By the end of the decade, China could threaten satellites with space-based directed energy weapons, according to a new report from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). This would add a dangerous new anti-satellite (ASAT) capability to Beijing’s arsenal, which already includes ground-based directed energy weapons that can disrupt, degrade, or damage satellites. The report, released Monday, offered another glimpse into what is to come as the potential for conflict in space only continues to grow.

The unclassified DIA report is based largely on open-source information, with a cutoff date of July. It was published to detail growing threats from China, Russia and emerging powers Iran and North Korea to global interests in the space domain. The report’s release also took place as the U.S. is becoming increasingly open about its own ASAT capabilities. Last month, for instance, U.S. military officials acknowledged for the first time that America has weapons in orbit.

“The PLA probably considers DEWs [directed energy weapons] ideal counterspace systems because they can cause both reversible and nonreversible effects against satellites,” the report, titled Challenges to Security in Space, explains. “By the late 2020s, China may field space-based directed energy systems and higher-powered ground-based directed energy systems capable of threatening satellites in higher orbits.”

The report did not provide specifics about whether China is developing lasers, high-powered microwaves, particle beams or a combination of these capabilities.

We have reached out to the agency for more information but did not immediately receive a response.

Reversible attacks include efforts to jam satellite signals or temporarily blind their optics. The latter can be done with devices like laser dazzlers.

DIA reported that in 2021 the People’s Liberation Army media “asserted that laser weapons were entering a golden age; they cited dazzling (i.e., temporarily blinding a sensor) as one of the many operational uses of laser weapons.”

Non-reversible attacks cause permanent damage. It could also involve a range of fully destructive options from directed energy attacks that burn a hole in a satellite using a laser or frying its delicate systems using high-power microwave emissions, to spraying its solar panels with aerosol pigment, to direct-ascent intercepts and even nuclear weapon detonations in space. Physically tampering with the satellite using another satellite is another option.

China’s presence in orbit has been dramatically expanding in recent years. The report pointed out that as of July 2026, Beijing’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) satellite fleet “contained more than 510 systems, having more than tripled since 2018. While many of these ISR satellites are ostensibly affiliated with commercial and civil missions, the dual-use nature of their capabilities and possibly the Chinese military-civil fusion policies means the data or imagery they collect can be used by the PLA.”

China is also expanding its capabilities to new concepts like spaceplane developments, which we highlighted in a story about their capabilities yesterday based on details from the DIA report.

In addition to possibly being placed on satellites, DEWs could also potentially be added to spaceplanes, which can operate in a less predictable fashion than satellites, even if just for experimental roles or limited capability sets.

Though thin on details, the report reiterated the reality that China’s academia has been working toward space-based weapons for years.

“Since at least 2006, government-affiliated academics have investigated aerospace engineering technologies associated with space-based kinetic weapons—a class of weapon used to attack ground, sea, or air targets from orbit,” the DIA explained. “China’s space-based kinetic weapons research included methods of reentry, separation of payload, delivery vehicles, and transfer orbits for targeting purposes.”

Much of the PLA’s ASAT doctrine “characterizes the systems as useful deterrents against external involvement in a regional conflict or as a method to manage conflict escalation,” the DIA proffered. However, should China opt to strike first, one of the first and main targets would be satellites the U.S. and allies rely on for space-based sensing and communications. As we have often explained, even reversible attacks against any of this space-based infrastructure could have major impacts on the U.S. military’s ability to effectively conduct combat operations.

The DIA report noted that to date, China’s publicly known space-based ASAT capabilities center on satellites that can approach and grab others, which we have written about in the past. In one such instance, a Chinese satellite was observed in 2022 grabbing another satellite and pulling it out of its normal geosynchronous orbit and into a “super-graveyard drift orbit.” The maneuver raised questions about the potential applications of these types of satellites designed to maneuver close to other satellites for inspection or manipulation and added to growing concerns about China’s space program overall.

The threat satellites can already pose to others was highlighted earlier this month, when a Russian satellite, Kosmos 2612, may have passed within approximately 85 feet (26 meters) of ICEYE-X36. That is a U.S.-registered satellite belonging to commercial imagery provider ICEYE that was providing imagery to Ukraine. While no contact or damage was detected, the incident raised concerns that the Russian satellite could have harmed the ICEYE purposely or even inadvertently.

You can see a time-lapse video of part of that encounter below.

Short time-lapse of part of this morning’s first pass of ICEYE-X36 (59103) and COSMOS 2612 (68762) over South America under partly cloudy skies. pic.twitter.com/t8RhwmKcV4

— s2a systems (@s2a_systems) October 18, 2026

When it comes to discussing weapons in space capable of attacking other on-orbit objects and the effects they could impose, it should be noted that this domain inherently creates complications when it comes to attributing any form of attack, should one occur. Satellites do malfunction, sometimes with catastrophic results, but it is not always possible to determine the cause. As a result, the challenge in attributing an event could delay a response, if needed, or spark one inadvertently.

As we previously reported, in January, “a Russian inspector satellite launched in 2014 appeared to break up unexpectedly. Sometime around the end of July, the Chinese reconnaissance satellite Yaogan 50-02, which had only been launched some four months earlier, also broke up in orbit. On Sept. 13, a similar fate befell the U.S. Cold War-era Farrah III spy satellite, also known as USA 32. At the time of writing, no firm evidence has emerged to indicate any of these incidents were the result of hostile action rather than accidents of some kind.”

Directed energy attacks, in particular, from one satellite against another, may be very hard to attribute as they can happen over longer distances in the vacuum of space. They would also presumably allow the attacking satellite to engage multiple targets, even in a relatively short period of time, making it one of the most attractive potential anti-satellite capabilities on orbit.

In addition to talking about Chinese space-based ASAT capabilities, the DIA report raised concerns about a wide array of threats from the PLA as well as Russia, North Korea and Iran.

The report did not address Russian space-based directed energy weapons plans. However, it did note that, like China, Russia does have ground-based laser systems already capable of affecting U.S. and allied satellites. The threat from these systems is not theoretical. They are part of an array of ASAT measures that China and Russia have used against the U.S. for years.

For instance, back in 2021, a top U.S. Space Force general warned that Russia and China were launching “reversible attacks,” such as electronic warfare jamming, temporarily blinding optics with lasers, and cyberattacks, on U.S. satellites “every single day.”

“China and Russia will continue to pursue new and improved counterspace capabilities to exploit a perceived U.S. and allied reliance on space-based assets,” DIA’s report concluded.

“China has developed and probably will continue to develop weapons for use against satellites in orbit to disrupt, damage and destroy adversary space capabilities,” the DIA suggested. “Russia is currently capable of targeting satellites in LEO with both terrestrial and orbital systems and is interested in developing systems for targeting more distant orbits.”

China and Russia aren’t the only adversaries the U.S. should be concerned about when it comes to space warfare, the DIA warned.

“In 2026, with the onset of Operation Epic Fury, the U.S. and Iran took offensive actions against each other’s space capabilities to degrade and disrupt military actions on both sides,” the agency stated. “Iran and North Korea will continue to build their civil and military and space capabilities and maintain their respective jamming capabilities.”

Meanwhile, the extent of current U.S. plans for space-based directed energy weapons is not publicly known. However, in a story we wrote last year about President Donald Trump’s plans for the Golden Dome missile shield system, we noted the role that directed energy weapons could play in that effort.

For years, U.S. space-based weapons plans have been shrouded in secrecy, but as we mentioned earlier in this story, that changed last month.

During his keynote speech at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference, at which TWZ was in attendance, Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink made a bombshell admission, disclosing that there are on-orbit weapons now deployed to protect America’s interests in space. 

Meink declined to offer any details about what kinds of weapons they were. However, whatever they are, these weapons support a Space Control mission set, and the U.S. Space Force shared additional details about that directly with TWZ. 

“Space control encapsulates the mission areas required to contest and control the space domain – employing kinetic and non-kinetic means to affect adversary capabilities through disruption, degradation and even destruction, if necessary,” a Space Force spokesperson told us. “These capabilities can be employed for offensive and defensive purposes at the direction of combatant commands. U.S. military operations are conducted in compliance with international law, including the Outer Space Treaty and LOAC [the Law of Armed Conflict].”

While the DIA report does not make any new revelations about China’s space-based directed energy program, it serves as a stark reminder that this is a capability that could present a widening threat in the next few years.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post U.S. Intel Warns China’s Space-Based Directed Energy Weapons Could Soon Threaten Satellites appeared first on TWZ.

New images appear to show a full-sized demonstrator of China’s CE-25A, an unorthodox 19-seat all-electric aircraft being developed by the state-owned Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC). The photographs offer a fresh look at a program the company publicly outlined in 2023, although the aircraft’s current testing status remains unclear.

The images appear to have first been shared by Chinese automotive blogger Han Lu (韩路) on October 28 and show a red and black colored aircraft with a silver cheatline bearing COMAC and CE-25A markings. Its Chinese civilian registration is B-0EFH.

At this point, it should be noted that we cannot establish with certainty that the imagery is legitimate, but our own examination using multiple AI image-analysis models has found no major indications that they were artificially generated.

Regardless, the program overall reflects COMAC’s interest in distributed electric propulsion, an approach that could help inform future aircraft development even if the CE-25A itself never enters commercial service.

The appearance of what seems to be a full-sized demonstrator certainly raises questions about how far the program has progressed. At this stage, there is no clear public confirmation that this particular aircraft has flown, and its precise role in the development effort remains uncertain.

COMAC first presented the CE-25A concept at the China International Import Expo in Shanghai in November 2023. The company described it as a 19-seat, all-electric commuter aircraft intended for short- and medium-distance passenger transportation, as well as business aviation.

Published design specifications called for a cruising speed of approximately 400 kilometers per hour (248 miles per hour) and a range of around 400 to 500 kilometers (250 to 310 miles).

The 19-seat capacity and its general configuration are somewhat similar to the Beechcraft 1900 twin-turboprop regional airliner. With a 19-passenger payload, the Beechcraft 1900 has a range of around 700 kilometers (440 miles) and a cruising speed of approximately 520 kilometers per hour (320 miles per hour).

The Chinese aircraft’s most distinctive feature is its distributed electric propulsion system. Instead of relying on a small number of conventional turboprop engines, the design uses 10 electrically driven ducted fans integrated into its wing structure.

Distributed propulsion can give designers greater flexibility in how thrust is generated and integrated with the airframe. Depending on the configuration, it can offer aerodynamic benefits and potentially improve performance in particular flight regimes. Electric motors can also simplify some aspects of propulsion-system design compared with conventional turbine engines.

Those advantages come with very considerable engineering challenges. Batteries remain far less energy-dense than aviation fuel, placing constraints on range, payload, and endurance. High-power electrical systems also require careful thermal management, while integrating multiple propulsion units introduces additional questions involving reliability, maintenance, and flight control.

There is also some confusion about how the demonstrator shown in the new images fits in with previously announced plans for the program. In 2023, COMAC referred to experimental aircraft verification flight work, which was to involve a scaled demonstrator. Meanwhile, the aircraft in the new photos is full-sized. Potentially, there is an unseen ‘missing link’ subscale demonstrator that has already flown.

China is not alone in exploring distributed electric propulsion for regional aircraft. Several Western projects are also underway.

The European UNIFIER-19 research effort has examined 19-seat, zero-emission regional aircraft concepts using alternative propulsion systems, including distributed electric ducted fans. Some variants explored hydrogen fuel cells rather than relying exclusively on batteries. Compared to the CE-25A, it is strictly a research effort rather than a proposed production aircraft.

In the United States, NASA’s X-57A Maxwell experimental aircraft investigated distributed electric propulsion using 14 electric motors and propellers integrated into a specially designed wing. The X-57 was much smaller than the CE-25A and used open propellers rather than ducted fans. The project was intended to demonstrate potential aerodynamic and efficiency benefits but did not progress to its planned piloted flight configuration.

The X-57 program was canceled in 2023 after safety issues with its propulsion system proved impossible to resolve within the available budget and schedule. It had been launched on the assumption that existing electric propulsion technology was sufficiently mature for safe flight, but this ultimately proved premature. The experience underscores the very significant engineering and safety challenges that remain in developing viable electric aircraft.

Meanwhile, France’s AURA AERO is developing ERA, a 16- to 19-seat regional aircraft planned around eight electric motors and two turbogenerators. The hybrid-electric design is intended to offer substantially greater range than the CE-25A’s published target, with the company advertising a range of approximately 1,500 kilometers (930 miles). ERA is a more direct comparison in terms of intended passenger capacity and commercial role, but it uses a different propulsion architecture and is not an all-electric aircraft.

Swedish company Heart Aerospace also pursued a 19-seat battery-powered commuter aircraft, the ES-19, with a proposed range of approximately 400 kilometers (250 miles). Its original design was more conventional, with a high wing and T-tail, and the company subsequently moved away from the ES-19 concept toward larger hybrid-electric aircraft.

The CE-25A has been presented as a civilian aircraft, and there is no public evidence that COMAC intends to develop it for military service. Nevertheless, the technologies being explored could have relevance to future military aviation.

This would be in line with China’s pursuit of other unconventional aircraft programs with more direct potential military applications.

A mature electric aircraft in this general class could potentially support short-range utility missions, liaison duties, or personnel transport where payload and endurance requirements are modest and suitable charging infrastructure is available. At this stage, there is no indication that the CE-25A has been designed for autonomous operations, austere-field use, or military payloads.

At the same time, its utility in military environments would depend heavily on battery performance, ground support, operating conditions, and the ability to maintain the aircraft away from established infrastructure.

Perhaps more likely is that research into distributed electric propulsion, including the CE-25A, could inform other Chinese aircraft designs. Advances in electric motors, power distribution, flight controls, thermal management, and the integration of multiple propulsion units could eventually benefit crewed and uncrewed aircraft or specialized platforms with different operational requirements.

The CE-25A sits within China’s broader effort to expand its domestic aerospace capabilities and explore new aircraft technologies. COMAC is best known internationally for its C919 narrowbody airliner and ARJ21 regional jet, but its research interests extend beyond conventional commercial aircraft.

