) May 21, 2026 At the hearing last month, Tabor did not provide any official accounting of Reaper losses, but did acknowledge that we are concerned about how they’ve attrited. In another effort to bolster the supply of operational Reapers, the Air Force told us that while it never regenerated MQ-1 Predator drones back into service, it was repurposing parts from these aircraft that the service stopped using in 2020. There were dozens on hand after they were retired. More than 50 were sent to the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) “and heavily cannibalized for spare parts for the MQ-9 aircraft,” the spokesperson told us. An MQ-1 Predator flies above the flight line during launch and recovery training at Creech Air Force Base, Nev. Aircrew will fly the MQ-1 for the final time at Creech on March 9, 2018 before it is officially retired from the Air Force inventory. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Master Sgt. Cecilio Ricardo) Senior Master Sgt. Cecilio Ricardo Questions about the status of the MQ-1 fleet arose last week after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) acknowledged the loss of an “MQ-1” drone to Iranian fire. This has led many to question whether American forces are flying the venerable Predator again as a result of the Reaper losses. At the time, the Air Force declined to say if it lost any of theirs and referred us to CENTCOM, which declined comment. However, on Friday, the Air Force told us that in addition to the Predators being used for parts, 20 had been transferred to the Navy. We reached out to them for comment.  As we previously noted, it is also very possible, if not likely, that the uncrewed aircraft in question was an MQ-1C Gray Eagle, a related but different design still in active U.S. Army service. You can read more about this event in our original story here. A U.S. Army MQ-1C seen being prepared for a mission somewhere in the Middle East on April 18, 2026. The official caption for this picture erroneously says the drone is an MQ-1 Predator. USAF/Master Sgt. James Cason At the time of the incident, CENTCOM declined to tell us which variant of the MQ-1 was lost. Regardless, the Air Force’s mad scramble to find additional Reapers highlights the value of having a high-flying, long-loitering drone that can gather intelligence and fire off munitions, no matter how slow it flies. Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post USAF Scrambling To Buy What Few MQ-9 Reapers It Can Find After Epic Fury Losses appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Air, Around The Globe, Drones, Iran, Middle East, News & Features, Q-9, Unmanned] [Link to media]

— Congress Throws A-10 Warthog Another Lifeline

 

at 6/5/26 12:05pm

The Air Force will seek new ways to accomplish the missions of the A-10C attack jet, under an amendment added to the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization bill. While the Air Force has long campaigned for the Warthog’s retirement, the recent demand for the jet in conflicts in the Middle East has seen it earn a reprieve, with its standdown now scheduled for 2030. Some of the numerous amendments to the bill come from Abe Hamadeh, the Republican representative for Arizona. He calls for the Secretary of the Air Force to keep supporting A-10 training, testing, experimentation, maintenance, and sustainment efforts through to the planned retirement date, as well as preserving lessons learned and operational expertise from A-10 missions to help shape future replacement systems. This would include keeping a formal training unit to teach pilots until the retirement. This is especially notable, since the unit in question, the 357th Fighter Squadron, graduated the last class of A-10 student pilots at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, back in April. Four A-10Cs from the 357th Fighter Squadron deploy flares over a training range near Gila Bend, Arizona, May 1, 2026. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Samantha Melecio Meanwhile, the Air Force officially concluded A-10 depot-level maintenance in February of this year, with the deactivation of the 571st Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and the A-10 Weapons School is due to be shuttered this year. An A-10C is positioned near the hangar during the “Hawg Out” ceremony, February 12, 2026, at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The aircraft was the final A-10 to be maintained by the Ogden Air Logistics Complexs 571st Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, which performed depot-level maintenance on the aircraft since 1998. U.S. Air Force photo by Cynthia Griggs In terms of “preserving operational expertise,” Hamadeh points directly to the A-10’s recent combat record in the Middle East, including its role in providing close air support during the recovery of two downed F-15E aircrew from Iran during Operation Epic Fury, and its work securing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime chokepoint. As part of this, the amendment also requests a report on the A-10’s “combat employment, recent operational relevance, lessons for future force design, and modernization options that could improve the return on continued sustainment of the program.” Hamadeh lists a range of recent modernization efforts for the jet that “could improve the operational return on continued sustainment of the A-10 program.” These include electronic warfare capabilities, decoy or stand-in effects delivery, digital communications, sensor integration, precision weapons integration, survivability improvements, open-systems architecture, and human-machine teaming applications. The amendment also refers to the A-10’s recent “aerial refueling enhancements,” referring to the rapid introduction of a nose-mounted aerial refueling probe, which you can read more about here. An A-10C uses its newly added probe to refuel from an HC-130J Combat King II aircraft in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, May 9, 2026. U.S. Air Force photo At the same time, while preparing to retire the Warthog, the amendment calls for “a competitive experimentation plan for autonomous and non-traditional capabilities relevant to the A-10 mission set” — something that is far from new. According to the wording of the amended bill, this should “encourage autonomous replacement and modernization of the A-10, while also prioritizing participation of non-traditional defense firms.” The amendment specifies that “autonomous, semi-autonomous, artificial intelligence-enabled, and adjunct aircraft capabilities” should all be investigated for carrying out future A-10-type mission sets. The plan should include ways to ensure operational experiments are done “in a manner consistent with meaningful human command and control, by a qualified military aviator,” the amendment added. That should include mission-critical functions such as target engagement, weapons release, and decisions to abort a mission. To help with the development of emerging technologies that could replace, or partly replace, the A-10, the amendment also proposes that a limited number of the jets should be used to support these studies. Two 74th Fighter Squadron A-10Cs above Wake Island, in October 2022. These aircraft transited from Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, to Andersen AFB, Guam, to participate in a Dynamic Force Employment Operation. U.S. Air Force courtesy photo by Tech. Sgt. Eileen Adams As part of accelerating this initiative, the study could involve nontraditional or venture-backed defense companies, commercial technology firms, or other companies that could rapidly develop the required hardware, software, autonomy, sensing, communication, or mission system capabilities. This amendment raises the possibility that new technologies may ultimately provide an effective replacement for many A-10 mission sets, rather than a direct one-for-one crewed aircraft successor. Drone-wise, the current lack of a follow-on to the MQ-9 Reaper, envisaged under a program dubbed MQ-Next, is a problem. The Air Force is now trying to replace the MQ-9 again, as you can read about here, but it remains unclear if the drone that emerges could stand in for a significant part of the A-10 mission. At the same time, the lack of a true uncrewed air combat vehicle (UCAV) program, one that would have emerged out of MQ-Next or otherwise, is also a hindrance in terms of a more survivable drone-based A-10 successor. While not mentioned specifically, other options could include Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), AI-enabled uncrewed systems that can deliver weapons, conduct reconnaissance, perform electronic warfare, identify and track targets, and operate either independently or with crewed platforms. However, while CCAs could be part of the solution, the A-10 mission has traditionally been seen as better suited to UCAVs. Advances in autonomy also promise future networks of expendable or attritable drones that can maintain persistent surveillance over the battlefield, rapidly share targeting information, and deliver precision effects while reducing risk to pilots. In such a model, the traditional A-10 mission would not be replaced by one aircraft but by a distributed system of sensors, shooters, and autonomous collaborators. Of course, this is of particular relevance in the kinds of contested environments where a low-flying attack aircraft would be increasingly vulnerable. A U.S. Air Force XQ-58 Valkyrie drops an ALTIUS-600 drone from its internal bay during a test. U.S. Air Force Once the A-10s are retired, the amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the potential transfer of the jets “to another military department” — presumably, within the U.S. military. While this is a topic that has sometimes come up among the enthusiast community, there is no realistic possibility of either the Marine Corps or the Army getting hand-me-down Warthogs. In the case of the Army, this service has long agreed not to operate fixed-wing crewed combat aircraft. For their part, the Marines have no capacity or funding to take on a whole different tactical platform, especially while winding down the F/A-18 Hornet fleet to standardize on the F-35B/C as its tactical fixed-wing jet. The idea of considering transferring retired A-10s to an ally or partner’s military has come up in the past, however, having been included in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As well as Jordan, which was named in the 2024 NDAA, Colombia and Ukraine are also known to have expressed interest in acquiring A-10s in the past. More immediately, the amendment authorizes the reconstitution of an A-10 demonstration team. This would support “public outreach, recruiting, heritage, airshows, military ceremonies, and commemorative events, including those tied to the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States.” For more than four decades, the A-10C Demonstration Team performed dramatic displays around the world, but it ceased operations at the end of the 2024 season. At the time, the 355th Wing at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base said the decision was a part of the Air Force’s divestment of the Warthog. An A-10C, part of the Demonstration Team from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. The A-10 was refueling on its way back to Arizona after the last official demo event, November 17, 2024, at the Pittsburgh Steelers game. U.S. Air National Guard photo by Tech. Sgt. Andrew Stover Of course, it should be noted that all of these amendments don’t necessarily preclude the Air Force giving up the A-10. Provided the service can prove that it can retain the knowledge base, as well as plug any capability gaps, the path to letting the Warthog go would remain open. As we have highlighted many times in the past, the A-10’s combination of capabilities that remains difficult to replicate in a single aircraft. It was designed from the ground up for close air support, with significant battle damage tolerance, making it ideal for operating close to friendly forces, providing persistent, highly responsive fire support. However, with the requirements of modern warfare shifting toward survivability in heavily defended airspace, the F-35A, as the A-10’s designated replacement, offers capabilities the older jet cannot match, including stealth, advanced sensor fusion, networked targeting, and the ability to strike from greater standoff distances. While the effort to replace the A-10 with the F-35 has been a controversial one, regardless of their respective merits, it’s clear that the Air Force needs combat mass, providing more ammunition for the Warthog’s proponents. An F-35A streaks by as a 75th Fighter Squadron A-10C undergoes preflight checks before a Combat Hammer sortie at Eglin AFB, Florida. Combat Hammer is a weapons system evaluation program for air-to-ground munitions. U.S. Air Force photo/Samuel King Jr. In the meantime, the Air Force has also moved away from the idea of having the F-35 as a direct successor to the A-10, reflected in the fact that one former Warthog unit, at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan, has been chosen to receive a squadron of F-15EX Eagle IIs. The balance of capabilities offered by the F-15EX means that it is now being eyed for other units, too, in line with an increased fleet size. As for the current timeline for the A-10’s withdrawal, Craig McKee, of Phoenix, Arizona-based news channel ABC15, received an outline of the plan from Air Combat Command. For Fiscal Year 2026, which runs through September 30, 2026, the 357th Fighter Squadron at Davis-Monthan inactivates, and the formal training pipeline ends. Meanwhile, at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, the A-10 Weapons School transitions to other types, and the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron stands down. For Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028, Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, is scheduled to retain two active-duty A-10 squadrons, while Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, will keep one Air Force Reserve squadron. At this point, the total A-10 inventory is set to be 63 aircraft, with 42 in the active-duty inventory. In Fiscal Year 2029, Moody Air Force Base is set to lose one squadron, while the total A-10 inventory drops to 42 aircraft. A-10Cs from the 74th Fighter Squadron out of Moody Air Force Base, over the skies of southern Georgia, in 2014. The 74th FS is one of two active-duty, combat-ready squadrons at Moody. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jamal D. Sutter/Released Finally, Fiscal Year 2030 is planned to see the full divestment of the A-10 fleet. All of this is in line with Air Force demands for the A-10’s career to come to a close by the end of the decade, the culmination of a long push to retire the jets, primarily due to concerns over the aircraft’s survivability. At the same time, the special capabilities of the Warthog are clearly still in high demand, including in the Middle East. Previously, it seemed like the lawmakers’ efforts to retain the A-10 might have come to an end, especially when it lost two of its most vocal supporters. Namely, after the death of Arizona’s Senator John McCain, followed by Republican Representative Martha McSally losing her bid for the Arizona Senate. Now, with the A-10’s performance in Epic Fury, as well as a brief extension to its service, it looks like a new fight to save the Warthog might be emerging. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post Congress Throws A-10 Warthog Another Lifeline appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Air, A-10, Air Forces, Attack, Drones, News & Features, U.S. Air Force] [Link to media]

— Confessions Of A Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon Minehunter Pilot

 