China’s substantial battery-manufacturing industry provides a potential advantage in electric aviation, although adapting batteries developed for road vehicles to the demands of flight remains a significant engineering challenge.

In 2023, COMAC announced cooperation with battery manufacturer CATL and Shanghai Jiao Tong University on research related to battery-powered aircraft concepts. The precise relationship between that work and the CE-25A, including whether they share specific battery technologies or propulsion systems, is not immediately clear.

For now, the newly surfaced photographs provide a compelling look at a COMAC project that has been publicly acknowledged but remains opaque in several important respects.

Whether the CE-25A ultimately becomes a viable civilian aircraft or contributes to other aerospace developments, including in the military realm, its emergence offers more evidence of China’s continued push into unconventional aircraft design.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post China’s CE-25A Electric Commuter Airliner Demonstrator Emerges appeared first on TWZ.

In a surprising development, Ethiopia has taken receipt of 12 Russian-made Su-35 multirole fighters, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed announced, adding a significant new capability to the Ethiopian Air Force. The agreement also calls for four batteries of Russia’s S-400 surface-to-air missile system, although their delivery schedule remains unclear.

Abiy said the fighters arrived a year ahead of schedule under an agreement with Moscow and thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin for facilitating the accelerated delivery. The financial terms of the deal, the aircraft’s basing locations, and whether additional fighters are included in the agreement have not been disclosed. The Ethiopian leader announced the development on his X account, also posting photos and a video showing himself and other Ethiopian and Russian officials alongside two of the jets. The location appears to have been the third Russia-Africa Summit, taking place in Moscow on October 28-29.

ኢትዮጵያ የታጠቀቻቸው አዳዲስ የጦር ጄቶች የአየር ክልሏን ለመጠበቅ ከምን ጊዜውም በላይ ዝግጁ ያደርጋታል! pic.twitter.com/tT3vXFZ4A0

— Abiy Ahmed Ali (@AbiyAhmedAli) October 28, 2026

The acquisition comes as Ethiopia seeks to strengthen its military capabilities amid persistent domestic security challenges and tensions across the Horn of Africa.

The Su-35 is a heavily modernized derivative of the Soviet-era Su-27, known by NATO as the Flanker. It combines twin thrust-vectoring engines for a high degree of maneuverability, advanced radar and other sensors, and the ability to carry a range of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons.

Its radar and long-range air-to-air missile capabilities, in particular, represent a notable improvement for Ethiopia’s ability to detect and engage hostile aircraft, while its multirole design allows it to perform a wide range of strike missions.

Ethiopia already operates Russian-designed Su-27 fighters, providing a considerable degree of familiarity with the Flanker family. The current fleet comprises around 10 (and perhaps as many as 15) secondhand Su-27s, including two-seaters, supplemented in 2024 by a pair of Su-30Ks. The latter were originally produced for India as interim equipment, and then ended up in storage in Belarus before being refurbished and delivered to Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Flankers saw action against Eritrean opposition in the 1990s, and there have also been a handful of non-combat attrition losses.

Pictures of soviet made Su-25UB close ground attack jet and Su-27/UB multirole fighters jets of the Ethiopian Air Force during a exhibition at the Harar Meda air base in late June 2022.
*We can also see what it seems to be R-27 and R-23 air to air missiles (3rd and 4th frames) pic.twitter.com/1TQBh7V4J7

— Hammer Of War (@HammerOfWar5) December 25, 2022

Video showing russian made Su-30 multirole fighters jets of the Ethiopian Air Force. pic.twitter.com/wuMcZtqYkY

— Hammer Of War (@HammerOfWar5) October 21, 2026

However, introducing the Su-35 will still require specialized pilot training, additional maintenance infrastructure, weapons integration, and a dependable supply of spare parts. The latter, in particular, is something that Moscow has not always been able to guarantee in practice.

The planned acquisition of four S-400 batteries could prove equally significant.

The S-400 is a mobile air-defense system designed to engage aircraft, cruise missiles, and certain ballistic missile threats.

If delivered, the systems would considerably strengthen Ethiopia’s ability to protect military installations, critical infrastructure, and other strategic sites against aerial attack.

Ethiopia occupies a strategically important position in the Horn of Africa, bordering Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan. Its security environment includes various unresolved regional tensions, longstanding border disputes, and internal armed conflicts.

Ethiopia’s relationship with Eritrea remains particularly relevant given their history of war and continuing tensions. Relations with Egypt and Sudan are also shaped by disputes over the Nile.

Abiy has presented the acquisition as a means of deterring aggression and strengthening national sovereignty.

At the same time, the delivery reinforces Russia’s position as a supplier of advanced military equipment to African countries. Russian exports to the continent have included combat aircraft, helicopters, armored vehicles, and ground-based air-defense systems.

Su-35s, specifically, have previously been delivered to Algeria, a long-term recipient of Russian military equipment on the African continent, as you can read about here.

Interesting report indicating Algeria has purchased at least some of the Russian Su-35s originally built for Egypt and later reported to be sought by Iran.https://t.co/0soV9aOopn

— John Hardie (@JohnH105) April 9, 2025

The Algerian jets are understood to have originated in a batch of Su-35s built for Egypt, which had ordered 24. However, the planned transfer to Egypt fell through, under the threat of U.S. sanctions and a teased offer of F-15s. In particular, Washington had said it would put sanctions on Cairo under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

CAATSA includes provisions for sanctions against parties found to have knowingly engaged in significant transactions with Russia’s defense or intelligence sectors. Washington previously invoked the provision against China over its acquisition of Su-35 fighters and S-400-related equipment, although any action against Ethiopia would depend on a separate U.S. determination.

The Su-35s built for Egypt were repeatedly connected with a sale to Iran, but this also never materialized.

Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UN announced on Friday that Iran has finalized buying #Sukhoi fighter jets from Russia.

Here is what Iran has purchased: pic.twitter.com/aw7EVkc18N

— IRNA News Agency ☫ (@IrnaEnglish) March 11, 2023

Potentially, the 12 jets for Ethiopia could also have been left over from the abandoned Egyptian deal.

For Moscow, the deal provides a prominent example of continued defense cooperation with an important country in the Horn of Africa. The transfer also comes amid broader efforts by Russia and African governments to deepen political, economic, and military ties.

The agreement’s cost and financing arrangements have not been made public, leaving questions about the long-term expense of operating the fighters and maintaining their supporting infrastructure.

The deal also needs to be seen in the context of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the subsequent international sanctions, have hampered efforts to secure sales for any kind of military equipment, other than to a handful of selected close allies, with little prospect that this will change any time soon. Amid those same sanctions, as well as Moscow’s increasing pariah status, any kind of export success will be very welcome for Moscow, even if it involves jets previously built for another customer.

At the same time, the ability of the Russian defense industry to provide in-service support for these jets, once they are delivered, is even more questionable than it was in the past. Since the invasion, Moscow’s need to prioritize its own forces, combined with Western sanctions restricting access to key components, has further complicated the situation. For Ethiopia, any disruption to parts deliveries or maintenance support could have an outsized impact on operational readiness, and this is compounded by the requirement of Russian industry to support Moscow’s own Su-35S jets, its primary fighter.

Ultimately, the acquisition represents a substantial reported addition to Ethiopia’s combat aircraft fleet. The planned S-400 systems could extend that modernization into ground-based air defense, and further influence the military balance in the Horn of Africa region.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Ethiopia Gets 12 Russian Su-35 Fighters, Eyes S-400 Air Defenses appeared first on TWZ.

A new independent report argues that increased access to better-protected airfields is as important, if not more so, than buying advanced tanker aircraft when it comes to meeting future U.S. aerial refueling demands. The authors, in part, call for the U.S. military to invest in new hardened shelters that are large enough for tankers to fit inside. Top U.S. Air Force officials have continued to downplay any need for more physical hardening of bases, even now with the experiences from the war with Iran, which have only underscored the already glaring dangers posed to planes sitting out in the open on flightlines.

Hardened shelters and other efforts to “boost surface infrastructure resilience” form one of three main themes in a report the Hudson Institute think tank in Washington, D.C., published yesterday. It also says that the Air Force should work to “incorporate adaptive mission systems” into existing tanker fleets, including new communications and self-protection capabilities, as well as pursue acquisition of a next-generation tanker with a blended wing body (BWB) design. Hudson’s latest analysis, which is titled Resilient Reach: Redesigning Aerial Refueling for Contested Global Operations, builds on a previous report it published in 2021. Last year, the Institute published an additional report warning more generally about the vulnerabilities created by a lack of hardened infrastructure at U.S. bases worldwide.

“Aerial refueling is an unmatched United States military advantage, but it currently depends on vulnerable forward bases and medium-range tankers that could be neutralized,” Hudson’s report states as its number one finding. “Suppression of this critical capability could collapse US air operations and heavily contribute to US defeat in a war against the People’s Republic of China (PRC).”

Though not necessarily to the degree that the Hudson Institute is arguing for, the Air Force has been working in recent years to increase the networking architecture available on the KC-135 and KC-46 tankers it has now, as well as field new defensive systems. The service is also still exploring a wide range of next-generation aerial refueling concepts, including new stealthy and/or uncrewed tankers, under what is now called the Advanced Tanker Systems (ATS) program.

Base resiliency and aerial refueling capacity

The base resiliency aspects of Hudson’s new aerial refueling report are a particular standout, especially as this is an area where the Air Force has been dragging its feet, if not actively pushing back.

“Aerial refueling surface infrastructure is the ‘network of airfields, maintenance facilities, and bulk fuel storage and distribution facilities and systems necessary to enable tanker operations,'” Hudson’s new report states, citing the Institute’s past work from 2021. “‘Enhancing the capacity and resilience of its surface architecture should be a top priority for the US Air Force – even if it comes at the cost of tanker procurement – because it will yield a greater increase in the number of employable tankers’ and receiver aircraft supported.”

With this in mind, “the department [of the Air Force] should first pursue access to more airfields, including large commercial ones, and nurture its invaluable relationships with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other allies that provide access to tanker airfields,” per the report. “Second, it should improve bulk fuel storage and distribution by constructing lower-capacity hardened fuel stores rather than higher-capacity but vulnerable aboveground storage tanks, fielding airfield and over-the-shore fuel distribution systems, and securing access to more maritime tankers, including by levying higher working capital fund rates to fund bulk fuel resilience initiatives.”

On top of all this, “the Air Force will need to fund passive defenses (such as personnel and equipment bunkers, reconstitution equipment and units, redundant capabilities, the aforementioned fuel infrastructure hardening, more hardened large aircraft shelters, and tanker decoys) and active counter-command, control, communications, computing, cyber, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting (C5ISRT) and air and missile defenses to defeat threats,” the report adds. “As witnessed at Prince Sultan Air Base, dispersion alone is insufficient to avoid attack in an era of persistent surveillance and precision targeting.”

Five Air Force KC-135 aerial refueling tankers were damaged on the ground in an Iranian attack on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia in March, just weeks after the start of hostilities with Iran. That same attack destroyed one of the service’s prized E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) radar planes. Lt. Gen. Linda Hurry, head of Air Force Materiel Command, confirmed just last week that repairs are still ongoing on some of the KC-135s that were damaged, reinforcing that attacks that do not outright destroy friendly aircraft on the ground can still have significant impacts.

Iran was also reportedly able to damage F-15E Strike Eagles and A-10 Warthog ground attack jets on the ground at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan during another more recent attack on the night of September 9-10.

“Historically, aerial refueling aircraft operated from sanctuary on the ground and in the air. However, as Iran’s attacks on Prince Sultan Air Base demonstrated, adversaries can target tankers on the ramp,” Hudson’s report notes. “The [Chinese] People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) ability to attack airfields and aircraft at them dramatically exceeds the range, quality, and quantity of Iranian systems.”

By Hudson’s assessment, “in 2025 the PLA could already deliver thousands of PLA Air Force and PLA Rocket Force munitions per day against targets near its territory and around 400 munitions per day against targets in the Second Island Chain, the Middle East, and Central Asia. It could even strike Alaska and Western Europe with small numbers of weapons,” the report explains. “By 2035, the threat will be far more severe; the PLA may be capable of delivering even more munitions and striking targets throughout Europe, Africa, and the Americas. This assessment does not account for additional attacks by the PLA Navy, PLA special forces in Operation Spiderweb–style attacks, or other threats.”

Ukraine’s unprecedented Operation Spiderweb involved near-simultaneous near-field drone attacks on air bases across Russia, which resulted in the destruction of at least 10 Russian bombers, as well as a variety of other aircraft. All of those planes were notably parked on open flightlines.

This particular threat vector, among others, was further highlighted by the Air Force’s sudden and unexpected decision to withdraw B-1 bombers from RAF Fairford, an airbase in the United Kingdom, earlier this month. As TWZ noted at the time, it also put a spotlight on the U.S. military’s continued lack of investment in hardened aircraft shelters and other fortified air base infrastructure.

To go back to the Pacific scenario, “given the PLA’s focus on systems destruction warfare and nodal analysis, tanker airfields would likely be prime targets. Tankers require bulk fuel stores, long runways, and ample ramp space,” Hudson assesses in its new report. “All of these resources would be easier to suppress and more difficult to reconstitute than operations for other assets, such as fighter aircraft or runway-independent Edge Force units. There are also currently few hardened large aircraft shelters suitable for tankers, which makes them vulnerable to observation and attack on the ramp.”

“Although large hardened aircraft shelters suitable for tankers can be expensive (ranging from $30–$150 million depending on scope and location), they can shield aircraft from observation and inclement weather, force adversaries to employ more numerous unitary weapons (rather than a small number of submunition-armed weapons) and protect tankers that cannot get airborne upon warning of an incoming attack,” Hudson’s report adds.

Hudson’s report recommends the construction of at least 60 large hardened aircraft shelters spread between an array of bases globally, at a total cost of $3.06 billion.

“The costing for this estimate assumes a conservative average Area Cost Factor of 1.87, a 10-year construction program, and 10 percent portfolio efficiencies from replicating similar projects at multiple sites, potentially using the same prime contractor or a set of contractors under a consortium,” per a footnote. “Large aircraft hardened aircraft shelters are assumed to be similar to the Andersen Air Force Base Air Expeditionary Force Forward Operating Location Aircraft Maintenance Hangar.”