at 6/5/26 8:29am

For decades, the massive MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter has served as the Navy’s primary airborne mine countermeasure platform, dragging massive mine hunting sleds through waters all around the globe. However, the Sea Dragon’s days are now numbered, with the last 11 aircraft scheduled to sunset sometime next year. With the MH-53Es demise on the horizon, we reached out to one of its former pilots, Steve Jones — a man who came to know this monster intimately during the Global War On Terror. He had plenty of stories to tell and provided us with a new understanding of the often misunderstood counter-mine mission. The MH-53Es mission is also, of course, extremely topical right now thanks to ongoing tensions with Iran. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently told senators that the Islamic Republic mined large segments of the Strait of Hormuz, endangering shipping in the region. As it currently stands, the mighty Sea Dragons, which are considered one of the military’s most dangerous to fly due to numerous fatal mishaps, are being phased out in favor of the smaller MH-60S Seahawk paired with a suite of new aerial mine countermeasures systems, as well as other new technologies, like uncrewed underwater and surface vessels. The Navys overall mine hunting force is going through a transition that is controversial, to say the least, with many questioning if the Pentagon is investing enough resources in this critical missions set. Petty Officer 1st Class Rawad Madanat With all these issues in play, in an exclusive, wide-ranging, two-hour interview, Steve Jones offered in-depth insights about the Navy’s airborne counter-mine mission, the Sea Dragon’s capabilities and dangers, current mine sweeping operations, as well as everything from what it was like to narrowly avoid getting entangled with a surfacing sub to his experiences ferrying celebrities like Robin Williams and Tom Jones around a war zone. So, with the stage being set, lets get into this incredible exchange. Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity. Then-Navy Lt. Steve Jones in an MH-53E Sea Dragon. (Courtesy Steve Jones) Q: How did you end up becoming an MH-53 Sea Dragon pilot? A: During the time that I selected, you could choose SH-60 Seahawks, you could choose CH-46E Sea Knights and the MH-53 Echo. You could choose SH-3 Sea Kings, but they were kind of winding down the H-3s, which is the same as the presidential helicopter Marine One that they fly now, but they were flying out of Norfolk and Puerto Rico, primarily for VIP transport.  So, I looked at the 53 for a lot of reasons. One, I liked the instructors that came from that community in the advanced helicopter training. And two, I just thought the helicopter just really looked awesome, and it was big, and so thats why I chose it, and I just thought it would be a good personality fit, work fit for me, and it ended up being that way. An MH-53E Sea Dragon, assigned to the “Blackhawks” of Helicopter Mines Countermeasures Squadron 15 (HM-15), takes off from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) during flight operations on the ship’s flight deck, April 5, 2025. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Soren V.P. Quinata) Petty Officer 3rd Class Soren Quinata Q: What are the main differences between the Navy’s MH-53E and the Marines’ CH-53E Super Stallion? A: Its primarily the same aircraft. Except our aircraft has larger fuel sponsons, so we could carry more gas. The reason for that is ideally wed want to be able to fly an hour to where the mission objective was, be able to stay on station for about an hour, and be able to fly back. That requires at least three and a half, four hours of gas and extra fuel in those side sponsors. And that allowed us to do that. So instead of a small sponson with two tanks, we had one big sponson with four fuel tanks that were inside each of the sponsons on either side of the aircraft. Q: So how much gas would that larger sponson hold? A: About 22,000 pounds of gas. U.S. Navy Aviation Boatswain’s Mates (Fueling) prepare to refuel an MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter, attached to Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 15, on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). (Official U.S. Navy photo) Courtesy Asset Q: Talk about the training and some of the biggest challenges of flying that huge aircraft.  A: Typical Navy training is two years of flight school, and then after flight school, we went to our Replacement Air Group, which we call the RAG, that was in Norfolk, Virginia. You spend about a year, or up to 10 months, in Norfolk, Virginia, learning primarily how to fly the helicopter, how to land the helicopter, and we do that in the combination with the Airborne Mine Countermeasure Squadron. We used aircraft from Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 14 to learn how to fly the different mission sets and learn aircraft familiarization. And then from there you either get assigned to HM-14, which was in Norfolk, Virginia, or HM-15, which was in Corpus Christi, Texas. HM-15 has now moved to Norfolk, Virginia. [Editors note: HM-14 sunsetted in 2022.] Sailors assigned to the “Vanguard” of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 14 (HM-14) posed for a photo in front of an MH-53 “Sea Dragon” helicopter prior to the squadron’s last flights Dec. 8, 2022. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Malachi Lakey) Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Malachi Lakey The training takes about 10 months. Mine was a little bit longer because when I actually joined that community, the aircraft were down because of a crash off the coast of Corpus Christi, Texas. There was a problem called ‘thermal runaway,’ where the bearings in the main rotor head would fail, and they would seize together and get hot, and we lost a few sailors from HM-15. And until they figured out why and how to prevent it, it took about a year for those aircraft to come back up, so I was in Norfolk for maybe about a year and a half, almost two years, before I got to Corpus because of that bearing issue. Q: What was it like when you finally got out there and learned how to fly while pulling a mine countermeasure sled? A: Theres different types of equipment that you use and it takes a special kind of person to be able to maintain the situational awareness both flying the aircraft and whats happening in the back because theres dangers in the back. You have a very confined area, lots of equipment, and under lots of tension, and so the very first couple of times, the instructor is kind of handling everything, and youre just kind of riding along. An MH-53 Sea Dragon helicopter from the Vanguards of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron Fourteen pulling a Mark 105 Magnetic Influence Minesweeping System (SLED). (Photo by BOB HOULIHAN / NAVY VISUAL NEWS / AFP) BOB HOULIHAN Then eventually you start to do more tasks, physical tasks, in terms of flying and maintaining a stable platform for the men and women that are working in the back, and then over time those skills translate into a larger situational awareness, where youre now a mission commander where youre flying the aircraft, but also, conducting the mission in the back is your primary responsibility. The positions are second pilot or co-pilot, and then you become a HAC, which is a Helicopter Aircraft Commander, and then you become a mission commander, or ACM mission commander, meaning youre flying the aircraft, youre the commander of the aircraft, but youre also commanding the mission. Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Spencer and Lt. Cmdr. Bochette, assigned to the Vanguards of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 14, perform a pre-flight check on an MH-53 helicopter. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Jessica L. Dowell/Released) Petty Officer 2nd Class Casey Hopkins Q: Did you become a mission commander? A: I did. So I was fully qualified in the MH-53 Echo in my squadron, so I was a mission commander. I worked the maintenance side, so I was the maintenance check pilot and functional check pilot. It takes a lot of maintenance, and then post maintenance, and you have to do post maintenance flights to be able to make sure the aircraft is safe for anyone else to fly. So I spend most of my time in those areas in that squadron. A U.S. Navy Sailor with Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 14 guides an MH-53 helicopter from a vehicle carrier ship at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, Sept. 14, 2022 after completion of aircraft maintenance. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Darien Wright) Cpl. Darien Wright Q: What are the MH-53’s unique quirks and advantages? A: One of the advantages was pure brute strength. You had three GE engines, so you could handle lots of torque, and the way that we hunted and swept for mines was pulling sleds in the water, which causes thousands and thousands of pounds of stress, so its really like a forceful instrument in the water. The operation requires the coordination of not only meteorologists and Operations Specialists, which are like intel specialists in mine warfare, but then you have the maintainer, you had two pilots and a crew chief, plus it could be up to four people in the back, depending on the type of gear youre stowing in the back, so it really takes a coordination from the front. An explosive ordnance disposal technician, assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 5 Platoon 502, operates a communications system aboard an MH-53 helicopter belonging to Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 14. (U.S. Navy Combat Camera photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Alfred A. Coffield) Petty Officer 1st Class Alfred Coffield The disadvantage is that it’s a very expensive aircraft to operate. Every hour of flight, required 24 hours of maintenance, and if a squadron had 10 helicopters, which we did at one point in time, youre looking at the largest deployable squadrons in the Navy, like 600-plus people to operate these aircraft. With everybody working together, we advertise that we could be anywhere in the world in 72 hours, where theres a mine threat. We could break down the helicopters, put them in a C-5 and then reassemble them anywhere in the world in 72 hours. After 9/11, for Operation Iraqi Freedom, we did deploy by C-5. We took half the helicopters to Sicily and the other half went to Bahrain and took 11 C-5s in order to move a squadron that size into those two locations, so big footprints, lots of money, lots of parts. An MH-53E Sea Dragon assigned to the Blackhawks of Helicopter Mine Counter Measures Squadron 15 is offloaded from a U.S. Air Force C-5 Galaxy, March 14, 2003, at the U.S. naval base at Sigonella, Sicily. (Photo by Damon J. Moritz/U.S. Navy/Getty Images) U.S. Navy Q: The Sea Dragon has experienced a notoriously high rate of mishaps. Did that ever concern you? What do you think contributed to this record? A: It did. If youve ever seen one or been on one, been close to one, or heard one, youve got 100-foot long machine with millions of moving parts, right?  Our maintenance crews were very good, I always felt safe flying. I think you have to if you choose to fly that particular weapon system, but there were a lot of accidents. And I knew folks that were killed in MH-53 accidents who I went to flight school with, and buddies. Its a very complicated machine that did a very important mission, and accidents do happen, both mechanically, but also because of pilot error. In combination, you end up losing a lot of airframes. Besides the United States, there is only one other nation that flew that airframe, and that was the Japanese for their mine sweeping operation. Its a very complicated, expensive machine, and thats why not very many people flew it. An MH-53E helicopter belonging to the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces takes off during Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Iwakuni Friendship Day, May 5, 2004, at MCAS in Iwakuni, Japan. (Photo by Koichi Kamoshida/Getty Images) Koichi Kamoshida Q: Did the danger concern you? A: You know, youre in your 20s, right? So you feel a little bit invincible. Ill tell you a story. When I switched from 53s and started flying C-130s, after the Haitian earthquake, I flew into Guantanamo Bay, and my old squadron was there on the same ramp as we were. So I walked over to see who I still knew there, and they had a 53 turning on the deck there, and I was just going, ‘wow, I couldnt believe I used to do that,’ and not thinking about how many things have to go right in order to have a good day. And I just kind of said to myself, ‘its really a young persons game,’ because you gotta kind of hit the ‘I believe’ button on a lot of things, because theres just a lot of opportunity for negativity to come in. Weather, environment, and then the mechanics of things. MH-53 pilot Lt. Steve Jones in Bahrain, circa 2002. (Courtesy Steve Jones) Picasa 2.7 Q: What were the biggest factors contributing to the Sea Dragon mishaps? A: With any aircraft system, the largest factor that contributes to any accident, is the human factor. Yes, engines will fail, components will fail, but a lot of times it was human error that caused the ultimate catastrophe because when an emergency happens, you have three criteria in order to gauge when you should land. The two critical ones are land immediately, meaning if you do not ditch in the water or put the aircraft down, it is going to come apart in flight. The other critical criteria is land as soon as possible, meaning as soon as you have a safe place to land, then you land as soon as possible. Then you have another condition where you can continue to fly, but flying is not recommended. And so that decision factor between land immediately and land as soon as possible, its a bit of a gray area, right? You have a set of skills you can fly, but you can never time when the aircraft is going to come apart. For example, in the Corpus Christi crash, they knew that they had a problem. Im not second-guessing the pilot, but it was in that gray area between land immediately and land soon as possible. The aircraft commander chose to try to bring the aircraft closer to the beach, so you could survive a ditch, because putting a helicopter in the water nothing is guaranteed, right? Then you have no control. However, bring it closer to the beach means youre flying that much longer. So land immediately, there could have been more survivors. Not to Monday morning quarterback anything. I probably would have made the same call. And then with the new equipment that was put on the aircraft, there are lights now placed in a monitoring system that kind of took the gray area out of those decisions when it came to thermal runaway with the main rotor head. So now the decision is clear. Land immediately if certain indications happen, and land as soon as possible if certain indications happen. Prior to 2000 we didnt have that. Q: The Sea Dragon community has been well-documented for being neglected by the Navy. What was your experience when you were flying it? Why do you think that was? A: Its a unique mission set. It kind of came online during the Vietnam War and Haiphong Harbor, and clearing those mines, and then again in Desert Storm, when the USS Tripoli was hit by a mine. The amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli (LPH-10) lies in dry dock for repairs to a hole in its starboard bow caused by an Iraqi mine. The Tripoli struck the mine on February 18 while serving as a mine-clearing platform in the northern Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm. (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images) Historical Mining sea straits is a very cheap way to stop a huge navy, such as the one that we have in the United States. However, the Navy, in my opinion, didnt see necessarily the value in that mission. There are very limited resources. Theres only so much money to go around, and large strike groups and ships just took priority. We were always probably a little bit underfunded, in my opinion, for a mission thats important, which you can see today with the Strait of Hormuz. But it was definitely a huge problem that many people did not talk about during the first two Gulf Wars. An Iranian mine-laying boat. (Iranian state media) (Iran State Media) Q: Why was it a huge problem? A: Well, when you try to move a carrier strike group into a small area like the Persian Gulf, by putting mines in the water, you create doubt in a captains head. The captain is responsible for thousands and thousands of lives, and the battle group commander is responsible for thousands and thousands of more lives, plus the strategic reason of why theyre there. If a mine is discovered, then everything has to pause. You cant land Marines on the beach, you cant move the strike group closer to the shore. The ability for you to project power ashore, all that kind of comes to an end.  Q: How does the MH-53E go about this unique mission set? Can you walk us through what a mission would look like from start to finish?  A: Depending on the intel, youll have a threat and the threat could be you suspect that theres mines in the water, or that you know that theres mines in the water. So, typically its ‘you suspect,’ right? And we used the AN/AQS-14, or Q-14. Theres about three different versions of the Q-14. Its a side-looking sonar, which you drag in the water we call it the fish. We would fly the fish at certain depths based on the terrain and what was in the water. That was called mine hunting.  MH-53 crew members and the AN/AQS-14 side-looking sonar. (Courtesy Steve Jones) So initially you would always kind of begin with a hunting mission, where we could, or the OS operator, or the console operator would mark what they view as a mine-like contact. Youre really kind of looking at the sonar and distinguishing between man-made objects and natural objects. If you believe its a man-made object, and then you would mark a tape. You could also, real time, send that image back to the ship, but that capability came a little bit later. We also had devices that allow you to sweep. A mine can be triggered by different mechanisms. Sometimes theyre triggered by contact. An Iraqi mine floats in the waters of the Persian Gulf. Over 1,275 such mines were discovered in the gulf during Operation Desert Storm. (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images) Historical Some mines are acoustically triggered, meaning you can set that mine to blow up for a certain type of ship acoustics. For instance, a destroyer has a different set of acoustics from an amphibious ship from an aircraft carrier. If you want to let 1,000 destroyers pass you or a submarine and then wait for the aircraft carrier, you can tune it to that way. So we had devices that could mimic the sound signatures of different ships, and you could tow that in the water, you could tow it really fast. One of the reasons why we were successful is that we could do large areas of the ocean relatively quickly.  An MH-53E Sea Dragon from Helicopter Mine Countermeasure Squadron (HM) 15, aboard the multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1), performs Mine Countermeasure training using the MK-105 sled. (U.S. Navy photo/Lt. Cmdr. John L. Kline) U.S. Naval Forces Central Comman The last piece for sweeping is the magnetic variation. Each ship is a metal hull, and as a ship is moving through the water, it has a magnetic signature, and then we have gear, which you could tune to mimic certain types of ships in the water, in order to have them explode behind the gear that were towing in the water. So you hunt, that means youre searching, and then you sweep, and then that means youre clearing. Sometimes you can clear using other technology, such as sometimes the Avenger class ships would go in and sweep, and not us. Sometimes you would use dolphins to work with EOD teams in order to sweep mines. It just depends upon the threat on what the second tool is used after you hunt. The most time that I spent was in the hunting phase of the mission set. In Bahrain, every week, a couple days a week, we would hunt. We would do the Strait of Hormuz. We would do the approaches into Saudi Arabia for the tankers. We would do the approaches into the Suez Canal, just to be sure that there are still no mines in that area. That is for what we call change detection, meaning you map the ocean floor, and then over time, because of consistency, youll be able to tell if something changed. If something changed, then you went in to investigate further. It’s constant because the ocean floor is constantly moving, and then somebody could easily place a very cheap object that could be devastating. An MH-53 Sea Dragon, Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 14 attached to USS Anchorage (LPD 23), controls an Mk-105 magnetic mine sweeping sled. (U.S. Navy Photo by Ensign Lindsay Lewis/Released) Ensi Lindsay Lewis Q: Walk me through how a mission would take place. A: The intel can be good sometimes, sometimes the intel is lacking. The weather has to be at a certain sea state in order for it to be successful, and you cant do it at night, right? You have to do it during a daytime in littoral situation, so youre pretty close to shore and you are susceptible to threats that are on the beach. That is the mission set and if you dont know where the mines are, thats why you begin with hunting. The Q-14 is a relatively quick device to deploy. You can pull it in the water relatively fast. Then you can real-time send images back, or you can collect tapes to study for that change detection. When youre going out for a mission, youll have your standard aircraft brief, where the crews get together and talk about the state of the aircraft, the conditions, the environmental conditions of today. And then youll get into the mission brief on where the ship is, or where the shore is, and where actually the square, or the box, or the rectangle is, where were going to conduct a mission. We talk about the distances from that point that were going to deploy the gear, because it takes time to be able to do that, and then well enter what we suspect is a minefield or an area of interest from which we want to be able to tow in. Then we fly what we call tracks. Its almost like rows on a field, like cornrows, and we go up, down, up, down, and you have to stay within track by feet, okay? If you, if you stray as little as 20 feet off track, then you have to redo that track, because you want to have a continuous picture of the ground. And so it may take two or three sorties to cover an entire minefield. And then times where the device may have strayed off track. It takes time, but we can do it quicker than a ship doing it on its own, like the Avenger class ship, and so between the aircraft brief and the mission brief, and executing, its like a six, seven hour day in the heat or in the cold, depending on where you are. Theres no air condition on that helicopter. So everybodys working in those conditions based on the information that we bring back. Then the tactics folks that are supplied to us by COMINEWARCOM  (Commander, Mine Warfare Command), which was our bosses, those intel folks will say what needs to happen next, meaning theres nothing that needs to happen now, or we need to investigate this further. And then they pick the next tool for us to be able to deploy, or they go with the EOD and dive teams to go take a closer look. Lt. Sean Johnson, left, and Cmdr. Derek Brady, commanding officer of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 14, right, pilots a MH-53E Sea Dragon out to amphibious dock landing ship USS Pearl Harbor. (U.S. Navy photo Lt. Cmdr. Jeremy Braun/Released) Seaman Molly Evans Q: How fast are you flying, and how high are you flying? How deep do the sleds go? A: The helicopters are anywhere between 25 and 75 feet over the water, depending on the gear, because the speed in which we pull through the water is extremely important. You could go as fast as 25 knots in some cases, which is about the top speed, or youd have to go as slow as 12 knots. Q: How deep do the sleds go? A: The depth of some of the gear is classified, or at least it was at my time. Im not sure now, but you could go relatively deep. Its under lots and lots and lots of tension, and the reason why you had to go very deep is that some gear has to be able to get to the sea floor at certain distances, because theres also the subsurface fleet that is operating down there, and mines will affect them as well. Q: What’s the tension like when youre dragging a sled? A: Youre looking at around 15,000 to 20,000 pounds of tension. The aircraft will kind of buckle. You look at the side of a 53, it has a crease from the tension that goes on it. If there is a swell in the sea state, sometimes the Doppler radar which would kind of track how fast youre going forward, backwards, or sideways itll go from forward to negative, meaning were actually getting pulled backwards by the sea state. And the engines would automatically just start the torque would come in as the blade did a bigger bite out of the air. And the aircraft will kind of turn, because of the torque. Itll kind of turn and whine, and youre just flying an out of balance flight, nose down. A US MH-53E military helicopter drags a MK 106 Combination escorted by two military Zodiak boats during an operation off the USS Ponce to clear mines from Khor Abdullah at the entrance to Umm Qasr port in the western Gulf, 29 March 2003. (Photo by RABIH MOGHRABI/AFP via Getty Images) RABIH MOGHRABI Q: Did you ever have the sled get tangled up behind you? A: Yes. It can get caught on things in the water, and the tension will spike. If the tension spikes too high, or the gear gets fouled in something, you always have the option to guillotine or cut the gear. Q: Did the aircraft have other devices that helped in the mine hunting mission?   A: Yes. In addition to the Q-14, we had the Mk 104 acoustic device, mine chain cutting devices and the Mk 105, a huge gas generator, which produces electrical charges in the water for those magnetic-seeking mines that change the magnetic variation. Theres at least six devices that I know of that are used for hunting mines, including something as simple as what we call a MOP, which is stands for Magnetic Orange Pipe, which is what they used in Vietnam. Essentially you have this pipe, it looks like a telephone pole, which is about the size of a telephone pole or larger, and its orange. It has a positive charge on one end and negative on the other end. Its just a magnetic pipe that we would tow in the water. Its probably the easiest thing that you can tow, and the simplest, but its looking for those magnetic variations. The problem with the magnetic orange pipe is you cant change it, so its set for a certain amount of tactics. You can see how that could become obsolete in todays environment. A US MH-53E military helicopter using a cable drags an MK 106 sled sent out from the USS Ponce as mine clearance takes place in Khor Abdullah at the entrance to Umm Qasr port in the western Gulf March 29, 2003. (Photo by RABIH MOGHRABI / AFP) RABIH MOGHRABI Q: How does the Sea Dragon integrate with other mine hunting capabilities, like the Avenger class ships or other assets? A: We worked as a team, but obviously were a tool in that larger mine warfare strategy. We were the speed aspect of that, meaning we could have left holes, but if youre trying to move at the speed of war, then sometimes we were the tool that was required. And if you have 72 hours to be somewhere, speed is required. We could do that to be sure that the fleet can continue to do what it needs to do, but if youve got time, then you could sail a ship or move one of those slower small boats into that environment, that makes sense. Q: Did you ever work together with Avenger class ships? A: Maybe in the same AOR, but other than an exercise where you would see an Avenger class ship working the tow area, and then we will be working our tow area. It was under controlled condition. When I was doing change detection, and during work conditions, we were operating concentrated on our mission set, theyre probably concentrating on their mission set, and between the two pictures, they came together in the operation center to have a very clear picture. A stock picture of the US Navys Avenger class mine-hunter USS Pioneer. USN Q: When was the Sea Dragon actually used for this mission operationally? How did it perform? A: It was used throughout Iraqi Freedom, from Shock and Awe to the pull-out to the drawdown. If not every day, every week there was change detection in mine operations, because its always a threat. Its a very cheap weapon that non-state actors can get off the black market. One mistake or one mishap causes devastating consequences for the individuals on that ship, but also the mission, so its a constant threat, and still is a threat.  During my time, actively hunting for mines to be sure that those straits and those approaches remain clear, dominated my entire career in the community. From the time I started  and then I towed to my last days in the squadron, which was in 2005. A U.S. Navy sailor directs an MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter launching March 28, 2003 at the port of Umm Qasr, Iraq. The helicopter was part of a mine clearing unit that cleared the way for the British Navy ship, Sir Galahad, that delivered the first wave of humanitarian aid in support of the U.S.-led Operation Iraqi Freedom. (Photo by Bob Houlihan/U.S. Navy/Getty Images) U.S. Navy Q: How did the Sea Dragon perform? A: I would say, since there was not a mishap, it performed as designed. It doesnt mean that the mines were not there. During Iraqi Freedom, mines were put in the water, but we didn’t have the mishaps like we had before that I can recall. So I would say it was a success. In this U.S. Navy handout mines are seen which were found on four Iraqi vessels that were intercepted in the Khor Abd Allah waterway by U.S.-led coalition forces March 26, 2003 in the Arabian Gulf. (Photo by Joseph Krypel/U.S. Navy/Getty Images) U.S. Navy Q: Any close calls during any of your sled-towing flights?  A: I got disoriented one time with vertigo. Like I mentioned earlier, youre on an out-of-balanced flight, so your ears are doing one thing, your eyes are doing another thing, and sometimes theres low fog over the water early in the morning. Under tow there was a time where I got vertigo and put the aircraft in an undesired state, but theres two pilots. I recognized it and told the aircraft commander ‘Ive got vertigo.’ He took the control and saved it. Being that close to the ground, getting vertigo could have devastating effects, right? We just ended up releasing the gear that day. Q: Tell me about the time you encountered a surfacing sub while dragging your sled. A: It was sometime in 2003 or 2004. We were flying over the Strait of Hormuz, towing a side-looking sonar to do bottom mapping. Ive got a very loud helicopter in the air and a sonar thats pinging on the bottom, so it probably was not a surprise where we were to the submarine, but their location was a surprise to us. Its a bright sunny day. The water looked beautiful, and were just doing a random tow. And all of a sudden, this big black submarine surfaced right in front of us. Just popped out of the water, and right in line with our track. I think I was maybe 50 feet over the water and the gear is behind me. Now I have to turn like a semi truck, having to turn myself and the gear all at the same time to maneuver around the submarine. I said something like ‘holy shit’ and I remember I banked to the right because I think it was the easiest thing to do. Theres more space. We ended up able to clear the sub, but it had a startling effect. So either they were in the wrong spot or we were in the wrong spot, I couldnt tell you. But no one came and knocked on the door, saying that I did something wrong. So Im gonna leave it as if they were in the wrong spot. During his time flying Sea Dragons, Steve Jones saw a submarine like the guided-missile submarine USS Georgia pictured here transiting the Strait of Hormuz surface right in front of him as he was towing a mine sweeping sled. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Indra Beaufort/Release) Petty Officer 1st Class Indra Beaufort Q: Whats the operational situation regarding Iran at the time you were flying? A: Annoying. They have a lot of islands that are in the Persian Gulf that are their territory, and sometimes during operations, when youre either delivering cargo or going to field a tow, it puts you in close proximity with those islands. At the same time, if its necessary, you could have your own boat team in the water as well. It was post-Cole [a reference to the October 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole just a few years earlier by explosive-laden suicide boats at the port of Aden in Yemen. The blast ripped a 40-foot-wide hole near the destroyers waterline, killing 17 U.S. sailors and injuring nearly 40 other crew members.] So you have fishing boats in the water, and you dont know whos on that boat that is getting close to your ship. But when you got close to Iranian territory, they will speak up on the radio, and tell you to turn around, that youre approaching their territory,. Even though you know exactly where you are, and you know exactly where this island is, theyre still going tell you are in violation of their airspace.  Then its always a constant threat, right? So, if I were to have to ditch a helicopter or airplane in the water, theyve got boats in the water. You wouldnt want to get captured by them, where they could say you are in violation of their sovereign territory by mistake, and then it becomes an issue. We were flying helicopters without GPS, so youre using visual navigation maps and whatnot.  Im sure theres a GPS on those birds now, but at the time, I had a handheld GPS from Academy Sport, where I marked the islands myself, so I knew exactly where I was, or at least the best that I could manage with the equipment, to be sure that was in the right position.  Q: Did they ever directly threaten you while you were on those missions? A: No. They talked about violating their airspace, but they never intercepted or anything like that. I think that would be a huge mistake. It would not be a good day for them. Q: Tell us about other locales where Sea Dragons operated. A: We had detachments in South Korea for the North Korean threat from underwater mines. We did exercises in the Pacific. We did exercises with Japan because theres a threat of mine in those straits, like the Strait of Malacca.  Theres obviously a threat in the Pacific theater. But because of the situation with Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, I spent most of my time in the Middle East. An Mh-53E Sea Dragon from Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 14 deploys the Mk-105 sled from the USS Anchorage (LPD 23) well deck, part of air mine countermeasure operations during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise 2014. (U.S. Navy Photo by Ensign Lindsay Lewis/Released) Ensine Lindsay Lewis Q: Were there any difference between operating in the Persian Gulf area and the Pacific, or Europe? A: A lot of the effectiveness of what we do is dependent upon water. The salinity of the water, the sea state, the amount of garbage and trash thats in the water. So those environmental threats change the tactics. Thats why you need to practice out there. In terms of the purpose of the mission, that does not change, but how you go about it does change. If youre closer to a near-peer actor, its going to require better intelligence, different types of equipment in order to counteract the threat. I would say the Iraqi Navy was not near-peer in terms of mine tactics, but the Chinese could probably be very different in terms of mine tactics. They would be a more sophisticated enemy in this case, which would heighten everything. Chinese mine-laying AJX002 unmanned underwater vehicles seen during the military parade marking the 80th anniversary of victory over Japan and the end of World War II, in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on September 3, 2025. (Photo by Greg Baker / AFP) GREG BAKER Q: Did the Iraqi Navy or the Iraqis present a threat to your aircraft? Did they harass you, fire at you? A: No, not during my time. I think maybe possibly during the first Gulf War. The threat was that there, it was always a threat when youre operating close. So yes, something could have happened. Theyve got boats, theyve got men in the water. Q: What are your thoughts about the current MCM missions taking place now in the Middle East? Just how hard is it to clear an area of mines like the Strait of Hormuz? A: I would say that it is difficult. All mine clearing operations are difficult because youre talking about the needle in the haystack. Like literally, and you know they’re deploying something that can be hoisted by one person and thrown overboard into the water or by a machine, and you can deploy a lot of mines in a very short time in a concentrated, tactical way, or randomly. It really doesnt matter, its still a threat.  I would say it is difficult because people talk about how narrow and small the Strait of Hormuz is, but you have to remember the earth is large, and there is just a sheer volume of water, and square miles or square kilometers on which something can happen. It is a very daunting task, and so having more MH-53E helicopters probably wasnt the solution for the future. From reading, and then from hearing from my peers that are still in, the tactics are different, but also the equipment that they use to detect this threat is also different. It is faster. It is unmanned. You can deploy more assets quicker because youre not relying upon one machine or two machines at one time being deployed. Q: What equipment are they using now? What are the differences? A: I retired in 2017 and it has changed dramatically. For one, it is more integrated into the fleet, so youll have multi-mission capabilities, meaning an MH-60Ss can be used for different sets of missions, from delivering cargo, to deploying different sensor arrays. You have AI for detection assistance. You have side-looking sonar, which instead of being towed are now on underwater unmanned vehicles. So I think more of what youre looking at now is a mission package of sensors that can be deployed. When you have sensor sets, its integrated into the larger Navy strategic picture better. I think that that was lacking in the past in a way, because you have to cover such a large volume of area, you need more sensors and eyes to be able to do that, and I think thats the strategy today. A Sailor assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 5, describes the capabilities of the MK 18 Mod 2 Kingfish unmanned underwater vehicle and a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Rear Adm. Yatsutaka Ebata, commander, Escort Flotilla 2, and Rear Adm. Tom Shultz, commander, Task Force (CTF) 76. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class W. Chase Stephens) Petty Officer 1st Class Chase Stephens Q: Do you talk to any of the current pilots/crews of the last squadron flying them? What do they say about the current status of the fleet? Are they involved in the mine clearing operation in the Strait?   A: So I talked with folks, theres still some folks that are still active duty. Some of them have transitioned out of the 53 pilot-wise and have transitioned into the MH-60S community and so they are deploying those tactics and new systems. I would say it is probably still a neglected community in their opinion. Everybodys fighting for resources, but I think when youre talking about the current situation with Iran in the straight, theres always a time where mine countermeasures become a very hot topic, because people do forget about it.  Q: Are the MH-53Es still performing airborne counter-mine missions? A: Im not sure.  Q: What other missions does the MH-53 community perform? Can you talk about your experience with those and what they entail? A: When you have that much capability, you move a lot of things. And so we did a lot of moving cargo. I could move an F-14 Tomcat engine with the afterburner completely attached. I could move it at 150 knots from shore to ship internally, so I didnt have to sling it underneath the aircraft in a pod. I can have the engine assembled together and be able to move it. So we moved things that the C-2 Greyhound couldnt. The primary mission was mines, the secondary cargo and people. We would do people movement, if a better ride wasnt available to move an admiral or someone for an important meeting, then we would do so. Obviously, you know, its a very dirty ride. Aviation Warfare Systems Operator 2nd Class Gavin Chatham prepares to push cargo out of an MH-53 Sea Dragon helicopter from Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 14 (HM-14). (U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Michael Chen/Released) Petty Officer 2nd Class Adam Craft Q: What admirals did you move? A:  I cant remember the admirals, because they kind of all blend together, but we did move fun people. We did Tiger Woods for all the USO engagements. Blink 182. We did Tom Jones, Robin Williams, a number of NASCAR folks and other celebrities. We did a lot of that. Q: What was Robin Williams like? A:  Funny. He was on from the time that we picked him up in Bahrain, and then giving him the brief. He liked talking with sailors and making jokes. Tom Jones was memorable because hes got the hair right, and he didnt want to wear a cranial or helmet on his head to mess up his hair before he did the show, and so that became a thing. But you know, the hair won out. The hair was not going to get covered by the helmet. Robin Williams with MH-53E crew members, from left to right, LCDR Chuck Miller, Lt. Ray Jimenez and Lt. Kyle Leslie. (Steve Jones photo) Q: What will the Navy miss when that last squadron is finally retired next year and there are no more Sea Dragons flying? Can the MH-60S handle the job? A:  With the Greyhounds going away, I think even with the CMV-22, which is a very capable aircraft, a very fast aircraft, but in terms of lift capacity internally, theres something to that. If its outsized or weirdly shaped or is on wheels, the MH-53E is your catch-all aircraft. The Navy will miss that and the large numbers of people that we can move. During the start Operation Iraqi Freedom, when I was in Sigonella we spent four days offloading the Marine Corps battalion landing team from the Iwo Jima on to Souda Bay for them to be flown into the northern part of Iraq. With those two helicopters and in one helicopter with Helicopter Detachment 4, we moved hundreds and hundreds of Marines from a ship to the shore for them to be staged in order to be moved into Iraq in a matter of days. I dont think that same amount of capability in terms of volume of moving at that speed can be done with whats available today. So I think theyre going to miss the kind of the ad hoc nature of having a big aircraft to move odd things. Its good to be a generalist sometimes. Sailors assigned to operations department aboard the aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) transfer passengers to an MH-53E Sea Dragon, attached to the “Blackhawks” of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 15. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Maxwell Orlosky) Petty Officer 2nd Class Maxwell Orlosky Q: What about the mine countermeasures mission? Is there anything that the Navy will miss from the capabilities of the 53 from that standpoint? A: I cant speak on it with the new equipment, because Ive never operated it, but I think what the Navy wont miss is the price tag, and maybe the lack of full mission capability. We operated a lot of times in that partial mission capability, because of the complexity of the equipment and the machine, and then you have to get the equipment and the machine to work together, the machine being the helicopter. I dont think the Navy will miss that part of it. Q: Can the MH-60 do the job? A: They can do the job, but they dont conduct it the same way we did. They cant pull big sleds like we did for underwater sonars because of power and tension. And you cant send as many crew members in the back in order to make that mission successful. But the 60 is a very capable platform in order to conduct the mission the way they do it now. Naval Aircrewman 1st Class Patrick Miller, assigned to the Dragon Whales of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 28, operates the common console, used for both Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) (pictured) and the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS), aboard a MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter. (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shannon E. Renfroe (Released) Chief Petty Officer Shannon Renfroe Q: Whats the difference between what they do and what you did? A: Theyre deploying sensor arrays and underwater vehicles from the thing, so they have standoff distance. Theyre capable of not putting the helicopter in the same proximity to danger. They cant put a Mk 105 in the water, but they dont need to, because they have other types of technology to do it.  An MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter, from the Screamin Indians of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 6, lifts off the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Seaman Bryant Lang) An MH-60S from Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 6 lifts off the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Seaman Bryant Lang Q: What was your most fear-inducing flight in the Sea Dragon? A: For me, I was on the sea wall in Corpus Christi, Texas, about to do a towing training mission off the coast of Texas. In the 53 you have three engines, and then you have an auxiliary power unit another gas turbine thats above the cockpit. The purpose of the auxiliary power unit is to run the hydraulics and various components and accessories when the engines and the rotor head arent turning. The idea is, once you get the engines going and the main rotor is turning, there is a shaft that goes from the main gear box into that auxiliary power unit, where all your generators and hydraulic systems are run. So we had the engines running, we were on the sea wall we had a hanger, and then we had an apron, and right there was the Corpus Christi Bay. (DoW courtesy photo) I was taxiing out to take off from the helipad, and youre over the water as soon as you take off from the sea wall. Well, that shaft sheared while I was taxiing up. I have to push the cyclic (the stick) forward in order to tip the rotor head forward to pull me along the ground. If you lose hydraulics in a 53 there is no amount of strength that you or the other copilot has to help to change the path of that helicopter.  When the shaft broke, it meant whatever condition that rotor head was in, it was not going to move, and that rotor head was in position for me to be able to take off, but I did not have enough power in order for me to lift off. Even if I lifted off, I probably would have just careened into the water.  So we were going in a situation where I heard it pop, and then all of a sudden the controls froze, and I told the co-pilot, Ty Jurica, that I was so concentrated at that point because I could not control the aircraft. I said ‘I dont have control, I cannot move the controls.’ But Tys quick thinking noted that he could get the hydraulic power unit started again, which it takes time to spool up, but he was able to hit the start on the APU, and we managed to spool up to get hydraulics back, and as soon as the pressure came on at 3000 psi, I was able to move the controls again. We stopped the aircraft where we were, and we shut it down at that particular time, but in a few seconds, maybe, we probably just would have taxiied off over the sea wall, and into a very bad situation.  (U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Samuel Bacon/Released) Q: What was your best memory of a mission you flew, or a moment during one of your missions in your time in the Sea Dragons? Put us in your shoes of what that was like. A: Oh man, my best day there? There were a lot of good days. A lot of times, we would fly in formation two ships going out to whether it was an aircraft carrier or whatever and we would take off before sunrise. When youre flying in formation low over the water, and the sun is coming up over the Persian Gulf, those are those are great days. Because everything is working. You have two planes actually going to conduct the mission and not training. I dont care who you are, its always a lot of fun.  Youre going relatively fast. I mean, were not Hornets or whatever, but we were low and fast at that time for us, and we thought we were pretty cool. You couldnt touch us on those days.  (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Matt Hecht/Released) Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post Confessions Of A Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon Minehunter Pilot appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Sea, Air, Around The Globe, Confessions Of Series, H-53, Helicopters, Middle East, Naval Mines, Naval Munitions, News & Features, Persian Gulf] [Link to media]

— Legislators Demand Navy Prove Trump Class Battleships Won’t Sink U.S. Nuclear Shipbuilding

 

at 6/5/26 6:46am

Concerned about a cascading impact on America’s already strained nuclear shipbuilding industry, the House Armed Services Committee wants the Secretary of the Navy to prove that procurement of the proposed nuclear-powered Trump class battleships won’t exacerbate existing construction delays on aircraft carriers and submarines. This follows a congressional move last month to block the Navy from starting construction of the first of the new class of battleships until the service provides assurances that key weapon systems are “sufficiently mature.” You can read more about that in our original report here. New worries about the status of U.S. nuclear shipbuilding were raised Thursday during the House Armed Services Committees Markup of the current draft of the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual defense policy bill. An amendment adding new directed report language related to the Trump class, which was approved by the Committee, mirrors issues TWZ has frequently addressed about procurement of nuclear-powered vessels. A render of the future Trump class nuclear-powered guided-missile battleship. White House/USN “The committee continues to support efforts to expand the U.S. maritime industrial base and accelerate U.S. shipbuilding production and recognizes the progress that has been made on these efforts through coordination between Congress, the Department of Defense, and industry,” the amendment, which had been put forward by Rep. Joe Courtney, a Connecticut Democrat, says. “However, the committee is concerned about the possibility of strain on U.S. nuclear shipyards and maritime industrial base posed by the aggressive schedule proposed for producing a nuclear-powered BBG(X) platform.” The Trump class has also been referred to as BBG(X), the hull classification code for a guided missile (G) battleship (BB). The Navy has more recently used the term BBGN, reflecting the decision to utilize nuclear propulsion. The main concern raised by Rep. Courtney is that there is a limit on where nuclear-powered warships can be built.   “The committee notes that the United States operates only two shipyards that are qualified to construct nuclear-powered vessels and that only one of these two shipyards, located in Newport News, Virginia, actively constructs surface vessels, including the Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier program,” Courtney noted. He was referring to Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries. Newport News Shipbuilding. (HII) “The committee is aware that the timelines for completion of the three Ford class aircraft carriers currently under construction have experienced significant delays due to a variety of reasons including supply chain and workforce challenges, the amendment continues. The committee is concerned that these factors, coupled with a lack of physical shipbuilding capacity, could be further exacerbated by a new nuclear-powered surface vessel program and without careful planning could jeopardize Ford class delivery.” Beyond concerns about building the ships, the committee is troubled by the Trump class battleship’s impact on the U.S. naval reactor base, which is also limited to a single supplier. That company, BWXT Technologies, is providing reactors for the Ford class carriers, as well as Virginia and Columbia class nuclear submarines under construction. It was recently awarded $1.4 billion in contracts by the U.S. Naval Propulsion Program. A nuclear steam generator. (BWXT) “Procurement of naval nuclear reactors typically occurs 2-to-3 years ahead of procurement of a respective vessel and reactor production timelines typically range from 6-to-8 years,” Courtney posited in his amendment. He is “concerned that the accelerated procurement timeline for the BBG(X) program will result in a negative impact on this supply chain.” The first formal announcement that the Trump class ships would be nuclear-powered came when the Navy unveiled its new shipbuilding plan last month. The Navy hasn’t had a nuclear-powered surface combatant since the 1990s. A trio of nuclear-powered Navy surface warships sail together in 1964. From left to right, the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, the cruiser USS Long Beach, and the frigate USS Bainbridge. (USN) The services stated plan is to acquire 15 Trump class ships between Fiscal Year 2028 and 2055. Orders are to be placed essentially one every other year. However, two are slated to come back-to-back in Fiscal Years 2030 and 2031. The most recent publicly available official estimate for the price tag on these boats is about $17 billion each. That eclipses what the service expects to spend on each of the next three Ford class carriers, the projected unit costs of which range from roughly $13 to $15 billion. A chart from the Navy’s latest annual shipbuilding plan laying out the planned schedule for ordering new Trump class battleships, referred to here as BBG(X)s, as well as other vessels. USN With all this in mind, the committee now wants the Navy Secretary and the Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program to provide a report by March 1, 2027, on the “Navy’s strategy to design and construct BBG(X) without interfering with existing nuclear-powered shipbuilding plans,” including the scheduled construction of third, fourth, and fifth Ford class carriers, the future USS Enterprise (CVN-80), USS Doris Miller (CVN-81), and USS William J. Clinton (CVN-82). The committee wants the information about: “the Navy’s strategy to reduce construction delays for CVN-80, CVN-81, and CVN-82;” “the Navy’s projection for construction and delivery timelines for a nuclear-powered BBG(X) program, to include procurement of long-lead material such as naval nuclear reactors;” “an assessment of the capacity of existing U.S. shipyards, certified for nuclear-powered vessel construction, to support construction of a nuclear-powered BBG(X) without delaying scheduled construction of projected and under-contract vessels within the Virginia class, Columbia class submarine, and Gerald R. Ford class carrier programs;” “an assessment of the capacity of the U.S. naval nuclear reactor industrial base capacity to support the construction of a nuclear-powered BBG(X) without delaying scheduled construction of projected and under-contract submarines and aircraft carriers” and “a summary of the maritime industrial base vendors, particularly those with long-lead time items or that have single source suppliers and their capacity to support the construction of the BBG(X) without delaying construction of already scheduled shipbuilding efforts. The future Virginia class fast attack nuclear-powered submarine USS Oklahoma pressure hull is completed. (HII) Ashley Cowan In addition to the issues raised by Courtney, Representative Christopher Deluzio, a Pennsylvania Democrat, expressed concern that the Navy is making optimistic assumptions about technologies in a separate amendment to the latest draft of the House NDAA. He specifically cited operating with a nuclear weapon, ship design, costs, schedule, and production and lack clear concepts of operations or a commitment to incorporating commercial leading practices when it comes to the Trump class program. Deluzios full amendment also touched on aspects of the Trump administrations Golden Fleet naval modernization initiative. Deluzios amendment directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a brief to the House Committee on Armed Services no later than January 1, 2027, on how they will assess: the business case for the BBG(X) program, including the planned cost, schedule, and performance parameters, as well as any assumptions that are inherent to the execution of the business case; the novel systems and technologies required to build, operate, and sustain the BBG(X), including the costs and risks of these technologies and the Navy’s steps to mitigate these risks;  the extent to which and how the Navy envisions executing Distributed Maritime Operations with the BBG(X) as well as other Golden Fleet assets; the extent to which the Navy plans to incorporate commercial leading practices into its acquisition approach for BBG(X) and other Golden Fleet assets and the impact of BBG(X) and other Golden Fleet assets on acquisition and construction plans for existing Navy shipbuilding programs. The future USS Enterprise midbody under construction at Newport News Shipbuilding. (HII) We reached out to Acting Navy Secretary Hung Caos media office for comment and will update this story with any pertinent insights shared. There are still a number of legislative hurdles the committees proposals have to jump. Regardless, the reality that the Navy will ever procure a Trump class battleship, at least as currently envisioned, is already highly questionable, an issue TWZ raised when the class was first announced. President Donald Trump, who sees his namesake battleship class as a key component of the Golden Fleet, will be out of office before major decisions about how to go forward will be made. These congressional actions could be seen as a way to slow-roll plans for the battleship to kill it without directly confronting Trump about the logic of building it in the first place. US President Donald Trump announced the US Navy’s new Golden Fleet initiative, unveiling the new Trump class battleship, at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, on December 22, 2025. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP) ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS The next administration faces massive competing priorities, and there are already questions by members of Congress about whether the battleship effort is the best use of available resources. The committees demand that the Navy prove these vessels won’t gum up the nuclear shipbuilding works is another reminder that there are rough waters ahead for the Trump class. Contact the author: howard@TWZ.com. The post Legislators Demand Navy Prove Trump Class Battleships Wont Sink U.S. Nuclear Shipbuilding appeared first on The War Zone.

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

— USAF Wants “MQ-9 Next” Reaper Replacement To Be Modular, Cheap

 

at 6/4/26 5:20pm

Modularity is a key area of interest as the U.S. Air Force formulates its latest set of requirements for a successor to the MQ-9 Reaper, according to Gen. John Lamontagne, the services Vice Chief of Staff. A modular design, both in terms of hardware and software, would help make the chosen platform more flexible and adaptable to different mission sets. Earlier this year, the Air Force did lay out other prospective requirements for a relevant-sounding MQ-9 replacement, including a design that is easier to produce, lower-cost, and that can be more freely sent into higher-risk environments, as we have previously reported. Gen. Lamontagne talked about what he termed MQ-9 Next during a virtual talk hosted by the Air & Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies earlier today. His comments came in response to a question about the Reaper performance in the latest conflict with Iran, where the drones have played a critical role, but have also suffered major losses. The latter point is a key factor in this discussion that we will come back to later on. Last month, the Air Force had also confirmed it was in the early phases of putting together a new set of requirements for an MQ-9 replacement. This follows several abortive Air Force attempts in the past to devise a successor to the Reaper. US Air Force MQ-9 Reaper. USAF As we look forward in [sic] having something that is more MQ-9-like – I would characterize it as MQ-9 Next – I think what wed like to have is something thats perhaps got more range, perhaps a lot more modularity, Lamontagne explained. We could hang ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] sensors, we could hang weapons, we could hang fuel – something that we could line-in/ line-out, very modular. The Air Forces number two officer made clear that his view of modularity in this extends from the hardware side to very simple software that we own, and we could change, so its almost like an iPhone. We have it for several years, and we could change it, and put whatever kind of apps on it, and change the speed of warfare, change the speed of need, he continued. We own it, we control it, and we can also change it very quickly. Greater control over intellectual property, and software in particular, has emerged as a major guiding principle for the U.S. military, in general, in recent years. This makes it easier to avoid the pitfalls of being locked into a single vendor. Being able to have companies compete for follow-on contracts creates opportunities to lower costs and diversify supply chains. This diversification in the supplier base, in turn, can be beneficial when it comes to scaling up production of key subcomponents and complete systems. A row of MQ-9 Reapers. USAF/Staff Sgt. Ariel OShea All of this feeds back into the modularity equation, with the ability to readily integrate new capability and functionality helping keep doors wide open to new possibilities down the road. There is all on top of the more immediate flexibility that modular systems and architectures offer. For MQ-9 Next, this could translate to more adaptability when it comes to hey, do we need more ISR? Do we need more strike? Or a combination thereof? Gen. Lamontagne said. The general also described the current MQ-9 replacement requirements as probably less defined compared to where the service is right now on future Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones. Were just going through some early work, our Air Force Futures team, to figure out exactly how we want to tackle that going forward [on MQ-9 Next]. Lamontagnes remarks today are in line with testimony from Maj. Gen. Christopher Niemi, the acting head of Air Force Futures, at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. At that time, Niemi talked about an MQ-9 replacement that would be “more flexible” by leveraging open architectures, easier and cheaper to produce “in mass numbers,” and usable “in a more attritable way.” Attritable is generally taken to mean a system that is sufficiently low-cost to be sent out on higher-risk missions where it could be lost, but also capable enough to be relevant for those same missions. It is a term that has been increasingly in disuse by the Air Force in recent years. An official US military graphic intended to help conceptualize where attritable falls into the spectrum of cost and capability, and the value of having capabilities in that category. Defense Systems Information Analysis Center In April, the Air Force had also used the term in a contracting notice seeking information about prospective designs for a new ISR drone. Though the MQ-9 was not explicitly mentioned in that notice, the specific details do align with the remarks from Niemi and now Lamontagne about new plans for a Reaper replacement, as you can read more about here. As we previously wrote: The latest statements from the service describe a drone with increased flexibility achieved through open architecture, rather than building bespoke batches of drones for particular requirements. Previous statements from the service outlined an aspiration to have its new drone capable of accommodating rapidly reconfigurable payloads, something that open architecture would expedite. Above all else, the MQ-9 successor will still have to operate in contested environments. The Pentagon has long worked on the basis that a future conflict with a peer rival, and especially with China in the Pacific, would see it facing highly robust anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) scenarios. With that in mind, previous Reaper replacement studies had suggested that low observability would need to be incorporated into the design. The latest thinking seems to reject that, or at least reorient the program toward a lower-cost platform of the kind that the Air Force would be able to field in mass, as well as to absorb the anticipated attrition in a high-end conflict. This does not preclude this airframe from featuring low-observable elements. In fact, it most likely will. But those would be more aggressively balanced against cost. A rendering of a stealthy concept Northrop Grumman previously put forward as a possible MQ-9 replacement, underscoring how the thinking in this regard has changed over the years. Northrop Grumman There remains a question of when the MQ-9 Next requirement might actually be finalized, as well as what the acquisition strategy (and timeline) might be for the drones. As already mentioned, the Air Force has tried multiple times to develop a Reaper replacement without success. As we highlighted in our past report: Since MQ-Next, the U.S. drone landscape has changed considerably in terms of manufacturers. A few years ago, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics would have been seen as the front-runners for the MQ-9 replacement. Now, there are more contenders, often with a founding focus on rapidly scaling up production at low cost. Still, these firms have much to prove, especially considering the risk in replacing an aircraft as important as the MQ-9. At the same time, in the more advanced drone space, the legacy defense “prime” contractors are also making major progress in leveraging new technologies to reduce production costs and migrating away from exquisite, very expensive drones as their default offerings. All of this is made more pressing by the worrisome impacts from losses of dozens of MQ-9s just in the past year or so as a result of operations targeting Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen and, more recently, the conflict directly with Iran. The Air Force itself described this attrition as concerning, but there increasingly look to be limited options for securing any immediate replacements. The Reaper, more formally known as the MQ-9A, is out of production. The company that developed the drone, General Atomics, has moved on to the MQ-9B, an evolved design with significant differences from its predecessor. Any new Air Force purchases of drones in this broader family would have to be of the B model and worked into the existing production schedule. USAF General Atomics, the maker of the MQ-9 and a pioneer in the uncrewed marketplace, seems to have pushed back on some of the ideas the USAF now wants in a Reaper replacement. Some say we need cheaper, disposable aircraft, so that we can use them and throw them away, or lose them and not feel bad about it. No one is talking about actual capability, ready today, C. Mark Brinkley, a spokesperson for the company, recently told TWZ. No one is talking about all of the hard lessons, already learned, about icing and weather and weapons integration. No one is talking about the multiple survivability upgrades available for the existing platforms and the lack of investment in those. These make-believe weapons that don’t exist have the luxury of being anything you imagine them to be, Brinkely added. Unscratched lottery tickets, promising all of the win and none of the lose [sic]. USAF In the meantime, operational demands for MQ-9s remain high, and Lamontagne lauded their contributions in the latest conflict with Iran during his talk today. He also said that he sees Reapers performance as validating his services broader plans for new uncrewed platforms, including CCAs, as well as MQ-9 Next. I think it affirms the path that were on with Collaborative Combat Aircraft, he said. Collaborative Combat Aircraft, different [from MQ-9], much more autonomous, but still controlled by a man or a woman, and a fighter that is going to direct them to do what they need to do. A very loyal wingman and not quite as intensive from a manpower perspective – true both in the air and on the ground, he continued. So, I think it very much affirms thats the right path. And were going down that road, and were spending really good money on CCAs, and were excited about what kind of capability thats going to deliver. I think weve learned a lot of lessons, both with CCAs and MQ-9 Next, to take us into the future. When it comes to MQ-9 Next, the requirements are still very much evolving. It remains to be seen when and if this attempt at Reaper replacement will come to fruition, unlike the various preceding attempts. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post USAF Wants MQ-9 Next Reaper Replacement To Be Modular, Cheap appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Air, Air Forces, Drones, News & Features, Q-9, U.S. Air Force, Unmanned] [Link to media]

— Anti-Drone 5.56mm Rifle Rounds That Break Into Multiple Projectiles Sought By Marines