With this in mind, the report also notes that these same shelters could be used for other larger aircraft beyond tankers, like bombers. It’s also important to note that shelters with a lower, but still useful degree of hardening, or ones that are just meant to conceal what is inside, would be cheaper to construct. We will come back to this in a moment.

The base hardening debate

TWZ has highlighted all of these points and more in our prior reporting on the ongoing debate within the U.S. military about the value of constructing new hardened (and unhardened) aircraft shelters and other passive defenses. As we wrote after the withdrawal of the B-1s from Fairford:

“It is fair to point out that typical above-ground hardened aircraft shelters are not invulnerable, especially to attacks involving ballistic, cruise, and certain air-launched threats. There are also substantial cost and other factors to consider when it comes to any major military construction effort.”

“That being said, having more hardened infrastructure also imposes costs and complexities on opponents, who have to dedicate more advanced and costly munitions and other resources to ensure targets are neutralized. Shelters have the knock-on benefit of complicating the targeting process for an enemy by obscuring where aircraft are or are not positioned, to begin with. An opponent has to treat shelters like they are full even if they are empty.”

“When thinking about hardened aircraft shelters, stereotypical Cold War-era reinforced concrete structures typically come to mind. However, they do not all have to be built to a one-size-fits-all standard with the same degree of hardening across the board to be useful. Shorter-range drone attacks are typically carried out by platforms carrying small explosive charges or that are designed to drop small bomblets. Even longer-range one-way-attack drones generally have smaller warheads than traditional missiles, they also hit with less kinetic energy.”

“A structure that shields against smaller blasts and shrapnel, also including from cluster munitions that can be readily scattered across wide areas, is one that then has to be addressed by more capable weapons. This could even include mobile or otherwise temporary shelters that offer sufficient concealment and protection.”

“Eliminating, or at least substantially mitigating, the lowest rung of threats creates a dilemma for opponents, who then have to decide whether it is even worthwhile to attempt certain types of attacks. There is clear value in narrowing the available options for the enemy and pushing them toward having to expend higher-end, more expensive munitions, that are available in smaller quantities, and that traditional active defenses may be better optimized to handle. As an example, it may be more viable to shoot down a small barrage of incoming cruise missiles than a swarm of dozens of drones.”

This is a diverse threat ecosystem that extends globally, too. This was highlighted in August by an attempted drone attack on a Ukrainian An-124 at an airport in Germany, which authorities in that country subsequently blamed on Russia.  This has been a growing point of concern in Europe more broadly in recent years, as well.

Drones, in particular, present increasing dangers to key U.S. military bases and critical infrastructure within the U.S. homeland, as well as in waters just off America’s coastlines. Serious incidents at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia in 2023 and Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana just earlier this year have reinforced that these threats are no longer limited to facilities and assets overseas.

No ‘silver bullets’ for safeguarding tankers

To be clear, hardening U.S. bases cannot address current or future threat ecosystems by itself, and needs to be part of a larger defensive architecture that incorporates a range of capabilities including surface-to-air missiles, electronic warfare systems, and directed energy weapons, as well as tactical jets in the air. Furthermore, to reiterate, the view of “surface infrastructure resilience” outlined in Hudson’s report extends beyond defensive measures entirely, and does not discount the value of distributed and dispersed operations within the larger context. When it comes to aerial refueling, more broadly, the authors do also still argue for the continued upgrading of the Air Force’s existing tankers, as well as the acquisition of next-generation aircraft.

At the same time, as mentioned, physical hardening is the area where the Air Force continues to push back.

“I think that I don’t want to spend a lot of money on hardening shelters. Unless you’re going to send something 100 feet or more underground, we can blow it up, and so can they,” Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach said in an interview with Breaking Defense in July. “So, the economics of building a shelter that is impervious to a strike doesn’t work.”

“I think the economics favor defending your airspace, defending your ground space with systems that can defeat the incoming rounds, versus building a shelter,” he added. “Some people would argue, well, you should do both. Well, that’s even more expensive. And the other thing is, the shelter doesn’t go anywhere.”

Wilsbach was responding here to a direct question about whether his position on this topic had changed since 2023.

“I’m not a big fan of hardening infrastructure,” Wilsbach, then commander of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), had said at a roundtable at the Air and Space Forces Association’s main annual symposium that year. “The reason is because of the advent of precision-guided weapons … you saw what we did to the Iraqi Air Force and their hardened aircraft shelters. They’re not so hard when you put a 2,000-pound bomb right through the roof.”

As pointed out earlier, there are different degrees of hardening, not all of which have to rely on permanent infrastructure, and that can add defensive value balanced against cost. Shelters for concealment and to protect against attacks involving drones or submunitions, as well as nearby detonations for strikes by weapons with larger unitary warheads, can be built for far lower cost while still complicating the enemy’s ability to neuter airpower on the ground.

Gen. Wilsbach’s comments, and similar remarks from other U.S. officials, also stand in stark contrast to a very visible global trend when it comes to the construction of new aircraft shelters, hardened and not, including in China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Even before Operation Spiderweb, expanding Ukrainian drone and missile attacks had notably prompted Russia to kick off a large-scale push to build new hardened shelters at various bases, especially on the occupied Crimean Peninsula. These efforts now include the construction of huge shelters big enough for bombers, something the country has never done before

“It’s probably most contentious to assert that tanker aircraft should also be under consideration for hardened aircraft shelters, or at least hangars that can cover them from observation,” Timothy Walton, a Senior Fellow at Hudson’s Center for Defense Concepts and Technology and one of the report’s authors, told Breaking Defense for a piece that outlet published yesterday. “But I think in light of what we’ve seen from Operation Epic Fury, it’s necessary.”

Hudson’s latest report certainly underscores how the Air Force’s ability to provide adequate aerial refueling capability in the future requires ensuring the enemy cannot neutralize those critical assets before they can even get off the ground.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Hardened Shelters Critical To Survival Of USAF’s Tanker Fleet: Study appeared first on TWZ.

Few humans have flown a jet as high or as fast as Adelbert “Buz” Carpenter. During his six years as an SR-71 Blackbird pilot, the now-retired Air Force colonel flew 230 missions, frequently exceeding three times the speed of sound. Over the course of nearly 800 hours flying one of the world’s most iconic aircraft, Carpenter soared over Cuba, skirted North Korea and tracked Russian nuclear submarines in the Arctic. He also had a few close calls, in one case narrowly avoiding disaster.

With the possibility that NASA could be returning the SR-71 to its test fleet, the Blackbird is back in the news and we wanted to dive deep into what it was like to fly the jet and get some thoughts on the latest SR-71 rumors from someone who piloted it. We couldn’t think of anyone better than “Buz” Carpenter.

Before joining the Blackbird program, Carpenter flew recon missions during the Vietnam War as an RF-4C pilot among other assignments. He now serves as a docent at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum’s Udvar Hazy Center.

Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Q: How did you become an SR-71 pilot? Walk me through your decision to join the program. What made you want to fly it? What was the qualification process like?

A: Well, it was a multi-step process… You had to fill out all this paperwork. You had to send them your flight records, all your flight checks, your physical records. What are your professional ratings in the Air Force? Do they rate you as superior? 

The home base was Beale Air Force Base in California. If they liked you, you got called back for about a week. The first two days were a modified astronaut’s physical. I mean, they checked everything. You had a series of interviews. As a pilot, I had to fly with two current SR-71 pilots, not in the SR, but in the companion trainer, the T-38. 

At any time, there were only 11 of us qualified to fly the SR-71. That’s how small a group it was for the whole program. Only 85 of us ever flew operational missions… So you can see it’s a pretty small group.

Q: Did pilots have to be invited to apply for the SR-71 program?

A: Oh, you had to apply for it. When there was a pilot in the program and he knew somebody he used to fly with that was really super, the invitation would be: ‘fill out the paperwork, and once we get the paperwork and look you over, we’ll call you back’ and go through the same routine that I went through. 

You’ve got to go through the physical. Sometimes it was shortened because they knew the person. A couple of them were actually T-38 instructors at Beale Air Force Base, and their invitation was a lot shorter because they had all the records there. They knew who you were, and they knew how you could fly.

About a week before Christmas, 1974, I got a telegram that says ‘you’ve been selected. You will report to Beale Air Force Base July 1975 and commence training in the SR-71.’ I couldn’t have been happier.

Q: What was the training like?

A: The first thing you’re going to do is you’re going to get checked out in the T-38, even though we had all flown it earlier. You had to become [requalified] in it, because as long as you’re in a program, you’re going to continue to fly the T-38. 

Once you actually started the program, you’d be paired with your navigator, who then assumed the title Reconnaissance Systems Officer [RSO]. And in my case, it was the wonderful Capt. John Murphy. We trained and flew together for four years. 

Your first month or so was mostly academics, because the airplane was so different. You had to learn the systems because the airplane operates in a very hot environment — an average temperature of almost 600 degrees [Fahrenheit]. The airplane grows three to four inches in length, an inch or two in width — it’s 93% titanium to deal with the high temperatures [associated with supersonic flight]. So during flights, you are going to have to deal with systems that are now straining or starting to fail because of the heat environment they’re operating in. So it is imperative that you understand exactly how this airplane is engineered, and what kind of options you might have if you start getting failures.

Then you start getting into the simulator, and obviously it’s a kind of crawl-walk-run type of a deal. This was the first simulator I’d ever seen that was a computer simulator. Up until that point, they called them part-task trainers. It had all the switches and everything, but it didn’t fly like the airplane. Like you’d be in the trainer and they want to simulate a fire. Somebody would bang against the side of this thing, and yell ‘fire’ and turn on the fire light, but they were just watching what you were doing. The SR simulator flew exactly like you [would fly the plane]. 

So even before John and I started training, we would find times when the simulator wasn’t being used at night, and we would go down there, and fly this simulator. And if you did something wrong, it reacted exactly how the airplane would react. I mean, it could crash if you did something bad enough.

There’s no visual. The simulator could move a little bit motion-wise, not severely. It would react exactly how the airplane was going to react, but you couldn’t see anything. Your first visual of what the airplane was like was going to be on your first flight in the airplane. 

That’s when you’re going to see what does a takeoff look like in 20 seconds? What does it look like to get behind a tanker and refuel? And as importantly, what does it look like to come back in at 175 indicated [airspeed] and land this airplane on a runway? It was a tremendous training aid because when you came back later on when you were doing your six weeks in Japan, maybe you took some vacation, but the first thing after that they’re going to put you in the simulator for four hours and see how you react to emergencies. It was very complex and defining. We washed people out who could not maintain the level of proficiency that we expected if you were going to fly this airplane.

Q: Could you practice refueling as well?

A: You could do takeoffs, because it was like an instrument takeoff, and you could do ‘quote’ instrument landings, but you had no visual to see how this whole thing would come together. Air refueling we didn’t mess with it because there wasn’t enough you could see. When you came to an air refueling in the simulator, they would just fill you up and say, ‘okay, you’ve been refueled.’ Because you needed the visual picture to understand what you’d be doing behind the tanker.

Q: Tell me about the first time you donned the pressure suit, which you had to wear to withstand the pressures of flying at altitudes of up to 80,000 feet or more.

A: If you were going to fly, you came in two and a half hours early. You had to pass a physical before every flight to make sure your sinuses and blood pressure and a number of other things were okay. You would then have a meal of steak and eggs, just like the astronauts, high protein, low bulk. They would brief you on the status of your airplane, and then about an hour and 15 minutes prior, you would go down where your suits were being maintained, and you’d put on cotton long johns because you’re going to perspire a little bit. Not profusely, but occasionally, if you were low on fuel. The fuel was the cooling system for the airplane, and if you’d been flying at the higher speeds, and you were low on fuel, the suit would heat up a little bit. 

They’d suit you up. I’m going to stop there. The first time you ever suited up, you’re not going to the airplane. They’re just exposing you. It was a [NASA] Gemini suit that had been modified, and you put on the cotton long johns. You had two people that helped you into the suit. The suit is lying on the floor like a coverall. So you’re going to come through the back of the suit. You put your legs on like you would a coverall you’d have at home. You then put your arms through the sleeves, and at that point, the two technicians would grab that helmet ring, and they would lift it up, and then you would duck underneath and come up and stand.

So now the suit is fully on you, and the helmet ring is sitting on your shoulder. The first time you do that, it probably takes 25 minutes, because they’re explaining to you, this is the easiest way to do it. This is where you should step. This is how you get your legs in. This is how you get your arms in. And then the next thing they’re going to do, they’re going to hand you your helmet. 

The suit weighs about 40 pounds. If you’re claustrophobic, this is not a program to be in. It’s not overpowering, but it’s your work suit and something to get used to. It’s not that uncomfortable in a sitting position because that’s where you’re going to use it most of the time, sitting in the cockpit. 

They’re going to hand you your helmet, and in the helmet — which most people can’t see — there’s a seal that comes around your face. So once you get the helmet on, you’re going to crank down the seal so it seals tightly, because you are going to be breathing — once the visor comes down in the aircraft — you’re going to be breathing 100% oxygen until you land. The reason for that is that the cabin is pressurized to 26,000 feet to reduce the pressure on the airplane. So they want to reduce the nitrogen in your blood. You’re just like a diver when you go from sea level to 26,000 feet. It’s like a diver who’s been diving coming back up to sea level. So by breathing 100% oxygen, you get the nitrogen out of your system, and you avoid the bends.

There were very few, and possibly no episodes like that in the SR program, but in the U-2 sister program, they maintained an altitude of 28,000 feet, and they had to pre-breathe oxygen before they ever went out to the airplane. Because once they got to the airplane, start up, they go straight to altitude. When we take off, it takes us a half hour from the time our visor comes down, breathing 100% oxygen, before you can take off, and then you’re going to go to a tanker to refuel. So by time you were through at the tanker, you’ve been breathing oxygen, pure oxygen, for over an hour. And the reason for taking off light and going to a tanker: Early in the program, the test program, I think we lost two airplanes doing tests due do heavyweight takeoffs and aborts.