 

at 6/4/26 2:37pm

The U.S. Marine Corps is aiming to put in an order for new anti-drone 5.56x45mm ammunition for its M4 carbines and M27 rifles by the end of the year. Produced by a company called Drone Round, the L Variant cartridge has a projectile that breaks into multiple segments to improve the probability of scoring a hit on a small, fast-moving aerial target. The idea is to give anyone with a rifle an immediate boost in their ability to defend against growing drone threats, especially first-person view (FPV) kamikaze types now proliferating around the globe after becoming a fixture in the war in Ukraine. Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) announced its intention to buy an unspecified number of 5.56x45mm L Variant cartridges through a sole-source contract with Drone Round in a notice posted online yesterday. The projected date of the contract award is December 2026. The 5.56mm Drone Round L Variant is the only kinetic munition currently available in the commercial or defense marketplace that meets the Marine Corps’ strict minimum capability requirements for immediate c-sUAS [counter-small uncrewed aerial systems] defense, according to an accompanying document justifying the need for a sole-source deal. Specifically, this round is the only solution offering drop-in compatibility that requires no physical modifications, specialized upper receivers, or distinct weapon platforms to be operable in current-issue Marine Corps 5.56mm weapons (e.g., M27, M4, and M4A1). Furthermore, its deployment requires zero additional New Equipment Training or specialized occupational specialties, rendering it immediately effective upon issue, the justification adds. Failure to deliver this capability places an unnecessary risk to Marines and could lead to mission failure and loss of life. The results of a range test of L Variant rounds. Drone Round Drone Round has been developing specialized anti-drone ammunition for small arms since at least 2025. At the time of writing, the company offers two 5.56x45mm versions, the aforementioned L Variant and a K Variant. The L and K versions have projectiles designed to split into five and eight segments, respectively. With their different loadings, the L and K Variants are effective out to around 328 and 164 feet (100 and 50 Meters), both of which are relatively short ranges, according to Drone Round. No special modifications are required to use the ammunition in existing guns, and the company says the rounds are full-auto and suppressor capable. Marines train with M27 rifles. USMC L and K Variants in 7.62x51mm have also been developed, but are still in testing. Work is underway on 6.8x51mm versions, which could be fired from the U.S. Armys new M7 rifles, M8 carbines, and M250 light machine guns. Other calibers could be on the horizon, as well. Some Army units have at least evaluated the 5.56x45mm L Variant already. There are reports that Ukrainian forces have done so, as well. Soldiers assigned to the US Armys XVIII Airborne Corps load L Variant cartridges into magazines during testing. US Army/Pfc. Alexis Fischer Marine Corps interest in ammunition of this kind, broadly, is also not new. “Enhanced ammunition for existing firearms (buckshot-like 5.56, 7.62, .50, .40mm) was among a list of desired squad and platoon-level counter-drone capabilities included in a separate contracting notice MARCORSYSCOM put out back in 2024. This reflected the then-recent rollout of a larger service-wide counter-drone vision, the core of which is ensuring that virtually every Marine can play a role. For our ammunition portfolio, we need industrys help in counter-UAS munitions for our existing weapon systems, Marine Col. Paul Gilikin, the Program Manager for Combat Support Systems at MARCORSYSCOM, said during a talk at the Navy Leagues annual Sea-Air-Space conference in April. The basic idea of multi-projectile small arms ammunition to help improve hit probability is decades old. The U.S. Army notably explored this concept extensively in the 1950s and 1960s, but did not ultimately field any of the rounds it developed. Armed forces elsewhere around the globe have pursued similar projects over the years. Different types of pellet-filled rounds have also been developed for various small arms, including rifles and handguns, in the past, with the Glaser Safety Slug seen in the video below being one of the better-known examples. However, small arms cartridges of this kind have typically been designed primarily for very close-range self-defense, survival, or even pest-control use. Porting these concepts of multi-projectile small arms cartridges over to counter-drone is a growing trend at this point, too. In February, the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division (NSWC Crane) unveiled multiple Drone Killer Cartridge (DKC) designs it had internally developed in 5.56x45mm, 7.62x51mm, and .50 caliber flavors. An array of different Drone Killer Cartridge designs developed by NSWC Crane. USN During a recent demonstration at Camp Atterbury in Edinburgh, Indiana, DKC achieved a 92% success rate against drone targets, according to a Navy press release. What further progress has been made since then in the development of any of the DKC designs, or their fielding, is unknown. Various multi-projectile small arms cartridges intended specifically for engaging small drones have already emerged in recent years on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine. This includes locally fabricated designs, some of which use 3D-printed sabots loaded with commercially available metal BBs, and mass-production types made by established companies like the Kalashnikov Group in Russia. High-Precision Complexes Holding has begun rolling out the first batches of its Многоточия (Ellipse) triplex C-sUAS rounds. These are the СЦ 226 (STs 226) in 5.4539, and the СЦ 228 (STs 228 in 7.6239. Claims hit probability is improved by a factor of 2.5x at 300 m. pic.twitter.com/DUSFXHlb55— Amaël Kotlarski (@JakOSpades) January 23, 2026 To reiterate, the key benefit that multi-projectile counter-drone cartridges offer is the boost in hit probability when engaging small and highly maneuverable drones. They can also be fired from existing guns without modification. This, in turn, presents a way to give anyone in a unit with an M4 or M27 an additional means of protecting against uncrewed aerial threats without adding to the bulk and weight that personnel already have to carry around. The Marine Corps and other branches of the U.S. military have already been pursuing other add-on capabilities to improve the effectiveness of small arms against small drones, especially for individual rifles. In particular, variants of the SMASH family of computerized optical sight systems from Israeli firm Smart Shooter have been in growing use across Americas armed forces, and elsewhere globally, for years now. The Marines have at least tested another counter-drone rifle aiming system that uses a buttstock designed to automatically move the gun in line with the target. These are capabilities that could easily be paired with specialized ammunition. It might be possible to tweak software behind these systems to better work with multi-projectile loadings, too. At the same time, questions have been raised about the efficacy and utility of responding to drone attacks with rifles and other individual small arms like shotguns. Since they already fire multi-projectile rounds, shotguns have already emerged as another counter-drone tool, and are notably in regular use in this role on battlefields in Ukraine, regardless. Ukrainian soldier shoots a Russian (presumably) drone out of the sky with a semi auto 12ga shotgun I wonder what load theyre using? Im thinking #4 buck would be a good option but maybe some heavy steel shot #war #ukraine #russia #shotgun #12ga #drone pic.twitter.com/J1IQxi879l— Mrgunsngear (@Mrgunsngear) September 25, 2025 Soldiers from Ukraines 58th Motorized Brigade with a C-UAS gun and shotgun for countering FPVs.https://t.co/MSLEJTT19i pic.twitter.com/jIrVHKjCIr— Rob Lee (@RALee85) July 24, 2024 Range has been cited as one limiting factor, especially for shotguns. Specialized rifle rounds like Drone Rounds L Variant and the DKC types developed by NSWC Crane, which are fired at higher velocities than shotgun shells, are intended to help mitigate this, at least to a degree. However, as noted, Drone Round says that the effective range that it has demonstrated with its 5.56x45mm types to date is 328 feet (100 meters). As a point of comparison, the stated effective range of an M4 carbine firing standard single-projectile ammunition is around 1,640 feet (500 meters), according to the Army. The closer a counter-drone engagement occurs, the less time there is to react, overall. There is the additional question then of whether standing and fighting is the best course of action. When shooting you are static, which makes it easier for the operator to aim the drone, a contemporary Russian manual on counter-drone tactics notes, according to a report in April from Forbes. That being said, there might not be somewhere safer to move in many cases. Russian correspondent hides from a Ukranian drone … it looks for him like in a scary movie. pic.twitter.com/XPPQGzDzn0— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) September 11, 2024 Ukrainian drone operators located a concentration of Russian hardware inside a large warehouse somewhere in the south of Ukraine, preparing for an assault.The very skilled drone operators sent in several drones and eliminated several MBTs, IFVs, trucks and more. In the end, the… pic.twitter.com/jgcqibiJRD— (((Tendar))) (@Tendar) February 20, 2024 Having to manage multiple ammunition types on the fly could also present challenges. What kind of effectiveness rounds like L Variant might offer against more traditional targets is unclear. All this being said, counter-drone rifle rounds do continue to be fielded on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine, even if the full extent of their use is not entirely clear. The explicit fielding of shotguns as counter-drone weapons is another trend that is growing globally, including in the U.S. military. Small arms are, of course, just one part of a layered ecosystem of defenses necessary to challenge the ever-growing threats posed by various tiers of drones. For the Marine Corps, specialized counter-drone 5.56x45mm ammunition is now in line to be part of that larger equation. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post Anti-Drone 5.56mm Rifle Rounds That Break Into Multiple Projectiles Sought By Marines appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Land, Assault Rifles, Drones, M16/AR15/M4 Pattern, News & Features, Sea, Small Arms, U.S. Marine Corps] [Link to media]

— Ukraine Tests New Missile In Hopes Of Leading To Low Cost Patriot Alternative

 

at 6/4/26 1:30pm

Tests of Ukraine’s new FP-7.X missile could pave the way to a cheaper and more plentiful, albeit far less capable, alternative to the U.S.-made Patriot air defense system effectors. A recent uptick in Russian missile and drone attacks against Ukraine, combined with a critical shortage of Patriot interceptors, underscores the need for more robust air defenses, especially with anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The development parallels a similar program in the United States, which seeks a drastically lower-cost interceptor for the Patriot system. A video showing a test launch of an FP-7.X missile was published yesterday by its manufacturer, Fire Point, also responsible for the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile and a series of long-range one-way attack drones. Fire Point’s chief technology officer Iryna Terekh described the depicted test as a “fully controlled maneuvering flight” conducted “just the other day.” The pink-painted missile recalls the early Flamingoes, and now seems to have been adopted as something of a company trademark. Держави програють війни на полі бою значно рідше, ніж вони програють їх у інститутах, лабораторіях та на виробництві за десять років до їх початку.Коли країна роками недофінансовує інженерну освіту, скорочує дослідження, втрачає виробничі компетенції або звикає покладатися на… pic.twitter.com/Ti1Ayn4INf— terekh (@iraterekh) June 3, 2026 The FP-7.X missile is planned as the stepping-stone toward the productionized Freyja missile, which is primarily intended to provide Ukraine with its first homegrown anti-ballistic missile defense system. While ballistic missile threats are being prioritized here, the system would be equally able to defend against a variety of crewed aircraft threats, as well as drones and cruise missiles. “No matter how unrealistic and ambitious this goal may sound today, we are exerting all possible and impossible efforts to make it a reality as soon as possible, so that Ukraine can close its skies on its own,” Terekh wrote. Back in April, Fire Point’s co-founder and chief designer Denys Shtilierman told Reuters that the company was aiming to develop an anti-ballistic missile with a unit cost of less than $1 million. A rendering of the FP-7 surface-to-surface ballistic missile on which the FP-7.X missile is based. Fire Point “If we can decrease it to less than $1 million, it will be a game changer in air defense solutions,” Shtilierman said. “We plan to intercept the first ballistic missile at the end of 2027,” he added, apparently referring to the aim to field the Freyja system by that date. This compares to a unit price of approximately $5.3 million for each example of the most modern and highly capable PAC-3 MSE variant, which is one of the types provided to Ukraine. This figure comes from the Army’s latest proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. This is up from a historical average of around $4 million for each one of these missiles. These munitions also take years of lead time to produce, meaning that managing limited stocks is a big challenge. Fire Point has developed the FP-7.X missile on the basis of the previous FP-7 surface-to-surface ballistic missile, a weapon with a range of around 124 miles, and a warhead of approximately 331 pounds. Deriving an anti-ballistic missile from a ballistic missile is an unusual move, but Fire Point will hope that the commonality should accelerate the process. Вітаємо FP7) pic.twitter.com/FxgCHVHMET— Denys Shtilierman (@DenShtilierman) February 27, 2026 As it stands, Ukraine’s anti-ballistic missile capabilities are strictly limited. It relies heavily upon the Patriot, batteries and components of which have been provided by Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States. When the Patriot began to arrive in 2023, it provided Ukraine with an enhanced long-range, high-altitude engagement capability that was previously only offered, to a lesser degree, by Ukraine’s S-300s, with their depleting stocks of missiles. Importantly, the Patriot also brought an anti-ballistic missile capability, something that was previously only provided by the small number of Ukrainian S-300V1 systems, and even those don’t come anywhere close to the Patriot in this regard. And another S-300V engagement, released as part of the same video.From what I have seen, these are the third and fourth Ukrainian S-300V engagement videos released since the start of the war. pic.twitter.com/wPHnYbCQKP— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) February 9, 2025 Providing somewhat similar capabilities to the Patriot is the SAMP/T, a joint Franco-Italian SAM system, which has also been supplied to Ukraine, but only in limited numbers. Overall, the SAMP/T is limited simply by the fact that it is produced in relatively small numbers. As for the Patriot, this has claimed notable successes and high-profile victims in Ukrainian hands. However, as Russia has adapted its ballistic missiles, specifically adding enhanced maneuvering capabilities, the effectiveness of the U.S.-made system has been reduced. A screen capture of a Ukrainian Air Force video shows images of three Russian helicopters and two Russian fighters painted on the side of a Patriot air defense battery. Defense Industry of Ukraine image According to Shtilierman, the Patriot system often requires two or three air defence missiles, each costing several million ​dollars, to bring down a ballistic projectile. This is a mismatch that Fire Point also hopes to address with the Freyja. It is notable that the U.S. Army is currently also pressing defense contractors to come up with proposals for a new interceptor for the Patriot system with a unit cost under $1 million, as you can read more about here. Whether by design or coincidence, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, the Army’s Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Fires (PAE Fires), included a rendering of the FP-7.X in a recent LinkedIn post, as seen below, to illustrate a notional low-cost interceptor. hahah look at that! Good find!— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) May 18, 2026 The latest development comes as Ukraine’s political and military leaders continue to warn about critical shortcomings in the country’s air defense capabilities. As well as expending the missiles it already has, the United States has reportedly suspended further Patriot deliveries to Ukraine because of concerns over the state of its own stockpile. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly urged U.S. President Donald Trump and members of Congress to provide additional missiles for its Patriot systems, warning that Ukraine faces a severe air defense shortfall. We were receiving PAC-3 missiles from our partners in certain quantities, but later that monthly volume was cut several times over. It wasn’t due to a lack of funding, but because of the war in the Middle East. This affected different types of weapons. Whatever we could, we… pic.twitter.com/qwPFydwAzC— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 3, 2026 Yesterday, Zelensky said that Ukrainian officials have one week to finalize outstanding legal, financial, and technical issues related to the purchase of additional Patriot systems. Zelensky said that a political agreement to buy the systems has already been reached, but the process has stalled. Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Olha Stefanishyna, added that Kyiv is prepared to finance additional Patriot systems and interceptor missiles if Washington agrees to deliver them. Ukrainian personnel remove camouflage netting from a Patriot launcher, which is loaded with missile canisters associated with older interceptors like the PAC-2-series. Ukrainian Air Force Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrsky also recently pointed to Ukraine’s lack of sufficient modern air defense systems and interceptor missiles. Clearly, continued Russian missile and drone strikes are putting a heavy strain on Ukraine’s air defenses. Plugging the gaps with the Freyja system would make a lot of sense, providing a locally developed and manufactured solution to the problem, provided that the technical hurdles can be overcome. Even so, the deadline of the end of 2027 is very ambitious for such a project. With that in mind, Ukraine is also looking to foreign support for the Freyja program. Earlier this year, Fire Point confirmed it was in talks to get European and Middle Eastern companies onboard the program. With various nations struggling to meet their air defense needs amid the demands of the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, investing here could also bring dividends. Parts of long-range drones stored in a workshop of the Fire Point company at an undisclosed location in Ukraine on January 29, 2026. Photo by Serhii Okunev / AFP SERHII OKUNEV Shtilierman told Reuters in April that he was awaiting government approval for an investment in Fire Point by a Middle Eastern conglomerate, which would provide a major boost to Freyja and other programs, including longer-reaching ballistic missiles. In terms of European companies, Shtilierman mentioned his interest in collaborating on radar, missile target-seeking, and communications systems. He named Hensoldt, Saab, and Thales as potential suppliers of radar solutions, an area where Fire Point lacks expertise. Fire Point has also previously described the Freyja interceptor being fitted with an infrared imaging seeker for the terminal phase, as well as a semi-active radar homing seeker from Diehl Defence of Germany. Few details are available about the launch system, other than reports of a lightweight, mobile launcher of domestic origin. Globally, there is a clear demand for alternatives to the increasingly hard-to-source Patriot, especially for anti-ballistic missile defense. A video shows a PAC-2 in a test against a Lance ballistic missile: Ukraine’s combination of battlefield experience, rapid innovation, and low-cost defense technologies could put it in a good position to fill the gap. Even if the Freyja ends up with a significantly lower kill rate per missile than the Patriot, if it is far cheaper, that would be less of a problem. At the same time, it remains unclear if Fire Point is able to fulfill the promises it has made in terms of output. In the past, the company has said it aims to build at least seven of its Flamingo cruise missiles per day, for a total of 2,555 built annually. To reach this target, the firm might need to call upon foreign partnerships to help expand its production capacity. The same would likely be the case for Freyja. By way of comparison, in 2024, Lockheed Martin produced more than 500 PAC-3 MSEs, with a plan to increase this to 600 in 2025. A video of the Flamingo cruise missile in action: One unknown factor in this is the possibility that Ukraine and/or NATO allies in Europe might obtain additional licenses for local production of Patriot missiles. Zelensky wants Patriot production in Ukraine and has said he has been discussing it with the United States. Still, while these might address the production capacity issues for the weapons, it would still be a more expensive solution than what Fire Point is proposing and it would take years to realize any output. For now, the FP-7.X appears to be an early-stage technology demonstrator, and turning it into the operational Freyja interceptor by 2027 will require overcoming massive technical and logistical hurdles — as well as holding off Russian air attacks in the meantime. However, the program reflects a broader trend in Ukraine’s wartime defense sector: rapidly developing indigenous capabilities to fill critical gaps left by limited and/or unreliable foreign supplies. If Fire Point can translate its ambitions into a viable anti-ballistic missile system, Ukraine could gain not only a more sustainable means of defending its skies, but also a potentially attractive export alternative in a global market increasingly hungry for affordable air defense solutions. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post Ukraine Tests New Missile In Hopes Of Leading To Low Cost Patriot Alternative appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Land, Around The Globe, Europe, MIM-104 Patriot, News & Features, Surface-To-Air Missile Systems, Ukraine] [Link to media]

— Is This A Glimpse Of The Aircraft That Gave Birth To The F-47?

 

at 6/4/26 12:30pm

A thermal image purportedly shows a previously unseen aircraft design, said to have been captured when it was flying at night over the secretive Groom Lake facility, better known as Area 51. While the quality of the image is poor due to the sensor type that was supposedly used, from what we can see, the shape seems to be a relatively close match for what we know so far about the F-47 sixth-generation stealth fighter for the U.S. Air Force. This would point to it being the technology demonstrator ‘X-plane’ that served as a precursor to the contract being awarded to Boeing, although that is in no way a definitive assessment. The image in question was first shared online by the Project Fear YouTube channel on June 3. The still image was promoted as a teaser for the full video that will be released tomorrow. It was published with the caption “A craft the public has never seen before.” A craft the public has never seen before…Video out this Friday. #ProjectFear #Area51 pic.twitter.com/8eOSJSUX1g— Project Fear (@ProjectFearX) June 2, 2026 At this point, we need to be aware that there is no confirmation that the image is genuine, official or otherwise. We have reached out to the Air Force to try and establish its veracity, but they declined to comment. However, the authenticity of the image and the forthcoming video was confirmed to TWZ by Anders Otteson, responsible for the Uncanny Expeditions YouTube channel, which explores classified locations at a distance around Nevada and California. Otteson explained that he was approached by Project Fear, who was looking for advice in making a video outside Groom Lake. “I’m generally happy to help other channels out, so I gave them a rundown on the gear I recommend buying, what specs are important, etc,” Otteson told us. “The thermal camera I suggested getting was the InfiRay HCH50R, and I can confirm that’s what this was shot with as I own one myself. I was out with them for their early filming and gave them a tour of some spots that I’ve had success spotting in the past. The following week is when they captured this aircraft.” Otteson says the video was shot in the hills to the south of Rachel and that the aircraft was very low. He was not present during the sighting, which took place around two months ago, but Project Fear contacted him afterwards and shared the footage. “I was obviously pretty excited when I saw it,” Otteson added. While this may be the case, if the aircraft captured is real, the USAF likely shares the opposite sentiment. Otteson also took to the r/area51 subreddit, where he further clarified his role and reiterated that the footage is, in his opinion, genuine. “To be clear, my only involvement in this channel was an advisory role. I told them what equipment to buy and gave them general recommendations. I did go out with them but was not there at the time this clip was captured, though I was sent it immediately afterwards. I posted about this because I noticed some people calling it fake due to coming from a “paranormal” channel and wanted to clear that up. It is indeed real…” he wrote. Otteson is certainly familiar with sightings of this kind. Earlier this year, he claimed to have captured thermal imagery of a ‘flying Dorito’-shaped aircraft that was also operating in the restricted airspace around Groom. The general triangular planform captured has a long history of rumored classified development going back to the dawn of stealth technology. Newly released infrared footage dated January 14, filmed by videographer and explorer Anders Otteson, who runs a channel called Uncanny Expeditions on YouTube, shows an unidentified triangular-shaped aircraft flying over Area 51 and the Nevada Test and Training Range. pic.twitter.com/kQMmvI2tur— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) January 22, 2026 Among the many online discussions about this new image, it’s impossible not to make the connection with the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which Boeing won with its F-47 sixth-generation stealth fighter. That aircraft is now in early production for the U.S. Air Force. An official rendering of the Air Force’s sixth-generation fighter, the F-47. U.S. Air Force graphic  The image shows an exotic design by any interpretation. The aft-set lambda-type wings appear to have a camber and wingtip droop, as on the Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator. There are very large canard foreplanes — a feature that appears prominently on F-47 renderings and which we have written in detail about in the past. The broad nose, too, is something that has been included in depictions of the F-47, although we have really no idea to what degree these are based in reality. It’s worth noting that in this new thermal image, it has a distinctive double-arrowhead shape, tapering in again in front of the canards. Even the canards themselves may have more than one plane, with the outer tips being drooped, matching similar architecture as the wing. The fuselage then tapers down in the center before the wing roots begin. The Boeing Bird of Prey. U.S. Air Force The aircraft is very likely to be tailless, a feature common to most sixth-generation concepts seen so far. However, since it’s seen from below, we cannot be sure about this aspect of its configuration. As for the powerplant, it is most likely a twin-engine design, like the F-47, a theory reinforced by the sawtooth-type trailing edge. There is no obvious suggestion of any exhaust plumes, which seems odd, but that could be the result of the sensor being used in combination with the aircrafts power setting at the time of recording, as well as general thermal signature reduction capabilities that are part of the design. Soon after Boeing won the contract for the F-47, we looked at how it might have been influenced by the Phantom Works X-36, also a tailless-canard design. Certainly, the official renderings of the F-47 have a superficial likeness to the X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft, designed to be representative of a low-observable high-performance fighter. An overhead view of the X-36. NASA As Bill Sweetman, former editor-in-chief of Aviation Week and long-term observer of stealth programs, pointed out, the F-47 renderings also recalled some of the work of the late Alan Wiechman, who joined McDonnell Douglas from the Lockheed Skunk Works in the mid-1980s. He was responsible for the X-36 and the Bird of Prey. Sweetman also noted that, according to Wiechman’s obituary, he had ‘most recently’ been an adviser on stealth to the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office. So while everyone waits for the video of the A51 mystery plane, what did I write in March of last year? "There are aspects of the artwork that call to mind the work of the late Alan Wiechman, who joined McDonnell Douglas in the mid-1980s and headed the company’s stealth work… pic.twitter.com/9xJZK7CAOw— Bill Sweetman (@ValkStrategy) June 4, 2026 Returning to the F-47, as far as we know, it has not flown yet, with the first example being under construction in St. Louis. Its first flight is expected in 2028. On the other hand, as noted earlier, demonstrators associated with the NGAD program have taken to the air. In 2020, it was first disclosed that at least one demonstrator design had already been flying for some years on behalf of NGAD. Frank Kendall, when he was Secretary of the Air Force, also spoke openly about “X-planes,” in the plural, when describing the evolution of what became NGAD. DARPA and the Air Force meanwhile confirmed that two X-planes were built for the Aerospace Innovation Initiative, and that they first flew in 2019 and 2022, respectively. Kendall further added that these were entirely experimental demonstrator aircraft and not reflective of a production prototype for a “tactical design.” They were built sometime after 2017, he said. Frank Kendall, when he was Secretary of the Air Force. U.S. Air Force Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. USAF While we know that Boeing and Lockheed both built demonstrators, it’s possible that as many as three NGAD demonstrators were completed. This would reflect the fact that, at one point, three prime contractors or teams were involved, the other candidate being Northrop Grumman, which dropped out around 2023. Now that the F-47 is in the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase, we have speculated that the Boeing demonstrator and probably even the Lockheed Martin one are still doing test efforts, with the Boeing aircraft logically being used for risk reduction work while the EMD work continues. Then there is the other NGAD effort being pursued separately by the U.S. Navy. The Navy program is also based around a crewed sixth-generation combat jet, known as F/A-XX. We know there is at least some crossover between the Air Force and Navy programs. The Navy has been especially tight-lipped about its F/A-XX program, and the aircraft seen could be a test asset related to it. In fact, it could be a direct descendant of the design that gave birth to the F-47, as Boeing’s renderings of their supposed entrant into the competition resemble the F-47. Again, we must state that renderings will be carefully manipulated prior to release to maximize security of the program and provide disinformation to adversaries. Still, the common through-lines are clearly there for the Boeing type. Boeing’s F/A-XX render. Boeing It’s also worth noting that the aircraft spotted on the thermal device does not match the aircraft seen in a satellite image at Area 51 during the time when the test effort for NGAD was underway. This could have been the Lockheed demonstrator or something else entirely. Another possibility is that the aircraft in the thermal image is not a crewed next-generation fighter at all, but rather an advanced uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV). The U.S. military has invested heavily in stealthy drone programs in recent years, including highly classified systems designed for reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and loyal-wingman operations alongside crewed aircraft. Given the limited quality and single perspective of the thermal image, plenty of features could be misleading. It is therefore possible that the object is an experimental Collaborative Combat Aircraft or other uncrewed technology demonstrator rather than a prototype of a future sixth-generation fighter. However, while drones come in all configurations, the complexity of this aircraft design and its similarities to what we know about the F-47 make it being an unrelated uncrewed platform less likely. Area 51 also has many programs running at any given time, the vast majority of which we will never know about, so there have been and are many exotic designs that visit the airspace above the base for various reasons. We can also say for sure that the aircraft in the new Area 51 image is fundamentally very different to the tailless new-generation combat aircraft designs that China is currently testing, the J-36 and the J-XDS, both of which you can read more about here. A composite showing some of the images of the J-36 that have previously emerged. Chinese Internet via X A pair of previously emerged images of the J-XDS. Chinese internet via X It should also be noted that, provided the imagery is legitimate, its appearance at this point could well be a byproduct of an uptick in flight-test activity at Groom and elsewhere. This is something we had expected since the new era of great power competition began, and seems to be really metastasizing. With so many new technologies and systems in development, including entirely new categories of air combat aircraft, a whole new premium and level of activity is being placed on the base, as well as at non-classified facilities, like Edwards AFB. At the same time, public insights into the activities at the already notoriously opaque base are becoming harder. In a recent land grab, the observation point at Tikaboo Peak — previously, the closest existing viewpoint into Area 51 — has been closed off in another huge land grab by the USAF. So, as it sits, it isn’t clear exactly what we are seeing, if indeed it is a real aircraft, but there are strong indications that this is our first glimpse of the winning NGAD entrant and a preview of what the F-47 will look like when it finally thunders out of the shadows. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post Is This A Glimpse Of The Aircraft That Gave Birth To The F-47? appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Air, Area 51, F-47, Fighters, NGAD, Stealth] [Link to media]

— New Large Chinese Submarine With Very Unique Feature Just Caught On Satellite Imagery

 

at 6/3/26 2:16pm

A new type of submarine that appears to lack a traditional sail has emerged in China. The same shipyard launched a smaller sailless submarine — a technology demonstrator — eight years ago. More recently, a top Chinese shipbuilding conglomerate put forward a concept for an uncrewed underwater vehicle (UUV) with a broadly comparable hullform. Designs of this kind can offer benefits in terms of speed, maneuverability, and reduced acoustic signature, but also have major drawbacks. TWZ has obtained imagery of the submarine in question at JN (Jiangnan) Shipyard in Shanghai on June 1, as seen at the top of this story and below, from Vantor (previously Maxar Technologies). The boat, the name and/or designation of which are currently unknown, first appeared there sometime at the end of May, according to Naval News. That outlet was first to report on this development. A look at the new submarine at JN Shipyard in Shanghai on June 1, 2026. Satellite image ©2026 Vantor A broader view of JN Shipyard on June 1, 2026. Satellite image ©2026 Vantor From the imagery, the submarine does not have a traditional sail. However, the exact shaping of what is present is also not entirely clear from the view that is currently available. As noted, JN Shipyard is known to have built at least one other sailless submarine in the past, which we will come back to later on. Another look at the newly emerged submarine at JN Shipyard. Satellite image ©2026 Vantor A picture of the low-profile submarine that JN Shipyard launched in 2018. Chinese internet Writing for Naval News, undersea warfare analyst H.I. Sutton has assessed the design to be roughly 394 feet (120 meters) long and to be between 33 and 36 feet (10 and 11 meters) wide. What its intended missions might be are unknown, but this is certainly larger than common diesel-electric submarines (SSK) and even longer than most nuclear fast attack submarines. For comparison, variants of Chinas Type 093 nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), some of the most modern submarines in Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) service today, are approximately 356 to 360 feet (108 to 110 meters long) and 36 feet wide. The official stated length and width of the U.S. Navys Virginia class SSNs, across all existing subvariants, are 377 feet (114.8 meters) and 34 feet (10.36 meters), respectively. We can also see that the submarine at JN Shipyard has an X-form rudder configuration, something that first appeared on a submarine in China in 2024. This offers advantages over cruciform stern arrangements with horizontal and vertical rudders when it comes to maneuverability, efficiency, and safety. An X-shaped stern is a feature now further associated with a next-generation Chinese attack submarine design commonly, but still unofficially, referred to as the Type 095. Naval News also reported today on the recent launch of what may be another Type 095, which has a traditional sail, at the Bohai Shipyard in Huludao, hundreds of miles to the north of Shanghai. This may have caused some confusion online, with some mistaking a boat at Bohai for a sailless type. Just translated via @type36512: CSSC Bohai Shipbuilding: Launch of a New SubmarineSatellite imagery captured on May 29. I believe this image depicts the new 120m-class, sail-less submarine discussed in the accompanying article. However due to limitations in image resolution https://t.co/sHF9Y8gkGe— @Rupprecht_A (@RupprechtDeino) June 3, 2026 Even if we scale 09Vs hull diameter with this mystery submarine (for illustration purposes), it is a fair bit shorter, meaning it probably isnt a 09V, but it also doesnt correspond to what a 10m diameter, 120m length submarine would look likeIm open to ideas. https://t.co/oy9nrbiLtt pic.twitter.com/AIcv5ZjXy3— Rick Joe (@RickJoe_PLA) June 3, 2026 The newly emerged submarine at JN Shipyard may also have a shrouded propulsor, which could be a pumpjet type. Pumpjets offer further benefits for quieter operation, especially at higher submerged speeds. The absence of a traditional sail is still the most notable aspect of the new submarine at JN Shipyard. Omitting a large structure sticking out of the top of the hull helps significantly with streamlining the overall design. Eliminating that drag can allow greater optimization for speed and maneuverability while submerged. It can also help make the submarine quieter and, by extension, harder to detect, even while transiting through an area at higher speeds. This can be especially useful when racing out to threats, even those far away. Not having a traditional sail could impose certain design constraints. Traditionally, naval submarines have used their sails to mount periscopes and other sensor masts, as well as extendable communication antennas and snorkels to help cycle air without fully resurfacing. That is space that can be used for other purposes, including launchers for countermeasures and general storage. A generic example of the array of masts that extend up from the sails of modern naval submarines. Hensoldt Above all else, while running on the surface, the sail is key for general navigation and situational awareness. It can also provide an elevated position for local force protection or supporting vertical replenishment (VERTREP) operations. If sufficiently hardened, it can even break through feet of ice during operations in and around the polar regions. The sail of the US Navys Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Santa Fe seen broken through the ice during an exercise in the Arctic Circle in March 2026. USN/Petty Officer 1st Class Jacob Bergh The lack of a sail might reflect a focus on seabed operations far from the surface where mast deployment and other considerations might be less pressing. At the same time, the designs features could just as easily be centered on improving performance, including the ability to make transits as quickly as possible during blue water operations. It could also offer benefits for shallow-water operations, though we have noted that, overall, it is very large compared to SSKs. As mentioned, a smaller sailless submarine had already emerged at JN Shipyard in 2018. H.I. Sutton previously estimated that design to be around 150 feet (45 meters) long and 15 feet (four to four-and-a-half meters) wide. That submarine also had a non-X-shaped rudder arrangement and what appeared to be an unshrouded propeller. The exact reasons for building that boat and how it has been utilized over the years remain unknown, but it would have at least provided a testbed and technology demonstration platform to explore this design concept, and potentially other capabilities. Whether it was designed for crewed or uncrewed operation, or to be optionally crewed, is not clear, either. The same is true of this new submarine, though it seems unlikely it is uncrewed. A top-down look at the first low-profile submarine to emerge from JN Shipyard. Chinese Internet At the Zhuhai Airshow in 2024, the state-run China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) did show a model of an unprecedentedly large, diesel-electric UUV. Its overall design was highly reminiscent, at least in broad strokes, of JN Shipyards original sailless submarine, as TWZ noted at the time. JN Shipyard is one of many subsidiaries of CSSC. CSSC said at the time that the drone submarine could be configured to perform a wide array of missions, including launching attacks on enemy vessels, laying mines, supporting special operations forces, and serving as a mothership for smaller uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUV). You can read more about all of this here. The model of the low-profile UUV design CSSC showed at the Zhuhai Airshow in 2024. Chinese internet Other shipyards and navies around the world have explored low-profile submarine designs in the past, but designs have generally been consigned to the world of paper concepts and limited experimentation. The U.S. Navy, for instance, previously tested a Large Scale Vehicle Range (LSVR) subscale demonstrator submarine with a novel sail structure. The Navy’s Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD) conducted that work in a lake in Bayview, Idaho. Large Scale Vehicle Range (LSVR) subscale demonstrator submarine seen sailing in Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho. Public Domain A model of a low-profile ballistic missile submarine concept called Arktur shown in Russia in 2022. @MuxelAero In 2021, the Navy also notably put out a contracting notice calling for concepts for inflatable sail structures, which could combine the benefits of traditional sails and low-profile designs. What degree of work the service may have conducted since then on this Inflatable Deployable Sail System (IDSS) is unclear, but it underscores how important a sail is for general operations on the surface. The PLANs submarine force otherwise continues to grow in terms of capability and capacity, with an increasing number of more modern types. U.S. officials have openly said in the past that the quality of newer Chinese submarines has been getting closer in parity to American designs. All of this is further underscored by the recent appearance of the other new submarine at Bohai. In addition to new nuclear-power designs, China is also understood to be developing at least one design with a hybrid nuclear/conventional propulsion system, referred to as the Type 041 or Zhou class. The first known example of the Type 041 came to light after it looked to have sunk in a shipyard in 2024. Crane barges seen surrounding the first known Type 041 submarine after it apparently sank at China’s Wuchang Shipyard in 2024. PHOTO © 2024 PLANET LABS INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRINTED BY PERMISSION Greater use of nuclear propulsion promises to extend the reach of Chinese submarines in the Pacific and beyond, and is clearly part of the PLANs larger vision for naval power projection going forward. The PLA Navy is executing a significant strategic shift from diesel-electric to all-nuclear construction, representing a fundamental departure from historical construction patterns, U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Mike Brookes, head of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote in prepared remarks ahead of a hearing before members of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in March. Brookes also highlighted how the hybrid Type 041, specifically, could offer greater endurance, potentially filling regional patrol and presence missions more economically than full-size SSNs [attack submarines] and SSGN [guided missile submarines. China has significant demands for naval presence, in general, especially to assert its extensive and widely disputed maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea and elsewhere. The PLAN continues to expand the scale and scope of its combat fleets, overall, at a pace that far exceeds that of other navies globally. This includes the U.S. Navy, where the disparity has become increasingly concerning, as TWZ routinely highlights. More remains to be learned about the newly emerged submarine at JN Shipyard, but it could point to new low-profile designs without traditional sails, possibly to act as the PLANs underwater high-speed interceptor, being part of Chinas larger future submarine future. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post New Large Chinese Submarine With Very Unique Feature Just Caught On Satellite Imagery appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Sea, Navies, News & Features, People's Liberation Army Navy (China), Submarines] [Link to media]

— The Hidden History of America’s Harrier Jump Jets

 

at 6/3/26 11:00am

Today, the U.S. Marine Corps celebrated the end of more than half a century of Harrier ‘jump jet’ operations with a sundown ceremony at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North Carolina. For more than 20 percent of the history of the republic, the British-originated jump jet helped to defend America. The story of how the U.S. military first got involved in the program is a little-known but fascinating one. Michael Pryce, who has worked on various aircraft projects, from the Harrier to the Tempest, explains, and, in the process, connects the dots between the AV-8 and its replacement with the Marine Corps, the F-35B Lightning II. Read our coverage of the Marine Harrier sundown here. A British-made U.S. Marine Corps AV-8A of Marine Attack Squadron 231 drops a Mk 20 Rockeye cluster bomb during training, in 1979. U.S. Navy Right from the start, the Harrier had been of immense interest to Britain’s ‘cousins’ across the pond. In the 1950s, the threat of nuclear war led to the creation of jump jets, and NASA, plus the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Army soon found that developing rockets seemed easy in comparison to this new class of combat aircraft. Despite valiant efforts, no American jump jet could be made to work. A video shows the Ryan X-13 Vertijet during tests. It was one of many Cold War-era jump jet projects that ended in failure: All three services got involved in trials of the Hawker Siddeley P.1127 Kestrel, the first iteration of what would become the Harrier, initially in a joint British-American-West German trials squadron. Then, six of the Kestrels were taken to America to continue testing there, and they were renamed as XV-6As once on U.S. soil. Unlike other jump jet projects, the P.1127 utilized four adjustable exhaust nozzles beneath the wing, which rotated to provide thrust for vertical, backward, or hovering flight as well as conventional forward movement. The XV-6A Kestrel demonstrated operations from grass, semi-prepared surfaces, and ship decks, offering great operational flexibility. U.S. Air Force photo The thing that impressed the Americans was the sheer simplicity of the British jump jet. With just one engine, and ‘not an electron’ needed in its flight controls, the Kestrel soon transformed into the Harrier, and in 1968 the U.S. Marine Corps decided they would acquire them. Despite not having flown any of the Kestrel trials, they knew they wanted to bring the jump jet into the front line as soon as possible. The British makers of the Harrier, Hawker Siddeley, first found out about the U.S. Marines’ interest when two men in uniform walked into the Hawker Siddeley hospitality chalet at the 1968 Farnborough Airshow and said they wished to fly the jet. Within two weeks, they had. It was the start of the Marines’ love affair with the Harrier, but it was not America’s first encounter with the British jet. A Royal Air Force Harrier jet involved in a mock bombing run at the Farnborough Airshow in 1968. Photo by PA Images via Getty Images Over 10 years before, another American had walked into Hawker’s fancy tent at another Farnborough airshow and asked to see their design for what would become the Harrier. Col. Willis Bill F. Chapman of the U.S. Air Force was an American in Paris, there to find European weapons that America could fund. Jump jets were all the rage, and the Hawker P.1127 seemed to him to be the most promising. Six pre-production Hawker Siddeley Harrier GR1s pictured at the manufacturers test facility at Dunsfold aerodrome, Surrey, in 1968. The first Royal Air Force squadron to be equipped with the Harrier GR1, No. 1 Squadron, started to convert to the aircraft at RAF Wittering in April 1969. Crown Copyright Col. Willis F. Chapman was commander of the 340th Bomb Group in 1944. Joseph Heller based the Catch-22 character of Colonel Cathcart on him, stretching artistic licence. Chapman thought Heller was a poor bombardier. Patricia C. Meder As leader of the 340th Bomb Group in Italy in World War II, Chapman had seen dozens of his B-25 bombers wiped out, first by a volcanic eruption and then by a Luftwaffe attack. He knew nuclear missiles could do much worse. Soon, he had funded the Pegasus engine, the heart of the Harrier, and struck up a strong friendship with the Hawker design team led by Ralph Hooper, driving their design forward, from the drawing board into the sky.  Ralph Hooper, right, after flying in the two-seat Harrier he designed in the 1970s. BAE Systems In 1968, one of the U.S. Marines who walked in at Farnborough would play an equally vital role in getting the Harrier into Marine service. Col. Tom Miller had flown in Korea and Vietnam, and scored a speed record in a McDonnell F4H Phantom for good measure. Deeply impressed by the Harrier, he went into battle on ‘The Hill’ to secure it for the Corps, then on to lead it into service as the commander of the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing at Cherry Point — the same unit that retired the Harrier today, 55 years later. John H. Glenn, Jr., Gen. David M. Shoup, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and then Lt. Col. Thomas H. Miller Jr., at Marine Corps Headquarters in 1960. (Marine Corps Archives) The rest of the history of the Harrier is well known. From the initial, British-built AV-8A to the jointly-developed, with mostly American technology, second-generation AV-8B Harrier II, the Harrier found more use, and created more jobs, in America than in Britain. The American connection was the making of the British jump jet, and helped cement relations between the two countries’ pilots, engineers and ground crews over decades. In the 1980s, there were attempts to make a new, supersonic successor, with the speed of the Marines’ F/A-18A Hornet and the vertical flight ability of the Harrier. Once again, the Americans turned to British designers. In 1981, Hooper and a team of engineers from the Harrier factory at Kingston-upon-Thames went to work at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis, Missouri, to design the ultimate jump jet. Over drawing boards and at tailgate parties after ball games, they evolved a great beast of a jet, the P.1218, with two crew, two engines and the latest tech, to succeed the U.S. Navy’s F-14A Tomcat fleet interceptor and A-6E Intruder all-weather strike aircraft. Despite arriving at a joint design, money was limited, and the work was re-focused on research with NASA — the start of what in time would become the Joint Strike Fighter program. Images of the British Aerospace P.1218 concept are very hard to come by, but the joint work with McDonnell Douglas fed into the broadly similar Model 279-4 design, seen here. McDonnell Douglas/Boeing Although the U.S Navy buys jets for the Marines, the big twin-engined design was of less interest to the Corps than another of Hooper’s designs, a smaller, single-engine jet that weighed the same as the Hornet. This supersonic jump jet was seriously studied in the United Kingdom, with tests and design work over many years. The U.S. Marines were involved too, officers visiting the Kingston factory to talk about its prospects. When Britain delayed jump jet plans in favor of what became the Eurofighter Typhoon, it meant Hooper’s single-engined P.1216 design, with its wild-looking twin-boom configuration, seemed to miss its chance with the Marines. The British designer retired too, but he did not let that stop him. A British Aerospace P.1216 in pseudo-U.S. Navy VFA-14 “Tophatters” markings escorts Soviet Backfire bombers, alongside a British version of the twin-boom supersonic jump jet. BAE Systems Keen to see a supersonic jump jet in Marine service, he turned to Miller once again. As the accompanying letter in this article shows, in 1992 he gave Miller the technical plans of the new jump jet, and Miller showed it around at Marine HQ at a vital time — just as 10 years of research was turning into the serious acquisition program for the Joint Strike Fighter. via author The emerging requirements specified a weight the same as the Hornet — the same, too, as Hooper’s P.1216. Speed, range and weapons load were close too. While avionics and stealth had advanced beyond the British jet’s capabilities, the knowledge that the man who made the Harrier thought a practical jump jet of Hornet size would work helped get the ball rolling on the third generation of jump jets. Miller’s support ensured the Corps got behind it, leading to the Lockheed Martin F-35B now taking over Cherry Point. An F-35B with Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron (VMFAT) 501 prepares for takeoff at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry, North Carolina. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Christopher Hernandez Making a fighting jump jet that works is extremely challenging. The Harrier had its problems — without rigid training, accident rates echoed those of its 1950s origins. The F-35B has had to overcome its own hurdles too. In the early 2000s, Hooper was called in to help fix those. The transatlantic story of the Harrier may have ended today, but the people who found ways to cut bureaucratic corners by trusting each other, and who cracked the technical code of making the Harrier work, continue to support the next generation of F-35Bs. Hawker Siddeley Aviation Executive Director and Chief Engineer Ralph Hooper talks U.K. Aerospace Minister Michael Heseltine through the features of a mock-up of the HS.1182 cockpit — the future Hawk trainer. Photo by PA Images via Getty Images The ‘Harrier Mafia’ worked their own way, but always in line with the motto of the Marine Corps. “Semper Fi” was a value shared by British pilots who flew American Harriers in combat operations on exchange as much as by the men and women who made, and supported, 55 years of Harrier operations at Cherry Point. Jump Jet: The Secret History of the Harrier by Michael Pryce is published on August 27 and is available for pre-order. Contact the editor: thomas@thewarzone.com The post The Hidden History of America’s Harrier Jump Jets appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Air, Attack, Harrier, Sea, U.S. Marine Corps] [Link to media]