So to preclude that, instead of taking off with 80,000 pounds of fuel, we would take off with 40,000 pounds of fuel. It reduced the wear and tear on the tires, so we could accelerate quicker, less stress.

But there was a second piece. When the Concorde crashed in Paris in 2000, it lost two engines on one side. They could never get the airplane going fast enough. The airplane stalled. The powerful engines caused the airplane to roll over.

On the SR, it had been forecast through the simulations that if you lost one of your afterburners, lost an engine right after takeoff, there wasn’t enough airflow over your flight controls because you have to keep the other afterburner going. You were going to do the same thing. You were going to roll over and crash. So if you had a full load of fuel, it would take you about maybe 20 seconds, 30 seconds to get above 350 [knots] because at 350, you had more than enough air going across the flight controls to control an engine-out condition. By reducing the takeoff weight down to 40,000 pounds, that dead zone where you didn’t have control was probably 15 seconds. Never happened, but that was part of the theory behind why we took off with half a fuel load. 

We took off with heavier fuel loads, occasionally. I think I may have taken off once or twice with a full load. It was a fairly rare exception, but we would take off with 50,000 pounds. I’ve taken off with 60,000 pounds a couple times.

Q: How was your first flight? When was it?

A: You’re not going to be impressed. My first flight, I think, was the 16th of July, 1976, and your first flight in the airplane is subsonic. You’re going to be fully suited up. You’re going to take off. It’s going to be the first time you ever see a takeoff. The takeoff is 20 seconds, and in 20 seconds, you’re going to go 4,500 feet from a dead stop. You’re going to lift off doing 230 miles an hour as you bring the nose up and accelerate to 400 knots. You’re going to pass through 20,000 feet less than two minutes from the time you start your takeoff roll, and then you’ll level off at 25,000 feet and head out to the tanker.

On your first flight, you’re going to spend almost an hour and a half on the tanker, and that’s to teach you how you refuel this airplane behind our special tankers. Almost all the guys had prior refueling experience, so you’re helping them adjust to a new type of refueling regimen per se. 

Occasionally, you’d get a guy who had no refueling experience, and that was more difficult to try to teach somebody for the first time how you do refuelings. And one of the trickier things with the tankers, you’d hook up with a tanker, and they’re doing 315 [mph] to 325 [mph] at 25,000 feet. That was where we liked to refuel. So, not every time, but it was not uncommon that by the time you were passing through, having accepted 70,000 pounds of fuel, you’re starting to get power limited, and there were two things you can do. 

The preferred thing was you would light the left afterburner to the min-burner [minimum afterburner], and bring the right engine back to a point it would be your modulator. But now you’re going to put the rudder in, because you’re going to be slightly cocked, because your left engine is in min-burner, and what we want you to do is not drop off the boom. 

Strategic Air Command, our parent command in the Air Force, wanted you to drop off the tanker, stabilize, light the left burner, adjust the airplane speed, pull in and refuel. The critical thing for us in refuelings is that we wanted to have full tanks at the end of the air refueling point, and if it’s a timed mission, we would need to have that all done at a certain time because maybe there are other airplanes or satellites or that they’re going to use us as a cue. 

So basically, I never dropped off, and as an instructor pilot, I taught my students to be able to light the afterburner, put the rudder in, use the right throttle as a modulation, and stay there. One of the good things in our tankers that others didn’t have, we could talk to the tanker crew through the boom, and the outside world couldn’t hear us. So, particularly on operational missions, when we’re running radio silent, we could give the tanker instructions that we wanted passed on without having to break radio silence. 

Q: How did you prepare for your first flight?

I probably had a 150 hours in the simulator. I felt very comfortable. Came in like I told you for the physical, and we talked with my instructor about what we were going to do that day, and got suited up. I wouldn’t say so much nervousness, but anticipation. 

You’re going to have your first flight. You go up, and when you get up in the cockpit, you sit down. You put your arms on the side rails, and those same two people, men or women, that suited you up are now going to reach in and make all the critical connections. This is the first time you’re really going to see the whole process with the dual oxygen system, your comm system, hooking up your survival pack, your parachute, everything.

You go through the same thing you’ve done in a simulator, but now you’re in the aircraft. You’re gonna, for the first time, be able to taxi it and get a feel for how sensitive are the brakes and find out what your turning radius is. Every airplane has a different radius, and how much do you anticipate when you start to make a turn as you’re heading out? You taxi on out when it’s that time. Go to the end of the runway, and they’ll do one more inspection to make sure everything looks good on the airplane, and you’ll just kind of go through, and then you’ll call the tower, and you’re cleared on the runway.

And once you’re cleared for takeoff, what you’ll do is you’ll release the brakes as you bring the power to mil [military power—full power without afterburner]. You’ll quickly check your engines. The instruments look good… You go to full afterburner, and you’re on your way. And like I said, the takeoff portion takes about 20 seconds. When you hit 180 [knots], you’re going to start bringing the nose up because you don’t have any flaps, so you’re looking for the airplane to start getting a lift because of the speed, and so you’re going to lift off with a 210 indicated, 210 translates to about 230 miles an hour, and then continue the nose up to 15 to 20 degrees because you’re going to be accelerating pretty quickly.

Like I said, you pass through 20,000 feet less than two minutes from the time you start. You just go through the routine. You’re gonna see the tanker. I’d seen many tankers before. Of course, this my first time in the SR. 

One advantage to me and guys coming out of fighters is that sometimes fighters had the same behind-the-power-curve problem [when refueling], so you would end up having to light one of your afterburners and do the same process in a fighter because of the weight of the fuel. And maybe we didn’t carry bomb loads in the RF-4, but maybe I had three tanks, a center tank and two wing tanks that increased my weight up to the point that I was actually starting to slip behind the power curve.

You come back in, and the instructor is going to demonstrate the first landing, and then you’re going to go back out, and he’s going to have you do an ILS — instrument landing system — approach and touchdown, and then you go back out, and you may do a second one, or you may do a precision radar approach. And then you’re going to get into visual approaches. You’re going to come down, and into the runway, you’re going to go around with a closed pattern, so you can get more practice touch-and-goes until you get it down. If you’re in the traffic pattern, when we had about 7,000 pounds of fuel left, we would land the airplane at that point. We never wanted to get really low in case something should occur because we needed to have enough fuel to get down to McClellan or Sacramento Airport [to divert].

Q: How long did your first flight last, how fast did you go and how high?

A: That first flight was two and a half hours. I reached about 25,000 feet, and probably hit 0.9 Mach for a little while. Then you fly around. You do not go supersonic. Your first supersonic flight is going to be your second flight.

Q: Did you first fly in the two-seater (SR-71B)? 

A: We all flew in the two-seater first as a pilot for our initial pilot checkout.

Q: How does the B-variant fly differently from the A?

A: The SR-71 B-model flies just like the A-model mission operational aircraft.

Q: Was there a tradition to celebrate your first flight?

A: There were some people that met you. I think my family was there, but that’s not the important flight. That’ll come two days, two flights later. You know, people, other current crew members, pilots, and RSOs and my instructor pilot will come out and say, “Hey, congratulations, Buz.” But then, the real important one: your second flight. You’re gonna take off. You’re gonna go to the tanker. You’re gonna refuel, but now you’re gonna drop off the tanker, and you’re gonna start. And you go supersonic. You would start a climb from 25,000 feet at 0.9 Mach, and you would climb up. And we typically would go up to 33,000 because they did not want you supersonic below 30,000 feet because of the shock.

So at 30,000, 33,000 feet, you push the nose over, go full afterburner, and as you’re coming down, you’re going to accelerate really fast. And this is the high drag zone of the SR-71. So as you’re coming down, you’re going to go through the speed of sound very easily. Now you’re going to see [Mach] 1.05, 1.1, and about that point, then you’re going to start bringing the nose up and pick up your climb speed and basically use that climb speed until you’re fairly high up when you’re going to pick up a Mach, and that first supersonic flight, you’re going to fly it at 2.8 Mach, and I know this may sound unique, but at 2.8 Mach, this airplane is actually quite docile.

That’s the low speed. The sensitivity of the airplane is still there, but it’s fairly low. 

Your third flight is Mach 3, and you do the same practice, you do the refueling. You come back in. You shoot patterns, but when you land this time, people come out, typically the wing commander, and he’s got a Mach 3 tie tack he’s going to give you. And all kinds of people are going to be out there because this is a significant time; you’ve had your Mach 3 flight. But there’s something else significant with it. You get to buy the bar that night, and we were always glad to buy the bar because that meant we’d finally had our Mach 3 flight, and we were part of the group. 

Q: What was it like when you reached Mach 3 for the first time?

A: The aircraft actually reacts quite well. The thing that surprised you, or not surprised you, but it’s the first time you get to see the curvature of the Earth, the beautiful black sky up above, and the blue below you. It’s also very quiet. You are in a spacesuit, but you’re traveling at three times the speed of sound. The sound’s behind you. You can feel vibrations in the airplane.

Later on, when you’ve flown this airplane for a while, you can actually feel at certain times when boost pumps are kicking out because that particular fuel tank is going dry, and little sensitivities like that. You’re very busy monitoring the cockpit instruments to make sure the airplane is doing exactly what you want it to do, because it can deviate. And what they’re looking for is we want pilots and RSOs that are going to make sure the airplane is doing what the mission calls for and the way it’s supposed to be flown.

So there’s an adjustment as you change temperatures aloft. The airplane’s going to fly a little differently, so you’re going to make adjustments. If you’re going from warm air to colder air because of a frontal passage, as soon as the engines get that colder air, the airplane wants to accelerate because now the air is denser, and the engines are producing more thrust. It’s a dynamic environment. This is not the kind of airplane that you sit back and put the autopilot on and let it do its thing. 

You have an autopilot on, but the only thing the autopilot does is keep it on that track that the mission was planned for. 

We don’t put any altitude hold on, because we allow the airplane — as it burns off fuel — to continue to climb. So you’re in a constant climb as the airplane becomes lighter and lighter, and with that, your fuel flow continues to go down. The higher you go, you’re carrying less weight. The amount of fuel you’re burning per mile or per minute is dropping, because the engines are becoming more and more efficient. It’s the only airplane in the world — because the way our engine inlets and nozzles are engineered — that the faster we go, the less fuel we burn. You talk about any other airplane you can think of. If you’re going to go faster, it’s going to cost you on fuel. It’s not the case with the SR.

Q: What altitude did you reach on that first Mach 3 flight?

A: 81,000 — 80,000 feet, something like that.

Q: How difficult was it to get used to the SR-71’s cockpit and all its additional gauges?

A: The core part of the cockpit were the attitude indicators, and it was very much like the F-4-type airplanes, the RF-4 that I came out of. You just had a lot more round dials and gauges because of the supersonic flight that was going to be involved with this airplane. In the RF-4 during test flights, I needed to bring the airplane, I think to 2.1 Mach. And you only did it momentarily because you were burning a tremendous amount of fuel, so you didn’t have all the different things that you were monitoring. 

In the SR, you developed a way to cross-check so that you were constantly making sure that the engines and everything were performing correctly. That’s part of what you’d learned already in the simulator, and now you had it in the airplane. And now, you could see how some of the conditions — like actual operating engines and changing weather environment — affected you when you’re flying the airplane.

Q: Weather and atmospheric conditions play a big role in how the SR-71 flew, right?

A: That’s correct. Early on, when they were flying — we never overflew Russia or Red China — but we’d fly right on their border, and some of the early flights off the north coast of Russia. It may sound kind of strange to you, but there was some really warm air. You study in school that at 80,000 feet, the outside air should be about minus 50 degrees, 55 degrees, somewhere in there. The pressure is about 0.4 pounds per square inch. I’ve seen air as warm as minus 40. Now you’ll say, ‘But gee, that doesn’t seem like a big deal.’ It’s a huge difference on the engine because now the air is a lot thinner. But I’ve also seen the other scale off the north coast of Russia. I’ve seen minus 90 degrees. Now, when you starting pumping minus 90 degree air into the engine, it really wants to race because now the air is that much denser, and the engines are producing more thrust.

Q: How difficult was Blackbird to fly? How did it compare to other aircraft? What was the biggest challenge to learning to fly at speed and altitude? 

A: One of the biggest challenges, if you came out of a fighter airplane, is that we could pull seven Gs. That’s what they were built for. The SR-71, because it expands in flight with heating, the G limit is 1.7 Gs. You’ve had that in a sharp turn in the car, clearly on a roller coaster, and that’s why we were limited to 45 degrees of bank because that’s 1.7 Gs being pulled. Now, if the airplane is cold, has not expanded, we can pull 3 Gs, but you can see it’s a much, much more limiting. Like if you’re cruising at Mach 3 and you want to make a turn, the radius is going to be around 75 degrees, around 75 miles. So you’re looking at 150 miles from where you are until you get over to do a complete 180 degree turn heading the other direction. So there’s a lot more of a planning factor on how much because you can’t yank and bang this airplane because when it’s expanded, you could bend it and titanium is really hard to repair.

Q: Did that ever happen to you?

A: It didn’t. But at an air show in England, one of the guys pulled more Gs than he should have, and the airplane flew once or twice more. And everybody said there was something wrong with this airplane. It was grounded. I don’t know how they got it back to the States, but it never flew again.

Q: How did the chine surfaces, those sloped surfaces at the edge of the fuselage, affect flight?

A: They gave you more lift. Other than that, it obviously limited your visibility somewhat because they’re flared out.

Q: Give me a sense of your visibility in the SR-71 cockpit. What can you see and what can’t you see?

A: Well, one thing, you’re in a spacesuit. So, think about from the middle of your body, you can’t see aft of where your arms are. That’s all by feel. So everything you do in the cockpit, your sense of feel is considerably reduced. As you look forward, the two side windows are great for looking around. Many times we have multiple tankers because of how far the tankers had to go to be in our refueling position. 

For our refueling track off the north coast of Norway, those tankers had to fly five hours to get there. So we would typically have three tankers to make sure that they could give us the fuel we needed. The windows you used most were those two pie [-shaped] windows in the front, because that’s what you’re going to be looking through when you take off. That’s what you’re looking through when you’re refueling, and that’s what you’re looking through when you come in to land. Now the side window you might browse a little bit when you come in to land to see, particularly in the trainer [SR-71B], how am I aligned with things that I know are along the runway to make sure I’m in the center per se. Because once you bring that nose up in the trainer, you can’t see forward. The runway disappears.