— Russia’s Baltic Fleet Successfully Attacked By Ukrainian Drones

 

at 6/3/26 10:39am

The prestigious Russian Navy base at Kronstadt, near St. Petersburg, came under Ukrainian drone attack overnight, in what may well be the first strike of its kind against the Baltic Fleet. Ukrainian drones targeted the naval base, including the Project 20380 Steregushchiy class corvette Boikiy, highlighting the fact that Russian warships are vulnerable even when hundreds of miles from Ukraine’s borders. According to the official account of the Ukrainian 414th Separate Unmanned Strike Aviation System Brigade on X, the corvette was set ablaze while in the Veleshchynskyi dry dock in Kronstadt, where it is said to have entered scheduled maintenance in February of this year. The same account posted a video showing the attack. While we are used to kamikaze drone video feeds cutting out just before detonation, the fact that multiple drones were involved means we can see the burning vessel from several angles. KRONSTADT (St. Petersburg), June 3. Birds of the @1usc_army, @usf_army hunted down and set ablaze the corvette Boikiy, a guided missile weapons carrier.06:35, 03.06.26. Veleshchynskyi Dry Dock, Kronstadt (St. Petersburg) – the cradle of the russian Navy.Tired after its… pic.twitter.com/2HjrlyVKdc— 414 Magyars Birds (@414magyarbirds) June 3, 2026 Reportedly, the drones that hit the corvette were from the 1st Separate Center of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces. Considering the long distance to the target, it is interesting to note that video from the seekers was available. This indicates that either a local operator on the ground was involved in targeting and recording the feed, or otherwise a satcom link was used to do the same. While it is conceivable that the drones used autonomous guidance, they would still have needed someone nearby or connected via satcom to record the seeker’s view. Another possibility is that shorter-range drones were used for the attack, something that Ukraine has done before for attacks deep in Russia, although this seems less likely here. A drone’s eye view of the Russian corvette Boikiy ablaze in the Veleshchynskyi dry dock in Kronstadt. Ukrainian Ministry of Defense screencap Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces stated that the Boikiy was involved in escorting ships associated with Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, the collection of older tankers operating under foreign flags that Moscow relies on to export oil despite Western sanctions. According to Ukrainian officials, Russia has increasingly tasked Baltic Fleet vessels with escort, monitoring, and security missions for these tankers as they transit the Baltic Sea carrying sanctioned Russian oil to markets prepared to bypass Western restrictions. The Steregushchiy class ships are among Russia’s more modern corvettes. With a standard displacement of 1,800 tons, a length of 343 feet, and a flight deck for a helicopter, the corvettes are closer to frigates, according to some classification systems. Their primary armament consists of two quadruple launchers for Uran anti-ship missiles, a 12-cell Redut vertical launch system for various air defense missiles, and two quadruple tubes for Paket-NK anti-torpedo/anti-submarine torpedoes. The British offshore patrol vessels HMS Mersey and HMS Severn shadow the Russian corvette Boikiy in the English Channel in 2017. The attack on the naval base was part of a wider Ukrainian drone barrage directed against other military and energy sites in and around St. Petersburg early on Wednesday. Footage of the attacks showed drones, reportedly FP-1/2 types, low over the Gulf of Finland and in the skies above the city. A video published online shows a Ukrainian FP-1 drone flying just a few meters above the water in the Gulf of Finland during the morning attack on Saint Petersburg. pic.twitter.com/ZTtGb71zdT— WarTranslated (@wartranslated) June 3, 2026 The attacks occurred just hours before international guests gathered for the city’s flagship economic forum. “The Petersburg forum is opening with a nice plume of black smoke in the background after Ukrainian strikes,” posted Serhiy Sternenko, an adviser to the Ukrainian defence minister. Smoke is rising over Kronstadt also.Naval base there, some ships could be hit https://t.co/RY3SGUIPBd pic.twitter.com/LytOUoXZWu— Liveuamap (@Liveuamap) June 3, 2026 Several long-range drones also crashed into oil storage facilities in St. Petersburg after Russian air defenses reportedly tried unsuccessfully to shoot them down. Loud explosions were heard, and black smoke could be seen rising from the blazing oil terminal, one of the largest on Russia’s Baltic Sea coast. In this footage you can even see two Ukrainian drones flying in formation over the oil terminal in Saint Petersburg, Russia, with one dive-bombing into the oil terminal. pic.twitter.com/eMUdpwsDiz— (((Tendar))) (@Tendar) June 3, 2026 The entire city of Saint Petersburg, Russia, received a front row seat for the destruction of the local oil terminal. This includes also the attendees of St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), which will start today. pic.twitter.com/HxDsF6kQ6p— (((Tendar))) (@Tendar) June 3, 2026 Russian authorities confirmed that the attacks had taken place, with St. Petersburg’s governor, Alexander Beglov, saying that the Kirovsky and Krasnoselsky districts had been targeted. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, writing on social media, said that drones had hit “important facilities on Russian territory,” including the St. Petersburg oil terminal, the Kronstadt base, and a weapons factory in the Tambov region. “I thank our warriors for their precision. Ukraine’s plan for long-range sanctions is being implemented exactly as needed to bring peace closer,” Zelensky said. Our long-range sanctions carried out by the warriors of the Security Service of Ukraine, the Unmanned Systems Forces, the Special Operations Forces, the Defense Intelligence of Ukraine, and the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine have yielded good results. Important facilities… pic.twitter.com/esxYMexU8d— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 3, 2026 The significance of the strikes is manifold. First off, the drone strikes have a highly symbolic value, and will be especially embarrassing for the Kremlin, since they come immediately in advance of the three-day annual summit being held in St. Petersburg, and billed as Russia’s answer to Davos. The Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum of 2026 (SPIEF 2026) in Russia has started with a very fiery keynote speech by the Ukrainian surprise guests. pic.twitter.com/VVIuGcQCO7— (((Tendar))) (@Tendar) June 3, 2026 FP-1 drones fully demonstrating the greatness of Putins regime ahead of the St Petersburg Economic Forum. https://t.co/cgFNw24Xum pic.twitter.com/ztGCVHGEWQ— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) June 3, 2026 Guests arrived for today’s opening ceremony under a pall of thick smoke, and Russian President Vladimir Putin is due to make a keynote speech at the event on Friday. There was further disruption for arriving guests as St. Petersburg’s airport was temporarily closed. Secondly, the drone strikes underscore Ukraine’s ability to strike targets deep within Russia, using a growing array of long-range one-way attack drones and cruise missiles. The targets are around 680 miles from the nearest Ukrainian border. The approximate location of Kronstadt and St. Petersburg in relation to Ukraine. Google Earth Finally, by targeting Kronstadt, the attacks also signify the opening up of a new front in the drone war, namely against the Baltic Fleet while it is in port. A fire has reportedly broken out aboard the Russian warship Boykiy in Kronstadt near St. Petersburg following Ukraine’s latest drone attack.The corvette repeatedly escorted vessels from Russia’s shadow oil fleet through the English Channel in recent years. pic.twitter.com/Zhsn3nVsVp— KyivPost (@KyivPost) June 3, 2026 Located on Kotlin Island in the Gulf of Finland, about 18 miles west of St. Petersburg, Kronstadt is one of the principal bases associated with the Baltic Fleet. Today, it primarily hosts corvettes and patrol vessels, naval support ships, training units, as well as repair and maintenance facilities. Since any naval threat approaching St. Petersburg from the Gulf of Finland must pass near Kronstadt, the base effectively acts as the maritime gateway to Russia’s second-largest city. The approximate location of Kronstadt, at the gateway to St. Petersburg, and at the far east end of the Baltic. Google Earth There have been very few confirmed Ukrainian attacks of any kind on the Baltic Fleet compared with the extensive campaign waged against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. In April 2024, there was a fire on a Russian warship at Baltiysk in Kaliningrad. The fire damaged communications and electronic systems aboard the Buyan class corvette Serpukhov. A Ukrainian military intelligence official subsequently claimed that this was the result of a covert joint operation conducted by his GUR agency and a pro-Kyiv Russian military group. For the first time in the war, an attack took place in the Baltic Sea, the Russian Serpukhov missile ship was burned in Kaliningrad.The Buyan-M class Serpukhov corvette belonging to the Russian navy was burned by Ukrainian sabotage teams.The ship was severely damaged. pic.twitter.com/Isl9sVWF1R— Mete Sohtaoğlu (@metesohtaoglu) April 9, 2024 So far, of course, Ukraine’s naval campaign has focused overwhelmingly on the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Many successful attacks have been recorded against Black Sea Fleet vessels and facilities, forcing the general evacuation of Russian naval assets from occupied Crimea and to bases in Russia proper. In recent months, Ukraine has waged an aerial campaign to disrupt Russia’s economy. Long-range drones have hit ports and oil storage facilities, military factories, and airbases. There has also been an uptick in attacks against tankers and trucks moving between occupied southern Ukraine and Crimea, leading to fuel shortages across the peninsula. Meanwhile, the scale of Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukraine remains undiminished. On Monday, a barrage of Russian strikes killed 23 people across Ukraine and injured many more. This led Zelenskyy to renew his plea for the U.S. government to provide Kyiv with more Patriot missiles. Today, he said that “an agreement at the highest political level on the purchase of Patriot systems […] is awaiting implementation at the financial, legal, and technical levels.” I held a meeting on additional ways to supply air defense to Ukraine – both systems and interceptors. We have an agreement at the highest political level on the purchase of Patriot systems, and this agreement is awaiting implementation at the financial, legal, and technical…— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 3, 2026 Whether or not the overnight strike caused significant damage, its strategic message was unmistakable. By reaching Kronstadt, one of Russia’s most historic naval bases, Ukraine demonstrated that even the Baltic Fleet is no longer beyond its reach. The attack highlights Kyiv’s growing long-range capabilities and signals that Russia’s efforts to protect both its regular fleet and its shadow oil-export network may face increasing pressure, even far from the front lines. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post Russia’s Baltic Fleet Successfully Attacked By Ukrainian Drones appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Sea, Around The Globe, Baltic Sea, Corvettes, Drones, Europe, Navies, News & Features, Russian Navy, Ukraine] [Link to media]

— The USMC’s AV-8B Harrier Has Flown Off Into The Sunset

 

at 6/3/26 7:42am

The unmistakable howl of the AV-8B Harrier II has been a soundtrack to U.S. Marine Corps aviation for more than four decades. From the deserts of the Middle East and Afghanistan to the decks of amphibious assault ships at sea, the aircraft’s ability to take off from short runways, operate from austere forward bases, and land vertically made it one of the most distinctive combat aircraft ever to wear American markings. Before then, its predecessor, the first-generation AV-8A Harrier, had pioneered the ‘jump jet’ in U.S. service, after entering Marine Corps service in 1971. Now, that illustrious era has come to an end. A Marine plane captain from Marine Attack Squadron 223, Cherry Point, North Carolina, observes pre-flight checks of an AV-8B at Gowen Field, Boise, Idaho, in April 2021. U.S. Air National Guard photo by Senior Master Sgt. Joshua C. Allmaras In a ceremony today, the Marine Corps said its official farewell to the AV-8B when its final operational Harrier II squadron, Marine Attack Squadron 223 (VMA-223), known as the “Bulldogs,” marked the retirement of the aircraft at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. The event closes a remarkable chapter in Marine aviation history. The Harrier’s departure marks more than the retirement of an aircraft; it represents the conclusion of a concept that shaped Marine air power for generations and helped define the Corps’ expeditionary character. U.S. Marine Corps AV-8Bs with Marine Attack Squadron 223, Marine Aircraft Group 14, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, fly over the coast of North Carolina on May 15, 2026. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Perri Wood The Harrier was more than just another attack jet. It was the embodiment of the Marine Corps’ longstanding determination to bring airpower wherever Marines fought, regardless of whether a conventional airfield existed. The Harrier’s story began long before the AV-8 entered U.S. military service. Derived from the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier jump jet, the aircraft was built around a revolutionary concept: vertical and short takeoff and landing, or V/STOL. Using swiveling engine nozzles, the aircraft could launch from improvised sites, roads, damaged airfields, and the decks of even relatively small ships. During the Cold War, when planners feared that traditional runways would be among the first targets destroyed in a major conflict, the concept had obvious appeal, but it was only the Harrier that saw real success as a V/STOL combat jet. The Marine Corps embraced the idea early on. While the first-generation AV-8A proved the concept, the AV-8B Harrier II transformed it into a truly capable battlefield strike aircraft. The AV-8B featured a larger composite wing, improved performance, greater payload capacity, and significantly enhanced avionics. Later upgrades introduced night-attack capabilities and radar-equipped AV-8B Plus variants, keeping the aircraft relevant well into the 21st century. In recent years, all the Marine single-seaters still in service were ‘radar birds’ equipped with the AN/APG-65 radar that was ported over second-hand from F/A-18A/B Hornets and which conferred a significant air-to-air capability. Marines work on the radar in the nose of an AV-8B on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6). U.S Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Ty C. Connors/ Released What made the Harrier exceptional was not simply its ability to hover. Its real value lay in its flexibility. Marine commanders could position Harriers close to frontline forces, reducing response times and increasing the effectiveness of close air support missions. The aircraft became a natural fit for Marine Expeditionary Units operating from amphibious assault ships, where its unique capabilities allowed fixed-wing tactical aviation to accompany Marines far from traditional airfields or aircraft carriers. An AV-8B assigned to Marine Attack Squadron 311 lands aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA-5) as it steams through the South China Sea in June 2008. U.S. Navy photo/Petty Officer 2nd Class Scott Webb The Harrier quickly earned its combat credentials. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Marine Harriers flew thousands of sorties in support of coalition ground forces. The aircraft demonstrated its ability to sustain a high operational tempo while flying in demanding conditions. In the decades that followed, Harriers participated in virtually every major Marine Corps combat operation, including missions over the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and against ISIS. Two Marine Corps AV-8Bs are given final preflight checks as their pilots prepare for takeoff from the amphibious assault ship USS Nassau (LHA-4) during Operation Desert Shield. U.S. Department of Defense The post-9/11 period of relentless operations arguably became the Harrier’s defining period. The AV-8B was a natural fit for counterinsurgency warfare. Equipped with advanced targeting pods and precision-guided munitions, Marine Harriers became a common sight over Iraq and Afghanistan, where their ability to remain close to ground forces made them particularly valuable. Yet, even as the Harrier continued proving its worth in combat, its future was becoming increasingly uncertain. Lt. Col. Thomas D. Gore, former commanding officer of Marine Attack Squadron 223, pilots an AV-8B over the Kajaki Dam in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Between November 2011 and May 2012, VMA-223 provided close air support for Marines and their Afghan and coalition partners conducting counterinsurgency operations in southwestern Afghanistan. U.S. Department of Defense The aircraft’s age, maintenance demands, and limited growth potential eventually caught up with it. The jet was also notably demanding on its pilots, requiring a unique training syllabus to operate safely and efficiently. Looking toward the demands of future potential conflicts against sophisticated adversaries, Marine aviation planners concluded that its next jump jet would require stealth, advanced sensors, networked warfare capabilities, and greater overall survivability than a fourth-generation attack aircraft could provide. The answer was the F-35B Lightning II. Like the Harrier, the F-35B possesses short takeoff and vertical landing capability. Unlike the Harrier, however, it combines that flexibility with stealth technology, sensor fusion, powerful electronic warfare systems, and the ability to operate as an intelligence-gathering node across the battlespace. For Marine aviation leaders, the F-35B offered a path to preserve the expeditionary advantages pioneered by the Harrier while dramatically expanding combat capability. You can read more about the changes the F-35B is bringing to Marine Corps tactical aviation here and here, as well as on-scene reporting of its operations from an improvised forward arming and refueling point, here. An F-35B attached to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211 is directed to take off from the amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD-2), during flight deck operations on April 22, 2026. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Ivan A. Garcia An F-35B about to be rearmed with inert AIM-120 missiles and Stormbreaker guided munitions on a stretch of road next to the Pacific coastline in California. James Deboer Notably, however, the service is also procuring F-35C versions that can operate from big-deck aircraft carriers, as well as land bases. One by one, Marine Harrier squadrons began converting to the F-35B. Aircraft were retired, maintainers retrained, and pilots transitioned to the new platform. The process accelerated as the Marine Corps pursued broader modernization efforts focused on preparing for future conflicts, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. The transition fully away from the Harrier was outlined in the 2022 Marine Aviation Plan. U.S. Marine Corps The signs of the Harrier’s approaching retirement became increasingly visible. In 2024, the final two Marine pilots completed AV-8B qualification training, becoming the last aviators ever designated as Harrier pilots by the Corps. Their graduation marked the beginning of the end for the ‘Flying Leatherneck’ Harrier community. U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Eric Shiebe, an AV-8B Harrier pilot and executive officer, and Sgt. Tatiana Rios, a fixed-wing aircraft airframe mechanic, both with Marine Attack Squadron 223, participate in an incentive flight at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina, May 19, 2026. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Bryan Giraldo The final operational chapter belonged to VMA-223, which carried the Harrier banner to the very end. Their deployment aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) represented the last operational deployment of Marine Corps Harriers. As part of the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit and its Harriers were part of Operation Southern Spear, the U.S. strikes on boats suspected of carrying illicit narcotics in the Caribbean. The Iwo Jima ARG was also in the region for the U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, earlier this year. When the squadron completed its mission and the final aircraft returned home, the countdown to retirement entered its final phase. For the Marines who flew and maintained the aircraft, the retirement is bittersweet. The Harrier demanded respect. Its unique flight characteristics and vertical landing operations required exceptional skill from pilots. Maintainers often worked tirelessly to keep aging aircraft mission-ready. Yet those challenges helped create a close-knit community built around a platform unlike any other in American service. An AV-8B and an F-35B during the change of command and redesignation ceremony for Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 214 at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, in March 2022. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Samuel Ruiz In proving that fixed-wing tactical aviation can operate from challenging locales, the Marine Harrier continued a concept of operations that the service had pioneered in the Pacific in World War II. It gave Marine commanders unprecedented flexibility and reinforced the Corps’ expeditionary identity. Long before concepts such as distributed operations and expeditionary advanced bases became buzzwords, the Harrier proved that combat aircraft could operate from unconventional locations and support dispersed forces. As the Harrier’s designated successor, it is fitting that the F-35B preserves the ability to operate from amphibious ships and austere locations while adding capabilities unimaginable when the AV-8B first entered service. Still, there will never be another aircraft quite like the AV-8B, especially as far as charisma is concerned, and the type was a firm airshow favourite. As the final Marine Corps Harriers make their last flights, they leave behind an enduring influence on Marine aviation doctrine and expeditionary warfare. While the United Kingdom gave up its Harrier IIs in a rushed retirement that you can read more about here, the AV-8B remains in frontline service in smaller numbers with Italy and Spain. It remains to be seen if a customer for former Marine Corps Harriers will come forward, but these aircraft remain capable and offer unique capabilities, something we have addressed in the past. The Marine Corps jump jet era is over. But the impact of the Harrier, and the men and women who flew and maintained it, will continue to shape Marine aviation for years to come. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post The USMCs AV-8B Harrier Has Flown Off Into The Sunset appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Air, Attack, Harrier, Sea, U.S. Marine Corps] [Link to media]

— Iran Launches New Attacks On Kuwait, Bahrain (Updated)

 

at 6/3/26 2:41am

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Tuesday evening said U.S. forces successfully defeated multiple Iranian ballistic missiles and drones in attacks launched at allies Kuwait and Bahrain. Iran said the strikes were in response to U.S. attacks. This is yet another round of tit-for-tat strikes that have become something of regularity since the ceasefire deal was reached between the U.S. and Iran. In a post on X, CENTCOM said Iran launched several ballistic missiles toward regional neighbors; however, all failed to hit their intended targets. Two Iranian missiles fired at Kuwait fell short or broke apart enroute, and three missiles launched at Bahrain were immediately intercepted by U.S. and Bahrain air defense forces. Moments earlier, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces shot down three one-way attack drones launched by Iran toward civilian mariners that were rightfully transiting regional waters. Additional video showed what appears to be Patriot munitions fired to intercept Iranian missiles. Footage of a PATRIOT SAM battery engaging incoming Iranian ballistic missiles over Kuwait this morning. At least 3 interception attempts are visible. pic.twitter.com/k8X7ukMZyi— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 2, 2026 American forces also conducted self-defense strikes on an Iranian military ground control station on Qeshm Island, CENTCOM stated. No U.S. personnel were harmed. CENTCOM forces remain vigilant and ready to defend against unwarranted Iranian aggression during the ongoing ceasefire. Kuwait officials say they came under ballistic missile attack, while explosions were reported in Bahrain. Kuwaiti air defenses are currently confronting hostile missile and drone attacks, Kuwaits Army stated on X. The General Staff of the Army notes that if explosion sounds are heard, they are the result of air defense systems intercepting the hostile attacks. Everyone is requested to adhere to the security and safety instructions issued by the competent authorities. تتصدى حالياً الدفاعات الجوية الكويتية لهجمات صاروخية وطائرات مسيرة معادية.تنوه رئاسة الأركان العامة للجيش أن أصوات الانفجارات إن سمعت فهي نتيجة اعتراض منظومات الدفاع الجوي للهجمات المعادية.يرجى من الجميع التقيد بتعليمات الأمن والسلامة الصادرة عن الجهات المختصة.… pic.twitter.com/us5KIAGcih— KUWAIT ARMY الجيش الكويتي (@KuwaitArmyGHQ) June 2, 2026 The siren has been sounded, Bahrains Interior Ministry stated on X. Citizens and residents are urged to remain calm and head to the nearest safe place. The siren has been sounded .Citizens and residents are urged to remain calm and head to the nearest safe place.— Ministry of Interior (@moi_bahrain) June 2, 2026 Iran said it launched retaliation strikes. Following the hostile actions of the U.S. in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and Qeshm Island, American bases in Kuwait were hit, the official Iranian IRIB news outlet claimed on X in a post that included video of what appears to be missiles landing. Following the hostile actions of the U.S. in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and Qeshm Island, American bases in Kuwait were hit. pic.twitter.com/iVGC0P1r3p— IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) (@iribnews_irib) June 2, 2026 IRIB posted another video it claimed showed an air defense munition exploding in a civilian area. TWZ cannot independently confirm any of these claims. BREAKINGA U.S. defense missile in Kuwait that, after failing to intercept launched missiles, fell in a non-military area pic.twitter.com/pM4iDaiY6r— IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) (@iribnews_irib) June 2, 2026 The Iranian news outlet also showed video of what it said were missiles flying over Bahrain. Missiles passing over the skies of Bahrain pic.twitter.com/AsOARa2Se7— IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) (@iribnews_irib) June 2, 2026 Earlier on Tuesday, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced U.S. forces “disabled an unladen oil tanker that was attempting to sail toward an Iranian port on the Arabian Gulf.”  In a post on X, CENTCOM said it “enforced blockade measures against Botswana-flagged M/T Lexie as it transited international waters toward Kharg Island. The ship’s crew ignored repeated warnings, failing to comply with directions from U.S. forces multiple times over a 24-hour period.” A U.S. aircraft “ultimately disabled the vessel by firing a Hellfire missile into the ship’s engine room, preventing the tanker from reaching Iran,” the command added. This marks the sixth commercial vessel disabled by CENTCOM, which has also redirected 122 as the ceasefire with Iran continues. You can see video of the Hellfire strike on the M/T Lexie below. U.S. Central Command released footage from the strike with AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missile against the Botswana-flagged M/T LEXIE unladen oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz on June 2, 2026.According to the U.S. military, the vessel attemped to break trough the American… pic.twitter.com/M93VkbArzn— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) June 2, 2026 Meanwhile, there are unconfirmed reports that Iran has also attacked Iraq as well. We have reached out to CENTCOM for more information and will update this story with any pertinent details provided. BREAKING: Iran simultaneously carries out attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq.— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 2, 2026 It isnt clear who fired on who first that set off this chain of events. The U.S. has been responding to attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz area, including on U.S. Navy ships, with strikes like those described on Qeshm island, but we dont know if that was exactly the case in this instance. This is a developing story. UPDATE: 10:30 PM EDT In another post on X, CENTCOM said that an additional wave of Iranian drones attempting to attack U.S. forces in Kuwait failed to impact intended targets tonight. U.S. Central Command air defenses successfully downed multiple drones and ensured no American personnel or assets were harmed. An additional wave of Iranian drones attempting to attack U.S. forces in Kuwait failed to impact intended targets tonight. U.S. Central Command air defenses successfully downed multiple drones and ensured no American personnel or assets were harmed.— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) June 3, 2026 UPDATE: 4:34 AM EDT June 3 Video and images are emerging showing the aftermath of Iranian attacks on Kuwait International Airport. Footage of the damage at Kuwait International Airport caused by an Iranian missile and drone attack. https://t.co/Dwk4qfOqJf pic.twitter.com/HMgaUMqOxD— Ariel Oseran أريئل أوسيران (@ariel_oseran) June 3, 2026 In a post on X, the official spokesman for Kuwaits Ministry of Defense, Brigadier General Saud Abdulaziz Al-Otaibi, stated that a number of hostile drones targeted today the passenger building (T1) at Kuwait International Airport as a result of the criminal Iranian aggression, which resulted in significant material damage to the building and injuries to a number of individuals, who received the necessary medical care. Al-Otaibi added that the armed forces are monitoring the situation in coordination with the relevant authorities, and they are in a state of complete readiness to deal with any developments, and to take all necessary measures to preserve the security of the country and its stability. بيان رقم (63)صرّح المتحدث الرسمي لوزارة الدفاع، العقيد الركن سعود عبدالعزيز العطوان، بأن عدداً من الطائرات المسيّرة المعادية استهدفت اليوم مبنى الركاب (T1) بمطار الكويت الدولي نتيجة العدوان الإيراني الآثم، ما أسفر عن أضرار مادية جسيمة في المبنى وإصابة عدد من الأشخاص، حيث تلقوا… pic.twitter.com/HMSd0TX7sG— KUWAIT ARMY الجيش الكويتي (@KuwaitArmyGHQ) June 3, 2026 Contact the author: howard@twz.com The post Iran Launches New Attacks On Kuwait, Bahrain (Updated) appeared first on The War Zone.

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

— Any Plans For Direct U-28 Draco Special Ops Surveillance Plane Replacement Abandoned

 

at 6/2/26 5:56pm

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has confirmed that it has no plans for a direct replacement for the U-28A Draco, which is primarily used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). The command had previously said it was exploring requirements that might lead to a successor to the U-28A, as well as its MC-12 surveillance planes. Americas special operations community now increasingly looks to be getting entirely out of the business of flying dedicated crewed ISR aircraft, which were a staple during the Global War on Terror era. At least publicly, all of the remaining U-28s in service today are assigned to units under Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). The U-28 is a militarized version of the Pilatus PC-12 single-engine turboprop that carries a variety of sensors, including electro-optical and infrared cameras and a signals intelligence (SIGINT) suite. It can also be used, if required, as a light utility aircraft. AFSOC currently has around 30 U-28s in its inventory. A member of the 27th Special Operations Wing performs preflight checks on a U-28 during Exercise Southern Star 25 in Chile. USAF USSOCOM will retire 8 U-28A intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft in FY [Fiscal Year] 2027 as part of its phased plan to divest all manned ISR platforms by 2029, according to an annual force structure report the Pentagon released last month. These retirements align with evolving mission requirements and reflect the scheduled drawdown of aircraft that have reached or exceeded their expected service life. Similar language has been included in past iterations of this report since 2024, but it appears to have gone largely unnoticed. Aviation Week was first to report on the contents of the newest version of the document last week. TWZ subsequently reached out to SOCOM for further clarification and more information about this decision. SOCOM previously announced a decision to divest the U-28 platform in 2020, a spokesperson for the command told us today. There are no plans to replace this ISR platform. TWZ has reached back out to confirm whether or not SOCOM currently expects crewed aircraft to be part of the special operations aerial ISR ecosystem at all after the U-28 leaves service at the end of the decade. It is true that SOCOMs plans to retire the U-28s, along with its MC-12 fleet, are well established at this point. The command completed divestment of the last of its MC-12s in 2025. This designation has been used to refer to a variety of ISR-configured variants of the Beechcraft King Air twin-engine turboprop. Special operations versions have also sometimes been referred to by the program name Javaman. A special operations MC-12, in front, seen together with a U-28, behind. Air National Guard Andrew LaMoreaux SOCOM has also repeatedly stressed that its new OA-1K Skyraider II light attack planes are not being acquired as a direct replacement for the U-28 or any other crewed ISR aircraft. This has caused some confusion over the years given that resources from the divested ISR fleets are explicitly being used to stand up the OA-1K force. There were also suggestions previously that the command was at least looking into formulating requirements for a new dedicated crewed ISR aircraft that could succeed the U-28 and/or the MC-12. An OA-1K Skyraider II. USAF The command is rapidly modernizing, to include ISR infrastructure, Col. Justin Bronder, head of SOCOMs Program Executive Office for Fixed Wing (PEO-FW), told TWZ and other outlets when asked about what could follow the U-28 and the MC-12 at a roundtable at the annual SOF Week conference in May 2024. Were working very closely with our counterparts in G2 [SOCOMs top intelligence office], AFSOC, JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command], etc, to help both identify what the real requirements are and how to get after new capabilities as we divest and move on from some platforms that serve admirably where we were for the counter-VEO [violent extremist organization]/ Crisis Response fight in the Middle East for 20 years. SOCOM has not taken steps to plan for, or add, critical ISR capabilities provided by soon-to-be divested aircraft, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, said in a report published in September 2024. Also, SOCOM has not addressed risks associated with the loss of these capabilities if the new aircraft does not provide them.” A U-28A at a mock Forward Area Refueling Point (FARP) during an exercise. USAF However, GAOs report did not explicitly say that SOCOM had no intention of filling those gaps, even in part, with a new crewed platform. “SOCOM told us that their decisions about Armed Overwatch occurred separate from their decisions to divest of existing aircraft,” a GAO spokesperson told TWZ directly at that time when asked for more information. “We are separately conducting a classified assessment of SOCOM’s process for how it decided to divest of ISR aircraft.” There were some signs at this years SOF Week conference that the forthcoming retirement of the U-28 could be more of a final coda for dedicated crewed ISR aircraft within the U.S. special operations community. A representative of PEO-FW told TWZ and others at the gathering that all of the secretive SOCOM Tactical Airborne Multi-Sensor Platform (STAMP) aircraft would be transferred somewhere within the Air Force. Whether or not it will make its way under AFSOCs umbrella is not clear, though it seems likely. How long those aircraft will remain in service at all is also unclear. The STAMP fleet, which we were first to report on years ago, has included types based on the De Havilland Canada DHC-8, or Dash 8, and the Beechcraft King Air over the years. A STAMP fleet Dash-8. US Army Just a reminder that OA-1K is not a replacement for U-28, Col. Bronder also said again at this years SOF Week conference. Certainly, it can do some ISR functions, but again, [it] meets a close air support strike requirement. How SOCOM expects to fully make up for ISR capacity gaps left by the retirement of its existing crewed ISR aircraft remains to be seen. The U.S. special operations community does already operate a variety of drones capable of performing surveillance and reconnaissance missions, including Air Force MQ-9 Reapers and U.S. Army MQ-1C Gray Eagles. Further uncrewed capabilities will certainly be part of the equation, especially to help mitigate the threats posed by ever-more capable enemy air defense systems in contested environments. AFSOC has already been heavily investing in what it calls the Adaptive Airborne Enterprise (A2E). This is an overarching concept of operations centered on increasing deployability by reducing personnel and logistics footprints, as well as the collaborative employment of capabilities. The vision for A2E includes heavy use of air-launched drones, loitering munitions, and other systems that are increasingly lumped together under the umbrella of so-called launched effects. It also extends to collaboration with friendly crewed and uncrewed assets in the ground and maritime domains. A graphic depicting an “operational vision” (OV) for the Adaptive Airborne Enterprise (A2E) involving collaboration between platforms and forces across permissive, contested, and denied areas. USAF As an aside, it is also worth noting that the U.S. Army finished divesting dozens of turboprop crewed ISR aircraft in December 2025 as part of a broader modernization push. That service is now in the process of acquiring a far smaller number of ME-11B High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES) surveillance and reconnaissance planes based on the Bombardier Global 6500 business jet, which you can read more about here. For the U.S. special operations community, all of this comes amid something of a watershed moment for crewed fixed aircraft operations, in general. In recent years, there has been reorientation across Americas armed forces toward preparing for future major conflicts, especially one against China in the Pacific, after decades of focus on counter-terrorism missions. This, in turn, has prompted questions about the continued relevance of many platforms, including the new OA-1K, which is very much geared toward low-intensity conflicts. Outlays in SOCOMs budget request for the 2027 Fiscal Year only show plans to acquire 53 OA-1Ks. This is down from the plans to procure 62 Skyraider II aircraft that had been previously presented in the commands proposed budget for the 2026 Fiscal Year. Earlier this year, SOCOM told Air & Space Forces Magazine that this was a reflection of “the strategic reallocation of resources to support [SOCOM] evolving priorities. However, the command also insisted that it still expects to eventually acquire 75 OA-1Ks as originally planned. SOCOM has also stressed that American special operations forces will still be called upon to provide support to counter-terrorism missions and in other low-intensity conflicts for the foreseeable future despite the pivot toward preparedness for high-end fights. The command has said this continues to justify the acquisition of the OA-1K. How the Skyraider II, as well as other fixed-wing crewed special operations aircraft like the AC-130J gunship, might provide support on the edges of a future major conflict is also something SOCOM and AFSOC are actively exploring. Whatever the future of crewed fixed-wing special operations aviation looks like, a direct replacement for the U-28 is off the table, and crewed ISR aircraft may be increasingly absent from that equation entirely. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post Any Plans For Direct U-28 Draco Special Ops Surveillance Plane Replacement Abandoned appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Air, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), News & Features, Special Operations Aviation] [Link to media]

— Are Ukrainian Mirage 2000s Now Flying Air-To-Ground Strike Missions?

 

at 6/2/26 11:36am

A French-made Mirage 2000-5F, streaking low over Ukraine in a newly emerged video, provides a relatively rare glimpse of the fighter in Ukrainian Air Force service. Compared with the more numerous F-16 fleet, Ukrainian Mirage operations are much less widely seen. Until now, accounts and imagery have shown the delta-wing fighters being used for air-to-air missions, primarily in the fight against Russian long-range attack drones and cruise missiles. The latest footage may suggest that they now have started to embark on air-to-ground sorties, too. Some of the first footage of a French-supplied Mirage 2000-5F in Ukrainian service conducting a strike mission on the eastern frontline. Seen here screaming just a few dozen feet over the ground before tossing its load of bombs (likely French AASMs) at a Russian target. pic.twitter.com/EEHgNxIxUg— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 2, 2026 The footage, taken from a ground position possibly close to the front lines, shows a Mirage flying at a very low-level along a tree line, before pulling up into a steep climb. Potentially, the jet was engaged in an air defense patrol before pulling up to transit outside of the ground-based air defense threat ‘umbrella,’ but this exact maneuver is one we have frequently seen for air-to-ground weapons releases from other platforms. While the moment of weapons release is not visible, the flight profile is consistent with toss bombing attacks. In particular, the French-made AASM-250 Hammer rocket-boosted munition, associated with the Mirage, has often been seen delivered by other platforms using this technique, which is exactly how the weapon was designed to be used, among other modes of delivery. Footage reportedly showing Ukrainian MiG-29 fighter jet firing French-supplied AASM-250 Hammer guided bombs at a target in Belgorod Oblast of Russia.Notice the very low altitude from which the munitions are being launched.Geolocated impact point: Nekhoteevka border crossing,… pic.twitter.com/mGGuqRAmyK— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) June 27, 2024 A video of the moment of release of two French-supplied AASM-250 Hammer guided bombs from a Ukrainian MiG-29 fighter jet.The pilot of this particular airframe, 27-year-old Captain Oleksandr Myhulia, perished while performing a combat mission on August 12, 2024.… pic.twitter.com/yNEbbaFUPt— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) August 14, 2024 After all, toss bombing is a key way to help mitigate the risks to combat jets over the battlefield, specifically ground-based air defenses. Russias surface-to-air missile umbrella is well layered and penetrates far beyond the front lines. “Obviously, the lower you are, and the further away from the surface-to-air missiles that can detect you because of the curvature of the Earth” affect how far the bomb can travel, U.S. Air Force Gen. James Hecker, head of U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE), as well as NATO’s Allied Air Command and U.S. Air Forces Africa (AFAFRICA), explained back in 2023. Hecker was speaking about Ukraine’s use of unpowered JDAM-ER glide bombs, but the same applies to Hammer. “There are tactics where you can go in low and do some things… and get back,” Hecker added. Head-on view of a Ukrainian Mirage 2000 at a forward operating location. Ukrainian Air Force screencap The toss/lofted technique does not reduce the accuracy of the Hammer or the U.S.-supplied JDAM-ER, which both come as standard with GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS) guidance packages that allow them to zero in on set coordinates even when employed indirectly. Additionally, the Hammer can offer multi-mode guidance options with either imaging infrared or semi-active laser homing added in, which enables the engagement of moving targets and helps improve overall accuracy. This also offers alternative guidance options in GPS-degraded environments against some targets. So far, however, only the GPS/INS version has been positively identified in Ukrainian service. A GPS/INS-guided AASM-250 Hammer rocket-assisted precision-guided bomb under the wing of a Ukrainian MiG-29 Fulcrum. via X Hammers come in a variety of sizes, but Ukraine is understood to have received 250-kilogram (551-pound) class types, also sometimes referred to as AASM-250s. To date, the Hammer has been seen in use on Ukrainian Air Force MiG-29 Fulcrums, which appear to be the service’s primary launch platform for the munitions, at least so far. Ukraine has also integrated the French-made bombs onto its Su-25 Frogfoot attack jets. Low pass by a Ukrainian Air Force MiG-29, armed with a French-supplied AASM 250 HAMMER extended-range guided bomb. pic.twitter.com/FlibJ9VZfm— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) March 15, 2024 Hammer’s solid-fuel rocket booster also gives the bomb unique benefits. The manufacturer, Safran, says the AASM-250 version can still hit targets at least up to nine miles away (15 kilometers) when released from low altitude. This can increase to around 43 miles (70 kilometers) when launched from higher altitude. In its original form, the Mirage 2000-5F was not cleared to use the Hammer, reflecting the fighter’s primary air defense mission in French service. However, in March of last year, France confirmed that the Mirages being transferred to Ukraine would have Hammer compatibility. In the past, the Mirage has been tested in France with a six-Hammer load-out. Today, France confirmed that Ukrainian Air Force Mirage 2000-5Fs will be outfitted with AASM extended-range guided bombs, giving Ukraine another capable strike platform. Previously, a French Mirage 2000-5F was tested with a massive loadout of up to 6 AASM-250s. https://t.co/qSPdQ5GLHR pic.twitter.com/g2mB8WEpVr— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) March 10, 2025 Earlier this year, the Ukrainian Air Force published a video including brief interviews with a Mirage pilot, as well as two members of the ground crew. The unnamed Mirage 2000 fighter pilot came to the delta-wing jet after serving on the Soviet-era Su-27 Flanker. “Now I pilot the Mirage 2000, and my impressions of this aircraft are extremely positive,” he explained. “I trained in the French Republic together with French fighter pilots for about six months. I learned to fly and employ weapons on the twin-seat Mirage 2000B. Later, we transitioned to the single-seat version, the very aircraft I am flying now.” The Ukrainian Mirage 2000 pilot in his jet. Ukrainian Air Force screencap Two Ukrainian Air Force fighter jet technicians, David and Dmytro, shared their experiences of day-to-day combat operations with the Mirage. “Right now, we’re at a forward operating airfield, our third one this week,” David pointed out, indicating the missile-armed Mirage behind him. “The enemy constantly tries to destroy our aircraft and equipment. Our forward team keeps relocating from site to site.” Ukraine’s F-16s also routinely operate from dispersed locations around the country, supported, among others, by a fleet of vehicles dedicated to helping maintain them, as you can read about here. Moreover, these kinds of operations, and the challenges of generating air combat power under the constant threat of Russian attack, are something that is being keenly felt in the U.S. military. After all, the Pentagon is planning to operate crewed and uncrewed aircraft from distributed forward locations in future high-end fights, such as one against China in the Pacific. These concepts of operations would also be relevant in the event of a major conflict elsewhere in Europe. Dmytro added: “During our last combat mission, we came under fire [from Shahed-series long-range one-way attack drones] and missiles, but fortunately, we managed to evacuate the aircraft and save our lives.” The pilot and technicians praised the Magic 2 infrared-guided air-to-air missile that appears to be the primary air-to-air armament of the Ukrainian Mirage. Ukrainian Mirage 2000 armed with a Magic 2 missile. Ukrainian Air Force screencap “It has performed exceptionally well,” one technician said, before claiming that it has a kill probability of “practically 100 percent.” The pilot further added that the kill probability against enemy drones and cruise missiles stands at 98 percent. No mention was made of the Mirage’s twin onboard 30mm cannons, although these are shown in detail in the video. A 30mm DEFA 553 cannon on a Ukrainian Mirage 2000. Ukrainian Air Force screencap As regards air-to-air kills, the particular Mirage seen in the video from earlier this year is marked with six silhouettes denoting Russian Kh-101 air-launched cruise missiles. However, as the ground crew points out, another six still needed to be added to the same jet. Six Kh-101 kill markings on a Ukrainian Mirage 2000. Ukrainian Air Force screencap The prosaic reason behind this: “We don’t always have stencils with us at forward airfields… Sometimes we simply don’t have the time to apply all the markings.” The reason the Mirage is less frequently seen in Ukrainian hands is chiefly due to numbers. It’s unclear exactly how many Mirages have now been pledged to Ukraine by France. At first, France offered six, but last October, French President Emmanuel Macron said he would offer more. At least one has so far been lost in Ukrainian service. On the subject of improving the combat potential of the Ukrainian Air Force, the pilot made a call for continued development, including “more modern aircraft [and] more modern weapons to counter the horde threatening us.” The appearance of the Hammer would provide evidence that this aspiration is being, to some extent, met. Pre-flight checks on a Ukrainian Mirage 2000 at a forward operating location. The RDY marking behind the radome indicates the RDY radar, a mechanically scanned pulse-Doppler type with look-down/shoot-down capability, found on the Mirage 2000-5F version. Ukrainian Air Force screencap As regards the particular deficiencies of the Mirage, the pilot said: “In my opinion, and in the opinion of my fellow pilots, this aircraft lacks longer-range air-to-air weapons.” He called for a weapon that represents “something in the middle ground between efficiency and cost so that we can engage the massive number of enemy aerial threats we face.” It’s unclear if the pilot in question was including the more modern and capable MICA air-to-air missile within this assessment. The first imagery of Ukrainian Mirages showed the jets exclusively armed with a pair of Magic 2 missiles, broadly analogous to the AIM-9L Sidewinder, rather than the MICA that the aircraft can also carry. At the start of this year, however, the MICA also began to appear on the fighters. Ukrainian Mirage 2000 fighters have been equipped with French MICA medium-range air-to-air missiles to counter Russian air targets. https://t.co/AuliNF5G7i pic.twitter.com/y5zXa9vgKQ— Special Kherson Cat (@bayraktar_1love) January 5, 2026 Unusual for a modern Western beyond-visual-range AAM, the MICA can be fitted with either an active radar seeker or an infrared seeker head. When using the latter option, the seeker can act as a ‘poor man’s’ infrared search and track system and provide target detection indication in the pilot’s head-up display (HUD). The MICA uses a thrust-vectoring motor for improved agility and has a reported maximum range of around 37 miles, far superior to the roughly nine-mile range of the Magic 2. Despite the arrival of Western-supplied equipment, Ukraine continues to rely heavily on its Soviet-era fighters. The entirety of its combat fleet — Mirages and F-16s included — is in the latter stages of its service life and needs to be replaced before too long. With that in mind, Kyiv is planning to bolster its air force with more modern equipment. “If I had the opportunity to transition to another aircraft superior to the Mirage, I would probably choose the Rafale,” the pilot continued. “It’s from the same country, and retraining for the Rafale would be much faster than transitioning to aircraft from other nations. The Rafale can also carry the Meteor, a missile with very long reach.” Thanks to its ramjet motor, the Meteor’s all-important ‘no-escape zone’ is much larger than for comparable weapons. This means the enemy’s chance of evading the missile at the endgame of the engagement, using high-energy maneuvering, is considerably reduced. Another advantage of being able to throttle the motor is that the Meteor’s autopilot can calculate the most efficient route to the target for very long-range shots. Ukraine now looks set to receive the Meteor to arm its first Gripen C/D fighters, now scheduled to arrive next year. Last November, Ukraine signed a letter of intent to buy up to 100 Rafale F4 multirole fighters from France over the next 10 years. The agreement came less than a month after Sweden and Ukraine unveiled a plan to export as many as 150 Gripen E fighters to Kyiv — last week, it was confirmed that Kyiv plans to buy an initial batch of 20 of the new-generation Gripens. While the Rafale and Gripen E/F would be the most advanced combat aircraft in Ukraine’s inventory, there remain glaring questions about whether the acquisition of one of these aircraft types, let alone two, is actually feasible, especially in such numbers, as we discussed at the time. Today marks a significant moment, truly historic for both our nations – France and Ukraine. Together with Emmanuel Macron, we signed a Declaration of Intent on Cooperation in the Acquisition of Defense Equipment for Ukraine. This document enables Ukraine to procure military… pic.twitter.com/0qzG41IsnP— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) November 17, 2025 At the same time, the Mirage pilot would be happy to get his hands on any kind of modern Western-made equipment. “If I were offered something like the F-35, Rafale, or Gripen, I would gladly, without hesitation, transition to that platform.” The possibility of Ukraine using Mirage 2000-5F fighters in an air-to-ground strike role would mark an important expansion of their combat role. If the aircraft are now contributing to both defensive and offensive operations, they will be further enhancing Ukraine’s steadily growing Western-origin air capabilities. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post Are Ukrainian Mirage 2000s Now Flying Air-To-Ground Strike Missions? appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: Air, Air Force Munitions, Air Forces, Air-To-Ground, Around The Globe, Europe, Fighters, News & Features, Ukraine, Ukrainian Air Force] [Link to media]