Q: Did you have any close calls during training?

A: Not during training. Later flying operationally, I did. I took off from a runway where the wind was exceeding 50 knots, and the airfield was closed. This was in Okinawa, but Washington, D.C., wanted the flight off because it was critical that the SR show up in an area at a certain time. 

I came back from another flight to Kadena where water had gotten into some of the systems. One of the afterburners didn’t light. I couldn’t get it to light, so I came back in. It’s a dual runway. The weather was about 200 feet [ceiling], half a mile visibility, and the radar controller put me on the wrong runway. And as I was breaking out [of the clouds], there was a DC-10 full of passengers, so I had to go around, and I’m starting to lose instruments. Doing a circling approach in an SR-71 is really hard, but fortunately I had been stationed there before, so I kind of knew the ground track I needed to maintain, so I could come around and successfully find the runway and put it down, which I did.

About the same time period, around 1979, 1980, coming back from a night mission to RAF Mildenhall, there had been some thunderstorms through England, and the weather in England was terrible. There was not an air base that was above minimums, so I was told that there was a tanker airborne waiting to give us fuel so we could fly to Madrid to Torrejón Air Base, the U.S. Air Force base there. But we were going to have a special mission in two days. The White House or the national security advisor had directed it, and I knew if I flew to Torrejón, by the time you got all the support equipment down there, there was no way we could make that mission.

As SR pilots, we had different rules than the rest of the pilots in the Air Force. If you’re a regular pilot in the Air Force and the airfield goes below minimums, you mandatorily have to go to the alternate location. You can’t shoot an approach. That was not the case in the SR-71. We had the option to shoot the approach to see if we could land, and if we couldn’t land, then you went to the alternate. 

One of the things in the back seat, the RSO had a periscope. He could look straight down, and he could also adjust the periscope so it could look, I think, 35 degrees forward. So that particular night, I mean, it is pea soup fog. I mean, it is terrible. I’m coming in. Oh, and the ILS had been hit by lightning, so there was no ILS. I’m using a British radar controller, who is good. 

As we’re coming in, my back-seater John said, ‘Okay, I’m looking down, and I can see you’re on center line because I can see through the periscope the lights passing underneath the airplane.’ So we landed the airplane successfully. I brought it to a stop. The controller had forgotten to tell Mildenhall that I was coming in to land. They thought the airfield was closed, so when I called them and said, ‘Mildenhall Tower, this is so-and-so. Send out progressive [taxi instructions]. I can’t find the taxiway to be led back to the hangar where I have to put this airplane.’ And the controller came back and said, ‘You can’t be here. We’re closed.’ I said, ‘We’re here, sitting on the runway. Just get me a follow-me [truck] to get me back to where I need to park.’

Q: Tell me about the RSO relationship during flights. What was the RSO’s role and how did you communicate?

A: If you flew an operational mission, it had to be with your formed RSO. Couldn’t be with anybody else. The RSO ran the navigation system, the star tracker, did any updates required there. The RSO turned on and ran the cameras. Radar nose if it was going. The RSO ran the checklists. The defensive systems were all in the back. All the indicators about whether we were being tracked or being shot at — that was all in the back. He did the radio calls on training missions over the United States. I would do them in the traffic pattern, taking off and landing, but the rest of the radio calls were done from the back seat as we went from center to center. 

He was the orchestrator back there. The pilot flew the airplane, took care of the refueling, made sure that it’s on track, and we’re doing what we’re doing. But the guy in the back is the one that’s the synthesizer.

The cockpit is really small. It would have been really tough to have carried a map and folding it and trying to move it. So the [the map was on 35 millimeter film], and it moved at your ground speed, and would show you, ‘okay, you got a turn coming up. This is the fuel you should have. RSO, you need to turn on this camera. You need to check that your defensive systems are on and working before you enter denied airspace.’ So the RSO was a very critical function. We trained and flew together for four years.

Q: Walk me through your first operational mission. When was it? How was your preparation process different from others, and what did you do? What was the mission?

A: Um, I won’t say it was a vanilla mission, but it was the one where you’re going to go to Kadena because we can keep track of you the best there, and the missions are more controlled. So your first operational mission, you would have flown a local mission where you’re mostly flying around the island and doing stuff and just landing at Kadena. That would have been March of ’77, and your first mission. The thing that makes it different is you go through the same preparation, but the day before, you’re going to go in and do more of a mission planning. What does the mission look like? Where are the turns? Where are the things I need to be concerned about? And then the day of the mission, they’re going to come in and say, ‘Okay, this is what the weather is. This is what any intelligence activity you need to know of. These are special instructions from the State Department that might provide additional limiting factors on you that you have to take into consideration.’

That’s all around the time you’re having your breakfast, getting ready to go. You go down, you suit up like you normally would. There’s no difference in starting the airplane up. It’s a little more critical this time to make sure your tankers are where they’re supposed to be, and typically your first mission is probably going to be along the Korean DMZ. It’s going to be a two-and-a-half-hour sortie. You’re going to take off. You’re going to refuel at 25,000 feet. Head up the west coast of Korea. You’re going to see the Yellow Sea. Make a big sweeping right turn, and you’ll come north of Seoul. You go very close to the DMZ all the way across. Do a big turn over the Sea of Japan. Come back the same direction along the DMZ. Then turn south and come back and land, and this will probably be your first operational mission.

Q: What were you collecting? What kind of sensors did you have?

A: Oh, we would have the side cameras that could look out about 30 miles in. We might have the nose camera. The electronic sensors could pick up any radio, radar, other type of electronic signals out to about 350 miles anywhere around us. So you’d be sensing what the North Koreans have that was active at that time to better understand what their defense posture is, where missile sites were located, and things along those lines.

The side camera was a camera controlled by the computer. All you did was turn it on because of the astro tracker. We navigated directly off the stars, we didn’t navigate off the ground. We guaranteed the president 300 feet anywhere in the world traveling at 2,200 miles an hour. This is long before GPS, and so the president and the people around him had great — six presidents used us — comfort knowing that we would go where they wanted us to go, and in all likelihood we’d come back. 

We weren’t going to get shot down, which never happened, so they wouldn’t have to deal with some kind of a hostage situation or some kind of a diplomatic problem. That was just part of it. 

Later on, when I flew a flight for President Carter when the Saudis and the Yemenis were at war over their border, the nose camera was in there. The nose camera took a picture 72 miles wide, 36 miles either side of center, and in the center your resolution was two to four inches. You can see people, you can see tanks, cars, all kinds of things. You cannot recognize faces.

There’s another nose that came in while I was flying, probably in 1977, a ground-mapping radar, because there’s parts of the world where the sun rarely shines. So if you’re waiting for that picture, you may never get it. So you can’t see people with that. Cars are hard to identify. It’s more of an electronic blob, but a ship, an airplane, things like that, that would be on the ground or at sea, there’s enough radar return that most of the time they may not be able to give it the exact airplane or ship, but they know what kind it was, so that day or night, in any weather, when an enemy is trying to move things around that you can’t see, you could actually pick up what their activities are.

Q: You talked about working with other assets for collection missions and a lot of coordination. What did those include?

A: Other assets in our coordinated collection missions included other aircraft, ships at sea, land sites collecting and satellites overhead. Timing was important on these operations. I had as many as 28 sensors I was stimulating the Russians for.

Q: Give me an overall sense of your operational missions. What were the goals and what permissions did you need?

A: There’s something that’s still done today called the ‘Beige Book,’ and they go through, and it’s all the services, including submarines, and all that. Okay, what are we interested in? What are we going to plan? How important is the target? How much risk do these targets pose to the collectors, but also politically? If we do this, are there political consequences? And this goes to the whole government, including the State Department, CIA. So they publish this. 

Now, when something occurs like the battle with Yemen that just pops up, then things are reprioritized.

Overflights are typically approved by the president, but sometimes by the National Security Adviser. Not below that level per se. The missions where you’re flying peripherally around Russia, around China, other places in the world, those would be approved as part of the monthly schedule. Places we overflew. I mean, we overflew Cuba every 45 days. We did work in Central America. After I left, I think there were some that went down to Colombia. I am one of the only two pilots that ever took the airplane to Diego Garcia. Originally, we were looking at that as a possible base to use to go image Iran and come from a different direction than we had in the past because they were much like today, harassing ships with their missiles and other stuff. We flew over North Korea a couple times.

Q: Did you ever fly over North Korea?

A: I didn’t, but the airplane did. 

Q: How did you navigate?

A: We used the star catalog. We had 58 stars that were the northern stars that we used for tracking. To give you an idea. Took them an hour and 45 minutes to load our mission in the tracker, and we called it after the fact R2-D2 because it always knew where we were. It was told exactly where it was on the face of the earth to start. After we started the engines and we’re ready to taxi, when you came out of the hangar, if it was a clear day or clear night, within two minutes, the RSO in the back seat would get a starlight, and what that told you is we’re now automatically tracking the stars day or night, and it was a really accurate system.

It was a wonderful system to fly with, but it also gave the planners and our leaders [the confidence] that if we can fly within 300 feet, like let’s say the north coast of Russia, well, most airplanes are going to have to put you a couple miles off just because we’re not sure exactly where you are. In our case, we could fly maybe 500 feet off their international border because we knew we would be exactly where we were supposed to be, and that was one of the great advantages.

Another great advantage was we had great range. There was a special mission that I flew. The Navy had lost track of a couple boomers [Russian nuclear ballistic missile submarines]. They’d come out of Murmansk, up there in northern Russia, and had slipped through what we call the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. gap, and so we were tasked for a quick reaction. And in this particular case, there was a a second SR that took off after me. To show you the importance of the mission, if I was not mission-capable at Goose Bay, the second SR, one hour behind me, was going to pick up the mission.

I was fully ready, so we proceeded across the Atlantic north of Norway. We refueled again. We did the double pass past Murmansk. I saw [the Russian submarines] once or twice making their way to the Arctic Ocean on the surface as the inland waters were too shallow to dive.

We refueled again off the north coast, crossed the Atlantic, refueled over Goose Bay, Labrador, came across Canada, and at 8:20 in the morning, Saturday morning, I landed back at Beale Air Force Base.

Q: What other countries have you flown over?

A: I’ve flown over Cuba. Obviously, flown in the Middle East, over Egypt, down to Yemen. Over West Germany. In the Pacific, we did more peripheral flights, and peripheral were sometimes actually more sensitive because they put you close to the border, and there were a lot of potential political issues.

For instance, around 1978 or 1979, I had a major emergency on the DMZ, and to follow what I needed to do to clear the problem — which had to do with the inlets — I needed to roll the airplane out, but I was already in a turn. If I’d rolled the airplane out, I would have overflown North Korea, which would have possibly been a political violation. So I had to keep the airplane in a turn. The airplane was damaged. I had to land at one of our U.S. Air Force bases in South Korea and have maintenance come up and work on the airplane, just to avoid a possible incident. 

I’ll show you the difference between presidents. When President Ford’s term was coming to an end, he knew that President Carter felt it was immoral to overfly other countries and unethical. So we were flying over Cuba every 45 days to keep track of the Russians and the Cubans per se. So, on his last day in office, President Ford had tasked us: you were to take off, you’re to overfly Cuba, you have to land back in California. This was on the 20th of January, 1977. Not later than 10 minutes before Carter takes the oath of office, I was in the wing commander’s office when we called the White House and said, ‘Mission complete, aircraft on the ground.’

For a year, we didn’t overfly anybody because Carter thought it was immoral, and then he realized the Russians were doing stuff in Cuba we weren’t seeing. There were, you know, parts of the world that the SR had unique capabilities that he was foregoing because of his political view. So that changed.

Q: Why?

A: It changed because we were having intelligence failures, because we were being surprised with things that were taking place that our collection systems, had they been used like they were designed, would have probably picked up.

Q: Was the SR-71 used as a psychological weapon against adversaries?

A: Sort of. We sometimes flew over heads of state greeting each other and they would be covered with an excellent sonic shock wave to remind them they were doing things counter to U.S. and/or NATO policies. In the three days before Noriega decided to leave Panama, SR-71 aircraft overflew his home with the sonic boom to advise him it was time to go.

Q: Did you ever fly over China?

A: We did not overfly China. U-2s did, but the SR never overflew China. Now this will surprise you. Sometimes I’ve flown missions that the Russians knew ahead of time that I was going to be right on their border at a certain time, and the reason for that was that they really wanted to shoot down and get their hands on an SR. So when we would be into an area like other reconnaissance airplanes, they would hardly pay attention to it. We would go in the area, and a lot of their radars and other stuff would come up very closely, monitoring what we were doing. 

So I landed in Okinawa, Japan, and the head of NSA for the Far East had been there and asked me, ‘Was there any unusual activity today?’ And I said, ‘No, about the same number of fighters tried to come up to intercept me, and I never had a missile fired at me.’ And he said, ‘Well, that’s unexpected. We told the Russians yesterday where you were going to be today, hoping that we’d get some greater fidelity on the collection.’ So they had great confidence we were going to come back.

Q: How close did the Russian fighters get to you?

A: Not that close. We were really a tough target. They would try to make a head-on [interception] with a conversion [turn]. Well, by the time they made a conversion, they had the same problem. They had to be above Mach 2 to come after us. By the time they made the turn, we were 100 miles down the road.

Q: The SR-71 had a reduced radar signature. Did this help in its survivability, or was it the speed and the electronic warfare capabilities that largely kept SR-71 crews safe?

A: It was a combination of capabilities that gave it such a remarkable survival capability. To start with, the stealthiness made it hard to find until it was very close to you, significantly compressing an enemy’s reaction timelines. Extremely high speed, Mach 3.2, and incredible altitude, up to 85,000 feet, put its operations in a difficult area to attack. If they did get contact and decided to engage you — all the missiles of our era had to be guided to the high-speed maneuvering target as they did not have onboard guidance capability. When the electronic jamming system became active, the adversary lost their ability to communicate with their missile, so basically it followed its last command and went stupid.