— Next Generation Penetrator Bomb Slated To Replace MOP Has Been Designated GBU-76

 

at 6/2/26 10:53am

The U.S. Air Force is already moving to lay groundwork for fielding the replacement of its GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster bomb. In the process, it has also revealed that the follow-on Next Generation Penetrator (NGP) has now been designated as the GBU-76/B. The service also has plans to continue upgrading the MOP, which became a household name after the first-ever combat use of the bombs against deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities during Operation Midnight Hammer last year. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Armament Directorate, Attack Division (AFLCMC/EBD) is conducting market research for an industry analysis of capabilities, according to a contracting notice posted online yesterday. AFLCMC/EBD is seeking to award a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support all aspects of research & development, production, testing, and delivery of the Next Generation Penetrator (NGP), GBU-76/B weapon system. A partially assembled GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the weapon the GBU-76/B Next Generation Penetrator is set to eventually supplant. USAF All interested vendors shall submit a response demonstrating their capability to support the design, production, testing, and bed down of components and specific activities related to the development, performance and sustainment of the GBU-76/B weapon system, the notice adds. It also stresses that information is only being gathered currently for planning purposes. The notice lists a wide range of tasks that may be pertinent to this effort. This includes fuze development and production, the development and testing of the explosive filler, the design and integration of an Alternate Navigation System to help guide the bomb to its target, and integration of all components into complete bombs. The full list is reproduced below. USAF As TWZ regularly notes, fuzing is a critical element of the design of deep-penetrating munitions. These weapons are designed to be employed against targets that are underground or otherwise present inherent challenges when it comes to establishing their exact location and layout. As such, advanced fuzes that ‘count’ floors to determine depth and/or sense the ‘voids’ of underground mission spaces help maximize the damage from a weapon like MOP or NGP. These fuzes also just need to be highly reliable in order to function after impacting very hard surfaces at high speeds and then drilling even further down into them. The Air Force has also said in past NGP contracting notices that it will consider novel, demonstrated, or fielded Guidance, Navigation & Control (GNC) technologies with viability for integration into a warhead guidance system design that can achieve repeatable, high accuracy performance in GPS aided, degraded, and/or denied environments. The MOP uses a GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS) guidance package contained within its tail unit. Being able to reliably hit a very specific impact point is also essential for bunker buster bombs, especially ones designed for very deep penetration. During Operation Midnight Hammer, Air Force B-2 bombers dropped six MOPs in rapid succession on each of two ventilation shafts – 12 bombs in total – at Irans Fordow nuclear site in order to drill down into the facility below. A graphic offering details about the employment of MOPs on Irans nuclear site at Fordow during Operation Midnight Hammer. US Military Many details about the planned design of the NGP remain unknown, including its expected total weight. The Air Force has previously said that the bombs warhead is set to tip the scales at around 22,000 pounds, but the complete weapon could be heavier. The contracting notice from yesterday says prospective vendors need to show general understanding of tasks associated with the lifecycle of Large Penetrator Warhead Systems weighing approximately 20,000 to 30,000 lbs. The MOP is a 30,000-pound-class bomb that includes a BLU-127/B warhead with a nominal weight of approximately 27,125 pounds. The GBU-76/B could incorporate other advanced or novel features. The Air Force has raised the possibility of a powered design offering extended reach in past discussions about MOP replacements. An add-on rocket booster could also help further improve the weapons penetration characteristics. As an aside, the B-2 is the only aircraft currently certified to employ MOPs operationally, and each of the bombers can carry just two of the bombs at a time. Making the GBU-76/B lighter and/or smaller than MOP could be beneficial for future integration on the B-21 Raider. The Raider is smaller than the B-2, and is only expected to be able to carry a single MOP at a time. The smaller payload capacity of each B-21, in general, is also set to be offset by a far larger fleet size of at least 100 bombers, and likely more. Only 21 B-2s were ever built, and 19 of them remain in service today. A B-2 bomber sits at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri ahead of Operation Midnight Hammer. USAF In line with evolving plans to actually field the new bunker busters, the NGP contracting notice the Air Force put out yesterday also asks prospective vendors to outline their ability to provide other related support. This includes supplying mission planning and weaponeering software, training assets and procedures to go along with them, and just the means of getting the bombs from point A to point B and then into waiting aircraft. The Air Force already has specialized equipment to train ground personnel on the movement and loading of MOPs on B-2 bombers, including a full-size mock bomb bay. An inert MOP seen loaded inside the full-scale B-2 bomb bay training asset. USAF Another inert MOP seen on a specialized trolley used to move the 30,000-pound-class bomb around and load it onto the B-2. Missouri Air National Guard When the Air Force expects to start fielding its first operational GBU-76/Bs is unclear. The Air Forces 2027 Fiscal Year budget request says that Next Generation Penetrator Prototype Demonstration including Modeling and Simulation, Design, Product Development, and Test is set to wrap up at the end of Fiscal Year 2028. It also says, unsurprisingly, that the goal of current prototyping efforts is to demonstrate an Air to Ground penetrator with equivalent or better MOP performance. In September 2025, Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) announced it had received a contract for work on NGP to include the production and delivery of full-scale prototypes. ARA also said at that time that Boeing will drive tail kit development and support all-up-round integration. Boeing is the prime contractor behind the MOP. The start of fielding of the GBU-76/B is also unlikely to lead to the immediate retirement of GBU-57/B, and the Air Force is continuing to work on improving that bombs capabilities in the interim. The services 2027 Fiscal Year budget proposal outlines plans for additional upgrades to the MOPs tail kit and fuze. After Operation Midnight Hammer, the Pentagon also moved to help the Air Force replenish and potentially expand its stockpile of GBU-57/Bs. How many MOPs have been procured to date is unknown. Boeing has reportedly expanded its capacity to make the bombs in the past, but total production is still understood to be relatively limited. The budget documents also note that MOP funding has been supporting the construction of a new test target, referred to as MS-34, further details about which are not provided. While significant weaponeering work can be done today in the virtual space, testing against real-world targets continues to be an important aspect of the development of munitions, in general. They are especially important for validating the capabilities of highly specialized weapons like the MOP and NGP. You can read more about this in the context of the development of MOP here. The ability to defeat very deeply buried and otherwise hardened targets continues to be a top priority for the U.S. military, broadly speaking. Though successfully executed, Operation Midnight Hammer underscored challenges just in holding relevant targets in Iran at risk. There have been reports in the past that some Iranian nuclear facilities might be beyond the reach even of MOP. Other U.S. competitors and adversaries globally, including China, Russia, and North Korea, already have extensive subterranean and other hardened military infrastructure, including underground naval and air bases, as well as missile silos and command and control bunkers. Those target sets are only continuing to expand, particularly in China, where there has been major work to construct vast new fields of silos for intercontinental ballistic missiles and hardened command and control facilities in recent years. This is also driving U.S. development of a new deep-penetrating nuclear bunker buster bomb, currently referred to as the Nuclear Deterrent System-Air-delivered (NDS-A). The Air Forces stockpile of MOPs currently offers the only real conventional alternative to those weapons in many cases. A nuclear weapon would still be required to realistically destroy certain especially deeply buried facilities. Fielding the NGP bunker buster, now designated GBU-76/B, in the coming years will give commanders a new conventional option for prosecuting strikes on hardened facilities very deep underground. Contact the author: joe@twz.com The post Next Generation Penetrator Bomb Slated To Replace MOP Has Been Designated GBU-76 appeared first on The War Zone.

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

— Russian Trucks Get ‘Dazzle’ Paint To Throw Off AI-Enabled Drones

 

at 6/1/26 5:41pm

From an early point in the Russian war in Ukraine, we’ve seen many unorthodox efforts to try to improve the chances of survival of fighting vehicles. Now, Russian trucks are receiving ‘dazzle paint,’ borrowing the same kind of tactic Russia has used for some of its most important military aircraft, to try to confuse seekers on standoff weaponry that use image-matching capability. KAMAZ truck with zebra-style pattern. via X via X via X Several images showing the unusually painted Russian trucks have appeared on social media channels in recent days. So far, examples of Ural and KAMAZ heavy-duty truck designs have surfaced. There are at least two distinct patterns so far: a zebra-style application of broadly straight lines, and a more organic, leaf-like, swirling design. In both cases, they extend over most external surfaces, including the wheels and tires. It is not entirely clear if the white paint is applied over a layer of black, or portions of black, or if the white is simply coated over the standard base color of very dark green. It could be a mix of both application concepts, as well. Ural truck with leaf-like pattern. via X via X via X At first sight, the truck patterns recall the iconic paint scheme that the U.K. Royal Navy pioneered for its warships back in World War I. ‘Dazzle paint’ or ‘dazzle camouflage’ was devised in 1917 by official War Artist Norman Wilkinson, as a means of reducing losses to attacks by German submarines, or U-boats. The geometric patterns work by using highly contrasting color blocks, often heavily featuring black and white, as part of a carefully constructed pattern that breaks up the form of the ship and makes it harder to judge range and perspective. British aircraft carrier HMS Argus wearing dazzle camouflage in 1918. Crown Copyright As you can read about here, this kind of naval camouflage scheme appeared again during World War II, and on several occasions since then. The Canadian frigate HMCS Regina, carrying a dazzle camouflage scheme, takes part in an exercise in 2020. Canadian Forces When first introduced, dazzle paint was intended to trick the human eye, normally looking through a periscope. There was still a benefit to be had in protecting vessels after the introduction of improved rangefinders and radar. For the eye, it made it harder to judge a ship’s course and speed, as well as simply identifying it reliably. The same basic principle is at work on the dazzle-painted Russian trucks, although now it’s an artificial eye — chiefly using electro-optical and/or infrared cameras — that is supposed to be fooled. Increasingly, Ukrainian drones are using artificial intelligence (AI) to boost their combat effectiveness. The revolutions that are coming as a result of embedding of AI into lower-end drones is something you can read about in our past feature here. This includes machine vision: a process of the drone learning object recognition, identification, classification, and tracking, as well as providing recommendations for the operator on what to do, provided there is an operator at all and the drone is not running autonomously. An HX-2 drone in flight. The HX-2 has some capabilities enabled by AI. Helsing AI-enabled capabilities make lower-end drones more resistant to electronic warfare systems and make it easier for them to be employed in networked swarms. Above all else, they can result in the cutting of the invisible radio frequency tether of constant man-in-the-loop control that in many ways hampers the potential of this class of drones. The drawback of machine vision that the Russian countermeasure is supposed to exploit is the onboard AI agents capacity for learning object recognition. While it may be able to recognize a 66 Ural, for example, out of a wide range of potential truck targets, if the appearance of the vehicle is distorted enough, it will not be positively identified, or at least meet the threshold of corroboration that would result in a kinetic act. However, still with many drones that feature AI assistance, a human operator stays in or on the loop for all critical decisions. This raises the question of how successful the dazzle-painted trucks might be, although the thinking here presumably stresses avoidance of detection during the autonomous target-search phase, rather than the endgame of an engagement. It is also worth noting that these kinds of paint schemes only really have value in areas where they are unlikely to be seen by any Ukrainian human eyes, even remotely via a sensor; after all, they are far more conspicuous than their standard-painted counterparts. Its also possible that a drone could be taught to specifically hunt these patterns, as nothing else on the battlefield would look like them and they would be confirmed hostile by default. Overall, paint schemes are another logical, if extemporized response to a growing threat in the Russian rear areas, following the example of the Russian trucks loaded with logs as makeshift armor to protect against kinetic threats in the early phases of the war. A Russian truck with improvised armor made of logs, in 2023. via X This has been followed by successive counter-drone measures, best exemplified by the increasingly complicated ‘cope cages,’ ‘turtle tanks,’ nets, and arrays of spikes that have appeared on a range of vehicles on both sides of the war. Russian ‘turtle tank’ seen operating with additional cage armor and an attached mine roller. via X Perhaps most apposite, however, is the example of Russian bombers and strike aircraft being covered with disused tires, something that first appeared in around August 2023. TWZ was first to postulate that these were most likely intended to confuse the seekers on Ukrainian cruise missiles and drones that use image-matching capability. This was subsequently confirmed by a senior U.S. military technologist. A close-up of a Russian Tu-95MS bomber with tires on the wings and top of the center fuselage at Engels-2 Air Base, taken August 28, 2023. Satellite image ©2023 Maxar Technologies A “sort of classic unclassified example that exists is like a picture of a plane from the top, and you’re looking for a plane, and then if you put tires on top of the wings, all of a sudden, a lot of computer vision models have difficulty identifying that that’s a plane,” Schuyler Moore, U.S. Central Command’s first-ever Chief Technology Officer, explained in September 2024. Moore said this as part of a larger discussion about AI models and data sets. Its also worth noting that Russian combat ships based in Crimea also received unique shading to break up their silhouettes for the same purpose during this period. As TWZ has explored in detail in the past, AI is now pushing drones toward a major new evolution, if not a revolution in capabilities. As well as the possibility of operating in large groups or fully networked swarms, it means long-range one-way attack drones can conduct dynamic targeting deep in contested territory. Trucks, for example, can be hunted and struck far behind the front lines, where they once were safe and where air defenses are sparse. This is a scenario we have set out in the past, too: “Waves of similar drones could be sent to their own individual geographical ‘kill boxes,’ or defined areas of engagement. Collectively, they could put enemy targets at risk over a huge area persistently without ‘doubling up’ and attacking the same target twice. Using machine learning/AI and associated hardware, they could not just identify targets of interest, but also differentiate moving from still targets, to ensure they are indeed active (not destroyed or already damaged) vehicles. Meanwhile, they can be set to engage other target types, such as surface-to-air missile systems or other high-priority targets, regardless of whether they are static or not. Even troop movements on the ground could potentially be recognized and attacked. All the parameters as to what the drone can engage, and where it can do so, can be defined and tailored to each mission before launch.” A man with a bicycle passes by a burned-out KAMAZ truck, part of a display of Russian military equipment destroyed in the fighting in Ukraine. Photo by Viacheslav Onyshchenko/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images SOPA Images It is also worth noting that different types of sensors will be affected to different degrees by passive countermeasures like complex paint jobs. While electro-optical sensors may have issues with the patterns, infrared may not, especially at longer wavelengths. TWZ has previously highlighted how AI algorithms can be rapidly trained in a digital environment, as well as incorporate data collected from actual real-world employment, to improve their ability to spot, categorize, and engage targets. It is, however, unclear how hard it would be to overcome infinite dazzle patterns. It could, as Schuyler Moore observed, lead to software programmers spending inordinate amounts of time on computer vision with very little to gain, once a new pattern arrived. While it remains to be seen how effective the dazzle-painted trucks might be, they are another sign of drones, especially AI-enabled ones, being one of the key drivers of innovation on the modern battlefield. Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com The post Russian Trucks Get ‘Dazzle Paint To Throw Off AI-Enabled Drones appeared first on The War Zone.

[Category: News & Features, Around The Globe, Drones, Europe, Russia, Ukraine] [Link to media]

— Littoral Combat Force Takes Up Station In Caribbean Under Navy’s New Deployment Concept

 

at 6/1/26 1:49pm

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), using publicly available open-source information. Given the carrier picture is largely unchanged compared to last week, this week’s tracker highlights the big-deck amphibious fleet. Much of America’s fleet of nine amphibious assault ships is hard at work as the U.S. opts to replace the Iwo Jima ARG in Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) with a sub-optimized Littoral Combat Force (LCF). The LCF appears to be the first deployment that embodies the Navys new more flexible deployment strategy, which could have wider impacts across the fleet in the future. “It’s the way to have force multiplication, to punch bigger than yourself, and that’s done through tailored offsets,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said at SNA earlier this year about the new tailored deployments concept. “That whole thing builds a way to present forces to allow me to do more with less.” Approximate position and status of the U.S. Navys nine amphibious assault ships (LHA and LHD). IAN ELLIS-JONES/TWZ The 24th MEU, operating under the designation LCF-24, deployed to SOUTHCOM and replaced the Iwo Jima ARG. “Distinct from a standard Amphibious Ready Group/MEU deployment, LCF-24 is a purpose-built MAGTF engineered for distributed operations,” SOUTHCOM explained in a statement. The Marine Air-Ground Task Force, with more than 1,300 Marines and Sailors, will operate from both shore-based nodes and aboard Fort Lauderdale, and is certified to “execute a wide array of mission essential tasks, including but not limited to Quick Reaction Force operations such as embassy reinforcement and the tactical recovery of aircraft [and] personnel, while standing ready to support disaster relief activities.” America’s forward-deployed crisis response forces, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, is deployed to the @Southcom Area of Responsibility as Littoral Combat Force-24.@USMC | @USNavy #24thmeu #lcf24 #opsouthernspear #magtf #caribops #southcom pic.twitter.com/vAsHFChBTQ— 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (@The24MEU) May 29, 2026 Amphibious assault ship USS Boxer departed Singapore on May 30 after spending 12 days in port. “USS Boxer (LHD 4) pulled into Sembawang, Singapore, May 19, for maintenance and resupply,” a U.S. Navy spokesperson told TWZ. Notably, the nearly two-week stop coincided with a visit from Sec. Hegseth, who spoke at the Shangri-La Dialogue over the weekend. Boxer transited the Singapore Strait eastbound and entered the South China Sea, according to ship spotters and public AIS data. USS Boxer (LHD 4) Wasp-class amphibious assault ship leaving Singapore May 30, 2026 SRC: INST- dc_ah pic.twitter.com/JOeL49ReD5— WarshipCam (@WarshipCam) May 30, 2026 The three-ship Boxer ARG disaggregated despite initial reports the group was headed to the Middle East to join the war. Dock landing ship USS Comstock is operating in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR), alongside the three-ship Tripoli ARG, enforcing the ongoing blockade of Iranian ports. Amphibious transport dock USS Portland was last spotted training in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) AOR. A U.S. Sailor aboard USS Comstock (LSD 45) observes a commercial vessel while enforcing the U.S. blockade against Iran, May 21. U.S. forces have redirected 97 commercial vessels and disabled 4 since the start of the blockade. pic.twitter.com/1Zgsoykhy4— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) May 22, 2026 USS Iwo Jima and the embarked 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) are heading home after an almost 10-month deployment in the SOUTHCOM AOR, and were spotted today off Topsail Beach, North Carolina. USS San Antonio returned to Norfolk in late April, while USS Fort Lauderdale remains in the Caribbean to support the recently announced LCF-24 and Operation Southern Spear. U.S. Marines with Maritime Raid Force, Littoral Combat Force-24, approach a UH-1Y Venom helicopter assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 365 (Reinforced), @The24MEU, during a Maritime Interdiction Operation Full Mission Profile rehearsal aboard San Antonio-class… pic.twitter.com/vbSEEfUpAb— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) May 30, 2026 Back stateside, USS Kearsarge is in New Orleans for Sail 250, a “global gathering of tall ships and military ships to celebrate the 250th Anniversary of the founding of the U.S.” After completing landing deck certifications earlier this year, Kearsarge has been working up off the east coast and participating in public events. USS Makin Island is training in preparation for an upcoming deployment and completed Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training (SWATT) on May 28. USS Essex returned to homeport in San Diego after a week-long visit for L.A. Fleet Week. USS America, USS Bataan, and USS Wasp are, or have recently been, in maintenance. https://t.co/4mVCaF4HEX pic.twitter.com/EhXXQavDfS— SA Defensa (@SA_Defensa) May 31, 2026 Note: Positions are general approximations. Contact the author: ian.ellis-jones@teamrecurrent.io The post Littoral Combat Force Takes Up Station In Caribbean Under Navys New Deployment Concept appeared first on The War Zone.

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

As of 6/5/26 7:16pm. Last new 6/5/26 6:12pm.