Q: I have seen reports that Blackbirds evaded about 4,000 missiles fired by the Soviet Union, North Vietnam, North Korea and India. Is that accurate?

A: No, it’s not.

Q: How many would you say? 

A: The number of missiles wasn’t well-tracked. I flew a mission on the Korean DMZ, and they were playing with me. When I say playing, they were using their long-range [radar]. Then the acquisition radar came up that was trying to ready for the missile, but the missile was never armed. 

Six weeks later, my buddy had three missiles fired at him. So there were probably no more than 100. Part of the thing was they gave up. I mean, particularly over Vietnam, that’s where most of the missiles were fired, and they were just not working. And how many missiles do you want to fire to try to get an airplane?

 

Q: What were the orders if things went terribly wrong? Were there places you absolutely could not land at and had to destroy the aircraft instead of letting it fall into enemy hands? What about if the crew was captured after ejecting?

A: The aircraft was not to go into enemy hands. And in some cases not even allies’ hands. If the aircraft was impossible to control and out of control — ejection might be your only option. It was the safest USAF aircraft I ever flew. There were a total of 12 ejections in the test program and in operations. None were ever caused by enemy actions. There was never a USAF SR-71 crew member ever killed flying this aircraft — an incredible record! We all went to a special survival school to understand what we might expect if captured by an enemy which never happened or came even close to happening.

Q: What was the closest interception threat?

A: Probably the closest the Russians ever got to a successful intercept had nothing to do with their initial work. There’s a crew; they’re flying the Baltic, so they’re Mach 2.8. They head up past Lithuania, Latvia, and as they beam Estonia, the right engine explodes. The turbines come apart. So now you’re a single-engine airplane. You’re not going to be at Mach. You’re going to be probably around 12,000 feet subsonic. So the crew announces Mayday, starts a turn. They probably overflew some Soviet airspace. They start this big turn. The Swedes pick up the fact that they hear a Mayday call, and they have a pair of [Saab] Viggens that are airborne that are actually armed.

So as they make the turn, they descend. Get the airplane under control. The Russians send five flights of MiGs to come out. They’ll also send out a rescue helicopter with the idea maybe they can capture the SR crew. Some of those MiGs that were coming out we were sure were directed to shoot down the SR if it wouldn’t follow their signals.

But when they got there, all of a sudden they find there’s a Swedish Viggen on either wing. So the Russians decided this is not a good idea. Halfway down, the two Viggens were low on fuel. The Swedes sent two more Viggens up that replaced them, sat on the wings, continued their mission, and when they got to a certain point, United States Air Force F-15s came out of Germany, intercepted, joined with the SR-71, and led it to a safe landing on an air base in northern Germany. 

The mission was classified for years and years. The Swedes wouldn’t even acknowledge it took place because they were a neutral country per se. One of my classmates from the academy, who was a lieutenant general, found out about it and said, ‘We’ve got to do something.’ So, in a very rare occasion, they put through the paperwork, and those four Swedish pilots at a ceremony in Stockholm were given United States Air Force Air Medals for what they did that day to save the airplane. That’s the closest that we ever came to actually losing an SR-71 that would have been related to combat. (You can read more about that award ceremony in our story about the event here.)

Q: What’s the highest you’ve flown? What’s the fastest?

A: My top speed is 3.35 Mach before I slowed it back down to 3.2 Mach because we got into cold air and the airplane really wanted to accelerate. My highest altitude is a little over 85,000 feet. Those were in the late ’70s, early ’80s. I don’t remember the specifics. 

The high-speed one was off the north coast of Russia when I got into really cold air. You can’t just come out afterburner to try to slow the airplane down because you risk then having a compressor stall. So what you had to do was force the airplane into a climb, and as it was climbing, break its ability to maintain that speed. So once you got it back to the speed you wanted, you’d kind of lower the nose to where you wanted to cruise and go from there.

The faster you went in this airplane, the more dangerous it was, and the more sensitive it became, and that was part of the reason why 3.2 Mach — that’s where the inlets and the engines and the nozzles and everything was optimized for, because they were really afraid you had what we call an “unstart.” That’s when you lose a shock out of one of the inlets, and now the other engine is producing 100%. This engine is still running, but it’s only producing 30%. The airplane goes into a violent yaw and can pitch up on you. They were afraid there wasn’t enough flight control to be able to control the airplane.

Q: Was it harder to fly at that speed?

A: It’s just more sensitive. As you made inputs, the airplane was more reactive, and you had to be on your toes because if you had an unstart at that point, you needed to make sure that you prevented the airplane from doing a yaw slice and particularly pitching up.

One time off the coast of China around 1978 or 1979, I had an unstart and the nose started up. Of course John [the RSO] knew that we had an unstart, because you can’t miss it. You get banged up in the cockpit. I had to stick full forward, and I told John, I said, ‘we’ve got about three or four potatoes.’ That means in three or four seconds, if that nose doesn’t stop climbing, we’re going to have to leave this airplane because it’s going to disintegrate.

Q: You flew over Area 51 and later oversaw its funding when you were at the Pentagon. What is it like?

A: When I did the test flights in Area 51, I had to go through and do some briefings and sign off on stuff. I’m an Area 51 guy. I mean, I’ve been on the ground there. I was responsible for their funding for a couple years, and I used to take guests out there on certain occasions who needed to see something or understand something. It’s great. It looks like the movie The Martian. It’s God forbidden, but it’s a great place to do classified testing because it’s the only place in the country we can do that pretty much successfully. 

Before I left the Pentagon, I completed the paperwork to withdraw 75,000 more acres of land that sat on a hillside. So now your closest point to have a direct view of the complexes is from 26 miles away at [Tikaboo Peak].

Q: Let’s talk about the present. Obviously, the Blackbirds are big news with rampant speculation about the future of Tail 844. What do you know about this, and what do you think that NASA is planning for it?

A: I think we know a number of things. The airplane’s been outside for what 30 years, so it may need some repair. NASA is trying to inspire the current and future generations about X planes. 

One right now that’s got everybody’s attention is the X-59 that will start flying over the United States here pretty soon, and it’s to measure whether we have successfully come up with a shape that reduces the intensity of the Mach shock wave. Because where this will lead to is there’s a couple companies… that want to create a supersonic transport. One of the limitations on the Concorde, no European country would ever allow it to overfly. Nor did we, because that tremendous wing space created a really significant shock wave on the ground.

In the SR-71, we broke windows. I can remember a particular Cuban overflight. I came around, I did a descent over Mississippi. My tanker was over Mississippi. I refueled. Gave me enough fuel to get back to California. When I landed, the director of operations for the wing had left a message that when I got out of my spacesuit, give him a call. So I called him. I said, ‘Col. Lawson, what can I do?’ And he goes, ‘Oh, Buz, how’d the mission go?’ And I said, ‘You don’t ask me how the mission goes, unless there’s something you’re particularly [interested in]. What is it?’ He says, ‘Well, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. There’s 30 houses that have fewer windows, and we’re pretty sure it was you.’

We couldn’t predict where the shock would go. Now [what] we know from some of the tests is, that when you’re in a turn, a turning descent like I was, sometimes the shock wave actually concentrates and becomes more violent than it would if you’d passed over straight and level. So what the X-59 is trying to do is see if they can successfully get a shape and controls, so they can build this supersonic transport that, in fact, can fly over normal airspace.

Q: Former NASA Blackbird engineer Tim Connors told us that he thinks that they’re going to use Tail 844 as a high-speed engine testbed. What’s your assessment of that?

A: It doesn’t make sense. It is high speed, but we’ve done all that. All that data is there. I mean, we’ve got hundreds of hours at Mach 3 and above that they don’t need to, and we’ve got air chambers now that can run the air at those Mach speeds to take a look at. I mean, they’re looking at the hypersonic. They’d like to have an engine like the J-58 that you could take off at a normal speed, and somewhere around Mach 3, you could open valves or do something that you could then accelerate to Mach 5 or Mach 6, and then when you were through with what you wanted to do, come back, and then go down through the Mach 3…2…1, and recover safely back at wherever you want.

Author’s note: Being able to test this exact transition area between Mach 3 and Mach 4, approaching hypersonic, potentially for a combined cycle engine like Buz describes, is what some think NASA will use the SR-71 for.

I mean, basically that’s what the SR did. Except we went to Mach 3. The big transition in the SR-71 took place in Mach 2. Because when you hit Mach 2 or thereabouts, that’s when those bypass tubes, the six of them around the engine, started bypassing air around the engine, and the air, the engine inlet, everything became a pseudo-ramjet. Because the faster you went, the more thrust you were creating by the ram thrust, not by the thrust being created by the engine itself. The engine had to run; it was critical to the whole process, but the vast majority of the larger part of the thrust was being created by the bypass.

Q: Do you think other aircraft came after Blackbird, even experimentally, that broke its speed records? If so, why haven’t we seen them all these years later?

A: No operational jet-powered manned aircraft has come along to break the significant records we set 50 years ago.

Q: So what is NASA going to use Tail 844 for?

A: I think they’re going to try to see how useful is it. Something that’s sat outside with blowing sand and everything else — it’s really hard to know.

Q: How how difficult will it be for modern test pilots to fly Tail 844 or whatever aircraft is created from this project? 

A: It would be challenging because there’s no simulator that works, and the simulator helps you go through all the things that you might face to successfully save the airplane. I mean, we consider the SR a national asset, so the last thing we were going to do was eject from the airplane. If you don’t have that simulator, it’s going to be much more difficult. 

Q: And the simulators don’t exist anymore?

A: The simulator sits down in a museum in Texas. It’s not operable.

Q: Was boosting the speed of the SR-71 ever discussed during your career, and if so, what were the options considered to make that happen?

A: It was. The idea was that they were going — I can’t remember where it was a water injection or something — that they could take the SR up to 3.5 and beyond. I may have this wrong, but the SR shape and the materials that make up the body of the airplane, I think are good up to [Mach] 3.8, maybe even 4, and this was going to be a water injection that for 10 minutes you could take the airplane up to a faster speed. I think it was [Mach] 3.5, but it may have been [Mach] 3.6. But when they looked at the weight and all the different things, it was the Lockheed proposal. The decision was made. You didn’t gain that much by raising the speed because we were fully authorized to go to [Mach] 3.3.

I’ll tell you a number of my contemporaries never went there. When I was an instructor pilot, I made sure my student went there because if you needed to go there, I wanted you to feel the sensitivity of the airplane when you’re at those speeds.

Q: So was the idea to flow liquid to cool the air going into the inlets?

A: I think that’s where it was. It was in that area, but it’s been so long. I don’t remember. But that never went anywhere, and it only gave you 10 minutes. Because the critical temperature on the airplane was not the airplane. In the cockpit, the CIT — compressor inlet temperature — we were not to exceed 427 centigrade, which is about 800 degrees [Fahrenheit]. Pratt & Whitney said beyond that point, our modeling says that you’re at a higher risk of the engine failing.

Q: Conners told us that during his time in the SR-71 program, he investigated whether it was possible to get the Blackbird close to Mach 4. Do you think a Blackbird could approach Mach 4 with the proper modifications?

A: The question is, what will Mach 4 give you? And I think the focus is more on unmanned vehicles that are Mach 5, Mach 6.

Q: Why?

A: You look at the weight that’s in an airplane to keep a man alive — that’s quite a penalty you’re paying. And when you get up to Mach 5 and Mach 6, the temperatures you’re dealing with are — it’s on a curve that is accelerating up, and the materials you have to use and try to put a person in there — it doesn’t make sense.

Q: How would the shock waves affect the ability to exceed Mach 3.3?

A: Obviously, they’re going to become steeper. At Mach 3.2, the shock sits just on the outer lip of the inlet. That is dealing with part of the shape of the airplane. Again, this is what was designed as your optimum speed.

Q: If you were a betting man, what would you say the odds are of the Blackbird flying again?

A: I could see it if they wanted to fly it for inspiration, particularly subsonic. The airplanes I’ve flown a couple times subsonic because we had some maintenance problems. 0.9 Mach. It’s a sweet airplane.

Q: Do you see it flying again?

A: I think part of the problem is engines that haven’t been used in those numbers of years. How difficult is it going to be for you to put them back in service? Because there’s no spare engines. When the program was taken apart finally in 2007, a number of those engines were ground up. Foolishly, they were ground up. So there’s not a lot of spares out there.

Q: So what’s NASA’s goal for Tail 844?

A: I think the goal is inspirational. I give tours regularly at the Air and Space Museum, and you’ve got multi generations that still love the SR. I just came back from organizing an SR-71 weekend down at the Museum of Aviation at Robins Air Force Base, and people come from all over to talk to us and see the airplane. When you look at it, young people can’t believe this airplane — like the one in the Smithsonian — came off the production line in 1966. It came off the production line before their parents were born. Yet you look at it, and partly because of the Star Wars influence, you think, ‘Oh, is it a space plane? Is it an airplane?’ I mean, it is something that creates visions and dreams, and I think that’s what NASA is trying to get back to: use it as a a dream generator to fly again. I don’t know. A number of people have already said that they can’t believe it’s going to fly. So it could fly, but I would say that the odds are against it.

 

Q: You’re at docent at the Udvar Hazy Center. What’s the scuttlebutt there about the plan for Tail 844?

A: They’re as clueless as everybody else.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Confessions Of An SR-71 Blackbird Pilot appeared first on TWZ.

The Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) tied up in Yokosuka, Japan, on Monday, a week after the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group departed from the same base to participate in exercise Keen Sword 27. Both are reportedly destined for the Middle East, two U.S. officials confirmed to Fox News, which would place three CSGs and two ARGs in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR) sometime in November, unless a group leaves before their arrival. More than 10 guided-missile destroyers are also operating independently in the region, as the U.S. beefs up force posture ahead of the possibility of renewed hostilities against the Iranian regime.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, the USS Ronald Reagan remotely controlled an MQ-25A Stingray tanker drone thousands of miles away for the first time, and the Navy announced that USS Abraham Lincoln, which just returned from a historic deployment, will conduct a homeport shift to Bremerton, Washington.

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including deployed CSGs and ARGs, using publicly available open-source information. Check out our last report here.

Where Is The USS Theodore Roosevelt?

Surrounded by allied warships, the USS Theodore Roosevelt steamed through the Philippine Sea last week as large-scale combined exercise Keen Sword 27 got underway. Roosevelt and guided-missile cruiser USS Chosin departed Commander, Fleet Activities Yokosuka, on October 19 following a three-day port call. Roosevelt deployed on September 27 and was the first non-resident American carrier to pull into the vital naval port in over four years.

Three American warships are participating in the exercise, a Navy official confirmed to TWZ. The third participant, Pearl Harbor-based guided-missile destroyer USS Decatur, another element of the five-ship strike group, also called port in Yokosuka and transited out of Tokyo Bay on October 26.

Australian, Canadian, and French warships joined the exercise alongside the U.S. and Japan in a large show of force. Keen Sword 27 runs through October 29, but it’s unclear if Roosevelt and her escorts will remain until the conclusion before heading toward the Middle East via the Strait of Malacca. More than 45,000 Japan Self-Defense Forces personnel and 11,000 U.S. service members are participating.

F/A-18 Super Hornets and F-35Cs launched from Roosevelt and airbases in Japan to complete a simulated strike against a target in the East Sea/Sea of Japan, which also included land-based launchers, an exercise spokesperson told Stars and Stripes. Japanese destroyers JS Kongo and JS Maya assumed the red team role. The precise location and munitions employed were not disclosed.

The Theodore Roosevelt CSG, which a different Navy official confirmed also includes USS Paul Hamilton and USS Carl M. Levin, will arrive in the Middle East, Fox News reported last week. Both destroyers are disaggregated from the rest of the group. Hamilton, the last ship to deploy, left San Diego on October 10 and most recently pulled out of Pearl Harbor last week. Levin, the first ship to deploy, is already operating in the CENTCOM AOR, based on public images posted on the military’s content platform, DVIDS.

If the CSG and ARG, which also includes amphibious transport docks USS Anchorage and USS John P. Murtha, arrive in the Middle East before the other two carriers on station, USS George H.W. Bush and USS George Washington, and big-deck amphibious assault ship USS Boxer, depart, that would add roughly 10,000 sailors and Marines to CENTCOM’s arsenal, the most significant force posture in the region since the war began. However, the overlap can only be maintained for a limited time given normal rotation schedules.

Acting Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV), Hung Cao, said during a panel at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) convention that “the Teddy Roosevelt carrier strike group just deployed on October 8 with a medium sized unmanned surface vessel (MUSV). This is the first carrier strike group to ever deploy with a large size unmanned surface vessel.” However, despite multiple requests to comment, the Navy has not confirmed to TWZ that MUSV Seahawk (2) is assigned to the strike group. Seahawk was 10 nautical miles north of Guam, publicly available Automatic Identification System (AIS) data on MarineTraffic showed, as of publication.

The USS Ronald Reagan Controlled A Tanker Drone Thousands Of Miles Away

Providing a glimpse of the future, the USS Ronald Reagan used her brand-new Unmanned Air Warfare Center (UAWC) to operate an MQ-25A Stingray tanker drone at a Boeing facility in Illinois. “In a historic U.S. naval aviation event, an aircraft carrier connected to, and controlled, an unmanned aerial refueler MQ-25A Stingray more than 2,100 miles away,” the Navy said in a press release.

The UAWC, installed during Reagan’s recently completed 15-month maintenance availability, used its MD-5C ground control station to link beyond line-of-sight with the drone while the flattop was underway in the eastern Pacific Ocean. “The MQ-25A Stingray’s carrier-based refueling capabilities enable F/A-18 Super Hornets to fly farther and longer,” the Acting SECNAV said. “The integration of this unmanned aerial refueler demonstrates the transformational change our manned and unmanned asset integration provides the Fleet.”

The test took place during a preliminary sea trial, part of a “series of build-up exercises designed to validate procedures, networks and interfaces,” reads the release. Capt. Daniel Fucito, program manager of the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier Aviation Program Office (PMA-268), said, “We have redefined naval power projection. This first-ever underway connection between a carrier-based UAWC and an MQ-25A aircraft proves that the Carrier Air Wing of tomorrow is a reality today.”

Reagan is the second Nimitz class carrier equipped with the UAWC. The MQ-25A will eventually take the role held by the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets that are tasked with fueling carrier-based aircraft, freeing up aircraft to take on higher-end combat roles.

Reagan moored at Kilo Pier at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego on October 27 after finishing Fleet Replacement Squadron and Carrier Qualifications.

What’s Next For The USS Abraham Lincoln?

The USS Abraham Lincoln recently returned from a record-setting deployment. The carrier arrived back home on October 8 after being at sea for 321 days, less than a week short of the longest carrier deployment in the post-Vietnam era.

The Navy has confirmed what TWZ was the first to report: the Lincoln will complete a homeport shift to Bremerton, Washington, to undergo an overhaul following a grueling deployment that left the carrier looking worse for wear. The release did not disclose the length of the availability, but Reagan was out of commission for more than a year, and was not previously involved in combat operations.

“The carrier repeatedly demonstrated unmatched multi-theater combat lethality and safeguarded critical sea lanes across the Indo-Pacific and Middle Eastern theaters. Home port shifts are part of the Navy’s continued commitment to the strategic dispersal of ships,” a statement released from Commander, Naval Air Forces reads.

The move is a permanent change of station for the crew and their families.

Where Is The Rest Of The Fleet?

• The two carriers enforcing the ongoing blockade of Iranian ports and coastal cities, USS George H.W. Bush and USS George Washington, have both been dark on AIS since arriving in the Middle East. The former is 210 days into her deployment and recently arrived back in CENTCOM after a five-day port call in Phuket, Thailand. The latter, forward-deployed out of Yokosuka, Japan, was spotted on DVIDS conducting flight operations on October 24.
• USS Nimitz, homeported in Norfolk, welcomed the public with tours during Naval Station Norfolk’s Fleet Fest over the weekend, and got underway again for training on October 27. The 51-year-old carrier is scheduled to be deactivated in Spring 2027. USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, also based at NS Norfolk, left port for work ups on October 24.
• Also on the east coast, USS John C. Stennis has been undergoing maintenance since 2021. The RCOH was expected to be completed and the carrier redelivered in October 2026, according to budget documents, but it’s unclear if that timeline will hold. However, USS Harry S. Truman recently moved to begin an RCOH, suggesting Stennis is nearing completion.
• On the other side of the country, USS Carl Vinson is in port in San Diego. Vinson returned on September 4 after a 25-day underway for a Final Evaluation Period and Tailored Ship’s Training Availability.
• The future USS John F. Kennedy was operating in the Atlantic Ocean launching a T-45C Goshawk training aircraft and EA-18G Growler, both attached to the “Salty Dogs” of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23, on October 25.

The Big Deck Fleet At A Glance

Overall, three U.S. carriers are deployed, three are working up in various states of readiness, three are in maintenance availabilities, one is post-deployment, one is being used primarily for training before deactivation, and another will be delivered in 2027. Two amphibious ready groups are deployed, one is forward-deployed, three are working up or in port, and three are in maintenance.

Note: Positions are general approximations. Non-deployed LHA/LHD amphibious warships are not shown.

Contact the author: ian@twz.com or @ianellisjones

The post Where Are The Aircraft Carriers?: October 27, 2026 appeared first on TWZ.

Serbia has released the first footage of its TSMB M-25 heavy self-propelled mortar in action, revealing an unusual artillery system that puts a massive 203mm weapon on a comparatively light, six-wheeled truck. The system is designed to hurl projectiles weighing around 220 pounds at targets up to approximately seven-and-a-half miles away, bringing super-heavy firepower to a platform that looks surprisingly modest for the job.

The Serbian Ministry of Defense published the brief footage in a larger video montage, seen immediately below, but has not disclosed when or where the firing tests took place or what they demonstrated. Regardless, the M-25’s configuration alone makes it stand out.

The Teški Samohodni Minobacač (TSMB, translated as heavy self-propelled mortar) M-25 was developed by Serbia’s state-owned Military Technical Institute and first appeared publicly at the Partner 2025 defense exhibition in Belgrade. Its design lineage stretches back to the Yugoslav M-65 155mm howitzer, itself a licensed copy of the widely used American M114, first introduced in World War II.

The M-25 takes that heritage in a different direction, with a 203mm barrel measuring 24 calibers in length and an automated loading mechanism for mortar projectiles. The mortar barrel has an elevation range from 0° to 75°, and the barrel must return to 0° in elevation for the next round to be loaded from the muzzle end.

The standard 203mm mortar bomb weighs around 220 pounds, including approximately 60 pounds of explosive material. This results in a claimed destruction radius of around 250 feet, using impact fuzing.

The system is intended to fire both high-explosive and concrete-piercing ammunition, making it particularly suited to attacking hardened positions and fortifications. Developers have also provided for rocket-assisted projectiles to extend its range and precision guidance kits to improve the accuracy of compatible rounds.

The weapon is mounted on a FAP 2026 three-axle truck in a 6×6 configuration, a general-purpose off-road type made by Serbian vehicle manufacturer Fabrika automobila Priboj. This platform provides a range of 500 miles and a top speed of 50 miles per hour on the road. The vehicle has an armored cab for a crew of four, while its fire-control suite includes an inertial navigation system, a ballistic computer, communications equipment, and a dedicated gunner’s computer. The same truck has also been adapted to mount a 152mm gun/howitzer, under the name NORA B-39.

The wheeled chassis is the defining feature of the M-25. While a weapon of this size would normally be either towed or mounted on a large tracked vehicle, Serbia has opted for a lighter truck-based arrangement. This offers advantages in road mobility and makes the system easier to move between firing positions, using “shoot and scoot” tactics. A general-purpose truck is cheaper to acquire and operate, and easier to maintain. It can also be more easily transported by air, although out-of-area operations are not generally on the Serbian Armed Forces’ agenda. However, its cross-country performance and overall survivability will be reduced compared to a tracked chassis.

The M-25 is intended to deliver heavy fire against targets such as bunkers and other fortified positions, then relocate before an opponent can respond. Its relatively short stated range compared with many modern 155mm howitzers makes it a specialized system rather than a direct replacement for conventional long-range artillery. Its appeal lies instead in combining a very large projectile with a comparatively compact and mobile platform.

Mortars have a long and grim history in the Balkans, particularly during the wars that accompanied the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The steep trajectories of mortar rounds made them useful in the region’s mountainous terrain and in fighting around fortified positions and during sieges, while their ability to deliver indirect fire meant crews could engage targets without a direct line of sight.

As far as we know, the M-25 is the only 203mm mortar in current development and/or production. There are a few larger mortars on mobile platforms, notably Russia’s 2S4 Tyulpan, a 240mm self-propelled mortar, but this is on a significantly bigger tracked chassis.

At approximately 19 metric tons, the M-25 is substantially lighter than the 2S4 Tyulpan, which weighs around 27.5 metric tons. Its tracked platform reflects a very different approach to moving super-heavy mortar firepower around the battlefield. The Tyulpan can deliver a 300-pound standard mortar round to a range of around six miles, or up to 11 miles away when using rocket-assisted rounds. 

Serbia claims the M-25 has a rate of fire of up to three rounds per minute, thanks to the automated loading mechanism. In contrast, the Tyulpan can hurl a maximum of one round every 62 seconds. Indeed, its sluggish rate of fire is one of the reasons that saw it fall from more widespread Russian use.

There are still important unknowns. The newly released footage does not establish whether the advertised firing rate was achieved, how the weapon performs under sustained fire, or whether the system has entered operational service. Serbia has shown the M-25 at an exhibition and now in live-fire footage, but detailed test results have not been made public.

Still, the concept is striking: a high-mobility wheeled truck carrying a 203mm mortar is a distinctly different take on super-heavy firepower, but one that might just find a niche in the Balkan environment.

Author’s note: An earlier version of this article included a photo of the 2S5 Giatsint-S self-propelled gun, rather than the 2S4 Tyulpan.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post This Serbian Truck Carries A Truly Massive Mortar appeared first on TWZ.

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has confirmed that an image that has been circulating online for years does indeed show an experimental Chinese reusable spaceplane in orbit. A newly released higher-resolution copy of the image underscores that the design is nearly a dead ringer for the X-37B miniature space shuttles now operated by the U.S. Space Force.

DIA included the higher-resolution image of the Chinese spaceplane in a new unclassified report on global security challenges outside of the Earth’s atmosphere, which was released yesterday. A satellite belonging to Maxar Technologies (now Vantor) captured the image, but when exactly remains unclear. It does have a 2024 copyright date.

The image shows a miniature space shuttle-like design with small wings and twin vertical tails. It also has upward-opening doors above a central payload bay. There is also an extension at the tail end with solar panels seen deployed on either side. There are what look to be side-by-side ventral bays, which are likely for the main gear in a tricycle landing gear configuration. Overall, the core design is extremely similar to that of the U.S. X-37B, which also features tricycle landing gear and can also be fitted with an extended payload module at the tail. One major difference is that the wings on the Chinese design have a much longer chord compared to the X-37B.

“A key capability for reusable space activities are spaceplanes like this PRC [People’s Republic of China] Spaceplane captured by Maxar. Spaceplanes can launch into orbit to place objects in space or even test them and return to earth [sic],” reads the caption to the picture in DIA’s report.

As noted, the basic fact of the existence of this image is not new. U.S. Space Force Col. John Patrick, then head of U.S. Space Forces-Korea (SPACEFOR-KOR), included a much lower-resolution version in a presentation at the Open Space Forum in South Korea in 2024. It was also not immediately clear at that time whether or not the picture simply showed an X-37B. TWZ had reached out at the time to the U.S. Space Force and Maxar for more information, and both had declined to comment. Two X-37Bs were built, and they have been sent on eight orbital missions, in total, since 2010. The Orbital Test Vehicle 8 (OTV-8) mission was launched on August 22, 2025.

X-37B in orbit photographed by ground-based telescopes？ pic.twitter.com/YPj8I4cQmZ

— 笑脸男人 (@lfx160219) November 8, 2024

China is understood to have conducted four separate orbital spaceplane missions using the same experimental vehicle since 2020. Three of those missions had concluded before Col. Patrick gave his presentation. The most recent launch occurred on February 7 of this year, and the vehicle has not yet returned, at least as far as we are aware.

On the third mission, which lasted from December 14, 2023, to September 6, 2024, the Chinese spaceplane was observed releasing multiple smaller objects into orbit. What those payloads may have been remains unknown, but they could have been released from the main payload bay, which is seen open in the on-orbit image. The bay could have opened without any subsequent release of objects on either of the two prior missions, as well.

As an aside, the spaceplane appears to have released at least one more object earlier this year in the course of its latest mission.

A secretive airbase in the northwest end of China, sporting one of the longest runways in the world at 16,400 feet, looks to be where the spaceplane has landed after missions. The facility, which has been expanded massively in recent years, is now loosely akin to America’s top-secret proving ground at Area 51, and has been the site of other advanced aviation test efforts.

DIA’s report also says that “China has two primary spaceplane models: the Shenlong and Tengyun,” but does not specify which one is seen in the image. The name Shenlong has been commonly used to refer to the spaceplane China has been experimenting with to date. Images said to show a prototype or test article of this design slung underneath an H-6 bomber for testing purposes had emerged in 2007.

The state-run China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) unveiled the Tengyun design in 2016 as part of a so-called two-stage-to-orbit system that uses a mothership aircraft flying within the atmosphere as part of the launch method rather than a traditional space launch rocket. As of 2020, CASIC was aiming for a live test of Tengyun in 2025, but it is not immediately clear whether or not that occurred.

There have been other spaceplane developments in China in recent years. This includes designs from the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) and Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) subsidiary Chengdu. The design from Chengdu is called Haolong and has been in development officially as an option for resupplying the country’s Tiangong space station.

They seem not only got a model but also a full-scale prototype.
HaoLong-1 cargo spaceplane https://t.co/VI1Yoh3sRj pic.twitter.com/Dthfd1gi1v

— CNSPACE (@CNSpaceflight) November 11, 2024

In general, “spaceplanes are … reusable and feature enhanced maneuverability, making them more suitable for certain missions than traditional satellites,” DIA’s report notes.

TWZ has highlighted in the past how reusable space shuttle-like vehicles offer ideal platforms for rapidly deploying small satellites and any other payloads into orbit. In this way, they can be critical assets for space-based experimentation, as well as operational activities. This could include intelligence gathering, and even on-orbit attacks, areas of clear interest to the Chinese government.

As we often mention in the context of the X-37B, spaceplanes also have distinct advantages when it comes to rendezvousing with and maneuvering very close to other objects in space. They can execute course changes and other maneuvers in ways that traditional satellites cannot. All of this only underscores their potential as weapon systems, as well as for gathering intelligence. The fact that a Maxar (now Vantor) satellite took an on-orbit picture – a service the company is known to offer – of a Chinese spaceplane further highlights the kind of cat-and-mouse games that are increasingly emerging in space. The general risks posed by these kinds of activities were recently thrust into the public eye by the unprecedentedly close shadowing of a commercial radar imaging satellite tied to Ukraine by another satellite belonging to Russia.

China has been making massive investments, in general, in new space-based intelligence and other capabilities in recent years. Chinese space developments have now also extended into reusable space launch rocket boosters. Space launch company LandSpace became the first in China to achieve a successful recovery of a reusable space launch rocket booster on land in August. That followed CASC’s successful recovery of a reusable space launch rocket booster at sea using a specially configured ship the month before.

In general, “access to space traditionally requires expendable spacecraft: single-use launch vehicles, satellites, and one-time use capsules designed to maximize performance. Reliance on expendable vehicles has made access to space expensive and exclusive,” DIA’s report explains. “Reusable technologies, while even more difficult and expensive to develop and build, stand to greatly reduce the cost of spaceflight by recovering, refurbishing, and reusing rocket stages, fairings, and capsules.”

Chinese spaceplanes, one of which we have not definitively gotten a view of in orbit, look set to become an increasingly important part of this growing ecosystem.

Update: 6:32 PM ET –

Vantor has now provided an additional copy of the image of the Chinese spaceplane, elements of which look to be redacted, and some additional details. The company has confirmed it was taken on May 28, 2024, by the WorldView-3 satellite at a range of just under 56 miles (90 kilometers).

“There is a separate satellite docked to the aft section of the vehicle whose structure and solar arrays are visible,” Vantor also told us. “The spacecraft’s payload bay doors are visibly open.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post U.S. Intel Confirms This Is China’s Secret Spaceplane (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

Ukraine’s 475th Separate Assault Regiment, known as CODE 9.2, says it has used the StarGate uncrewed aerial platform to evacuate two seriously wounded soldiers from the battlefield in the span of a week. Reportedly, this is the first time the specialized drone has been used for an operation of this kind. It is not, however, the first instance of Ukraine using an aerial rescue drone on the battlefield, with the more extemporized heavy hexacopter also having been used recently, as you can read about here.

Taken together, the missions underscore Ukraine’s efforts to develop alternative casualty evacuation capabilities as Russian drone threats, electronic warfare, and harsh terrain increasingly complicate conventional recovery operations, including those using uncrewed ground vehicles (UGVs).

According to CODE 9.2, on its Facebook page, the regiment’s personnel carried out two complex evacuation missions using StarGate, a platform developed and manufactured by Ukrainian company SkyFall. The two wounded servicemen were 25-year-old Yevhen, callsign “Izyum,” and 24-year-old Artem, callsign “Kolobok.” Both belonged to adjacent units and had suffered severe limb injuries while occupying positions in a so-called gray zone approximately three miles from the Russian border.

Difficult terrain, including water obstacles, and the threat posed by Russian first-person-view (FPV) drones prevented ground vehicles from reaching the casualties, the regiment said. Air evacuation was the only available option.

The missions were planned and executed by CODE 9.2 personnel with support from SkyFall. They required coordination among multiple units, additional forces and equipment, and dedicated fire support — much like a more traditional casualty evacuation effort involving crewed helicopters. Vampire heavy strike drones were employed to suppress enemy positions during the operations.

“The injury tore off half of my foot, so a lot of blood was lost already,” Izyum said in a video interview from his hospital room. “I think if that incredible little bird hadn’t flown in, well, getting out from there would have been unrealistic.”

During one of the missions, StarGate reportedly flew nearly 20 miles to reach the casualty before covering approximately the same distance on the return leg with the wounded serviceman aboard. CODE 9.2 said Russian electronic warfare systems were actively attempting to suppress satellite navigation signals in the area.

Despite the reported interference, the platform completed the mission using its onboard artificial intelligence-based navigation system, according to the regiment. The statement did not specify the navigation technologies involved.

StarGate was designed specifically for casualty evacuation, or CASEVAC, when conventional ground transportation cannot reach wounded personnel or would expose them to unacceptable risks. Its stated specifications include a payload capacity of up to 330 pounds and a maximum speed of approximately 65 miles per hour. The evacuation module is based on a covered, medical-grade stretcher.

Oleksandr Nastenko, commander of CODE 9.2, callsign “Flint,” said the regiment intends to use the experience gained from the two missions to train crews and make aerial evacuation a more established capability. The regiment also plans to set up a dedicated aerial medical evacuation unit within its medical company.

The StarGate missions follow a separate reported operation involving the 92nd Assault Brigade, which says its personnel helped evacuate a wounded soldier using a heavy-lift hexacopter drone, produced by Gurzuf Defense, with the casualty suspended beneath it, as seen in the video below:

This drone was reportedly an Audag-6 model, which is said to be capable of carrying a 200-pound payload over a distance of up to 15 miles.

In that incident, the soldier had been wounded while holding his position. Once again, aerial extraction was judged the only suitable option; in this case, due to the presence of mines and intense Russian drone activity.

This was a more improvised approach, which the brigade described as the world’s first frontline aerial drone evacuation of a wounded soldier. Compared to Stargate, the Gurzuf drone brings some drawbacks with it, including casualty stability, exposure to the elements, the risk of swinging during flight, and the difficulty of safely lifting and lowering a severely injured person. It subsequently emerged that the soldier involved, Kostiantyn Vlasenko, had been forced to amputate his own foot as part of a 491-day ordeal on a frontline position.

This was not the first time that Ukrainian forces have adapted existing drone technology to effect battlefield evacuations.

TWZ also previously reported on a Ukrainian soldier who managed to escape from the Russians that surrounded him after an electric bike was dropped to him by a large aerial drone.

As a purpose-built platform, StarGate offers a more standardized way to secure and transport casualties, and to transport them protected from the elements, in a secure, prone position. However, StarGate still faces the challenges of flying in contested airspace and navigating under electronic warfare conditions. Once again, depending on the degree of injuries, the casualty may need assistance being put on the stretcher and, regardless of the degree of medical care that can be provided, StarGate is only an option if already available in proximity to the victim.

The fact that the StarGate missions also needed strike drones for fire support underscores that casualty recovery, whatever the platform being used, typically requires coordination across multiple combat elements.

Despite the limitations, CODE 9.2’s plan to create a dedicated medical aviation element indicates it wants to move beyond one-off missions toward a repeatable capability.

As with other emerging technologies from the war in Ukraine, this is likely to be studied by other armed forces, too. The U.S. military, for example, has long looked at the potential of uncrewed aerial systems to effect casualty evacuation missions, as you can read about here.

Meanwhile, the challenges of that conflict mean that Ukrainian troops continue to explore different ways to recover wounded troops from positions that more conventional evacuation methods can no longer safely reach.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Ukraine’s StarGate Drone Now Evacuating Wounded Soldiers appeared first on TWZ.

The U.S. Air Force has handed Lockheed Martin a $694 million contract for the production of AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) hypersonic missiles. In 2023, the service had moved to cancel ARRW, which had been in line to be the U.S. military’s first operational hypersonic weapon. At the time, we had reservations about the service’s intent and speculated the missile could make a major comeback or continue development in a classified setting. The program has since made an incredible turnaround, and there are already plans for another variant that will be able to use an all-new seeker to hit moving targets, including enemy warships.

The ARRW contract was awarded on September 29, but only announced today. It is not immediately clear how many missiles are to be built under this deal or when the Air Force expects to start taking delivery of them. The Air Force has previously disclosed plans to integrate the missiles onto its B-52 and B-1 bombers. Other aircraft with sufficiently large payload capacities and physical space to carry outsized stores could potentially carry AGM-183As, or variants thereof, in the future.

“The contract was executed under the Department of War’s Enterprise-Wide Agile Acquisition Contract to modernize America’s Arsenal of Freedom,” according to an Air Force press release. “This milestone marks the formal transition of the boost-glide hypersonic missile program from prototyping and flight testing into production, solidifying the Air Force’s commitment to fielding standoff, high-speed strike options.”

As noted here, the AGM-183A is a so-called boost-glide vehicle-type hypersonic weapon, which uses a rocket booster to bring it first to an optimal speed and altitude. The nose cone on ARRW then breaks away, and a wedge-shaped unpowered boost-glide vehicle concealed within is released.

The vehicle then glides to its target along a relatively shallow flight path within the Earth’s atmosphere at hypersonic speed, defined as anything above Mach 5. It is capable of maneuvering along the way, sometimes erratically. The mix of speed, flight trajectory, and maneuverability creates significant challenges for opponents in terms of spotting and tracking the glide vehicle, let alone attempting to intercept it. As a result, hypersonic weapons of this type offer particular benefits for piercing enemy air defenses to very rapidly strike time-sensitive and otherwise high-value targets.

The ARRW production contract “is a turning point in our advanced weapons roadmap,” Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink said in a statement accompanying today’s release. “By moving ARRW from test to production, we’re providing our combatant commanders with a credible, high-speed strike weapon capable of penetrating the most advanced anti-access and area-denial systems.”

“Fielding ARRW enhances our ability to hold targets at risk anywhere around the world,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ken Wilsbach said in his own statement. “This hypersonic weapon provides the Joint Force a flexible and rapid response option for highly contested environments.”

As mentioned, the Air Force had moved to cancel ARRW in 2023, following a number of failed flight tests. The explicit intent at the time was to shift resources to the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) effort. HACM is an air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile that functions in a completely different way from ARRW. HACM is still in development, and the program has now moved into flight testing, as TWZ was first to report earlier this month.

There had already been steady signs in recent years that ARRW’s fortunes were changing and that it had not actually been axed, despite the Air Force’s stated plans to do so. The Air Force’s 2026 Fiscal Year budget request last year confirmed that the service had fully rebooted the program and was seeking new funding to procure actual missiles.

The service’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request, released earlier this year, revealed further plans “to begin [ARRW] INC 2 [Increment 2] technology efforts such as but not limited to integrating pre-planned product improvements, design, trade studies, hardware upgrades, facilitization, affordability initiatives, and testing.”

A request for $296 million would support “the design, test, and evaluation of Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) Increment 2 with terminal seeker and data link capability and other cost reduction production initiatives into ARRW,” those same documents added.

In general, the U.S. Air Force has historically framed hypersonic weapons, including ARRW and HACM, as being especially critical for success in future conflicts, especially high-end fights, such as one in the Pacific against China. This was underscored by the launch of an AGM-183A with a live warhead from a B-52 flying from Andersen Air Force Base on Guam in 2024. The future anti-ship variant could be even more relevant in a Pacific context.

As TWZ has written previously:

“…the Guam test sent clear signals to China. The Air Force has made no secret of how important it views the development and fielding of hypersonic weapons as part of larger preparations for a potential future high-end fight against the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the Pacific. This is further underscored by the fact that the mention of the ‘terminal seeker and data link capability’ for Increment 2 of ARRW is actually contained in the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI) section of the Pentagon’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request.”

“In the context of a major conflict in the Pacific, there would also be a very high demand for prompt, long-range anti-ship capability. The ability to conduct those strikes even in the face of dense anti-air defenses would be even more attractive for engaging very high-value vessels, such as China’s growing fleets of aircraft carriers or big deck amphibious assault ships. The PLA Navy’s (PLAN) combat fleets, overall, continue to grow in scale and scope at a prodigious rate, as well. This, in turn, has put additional emphasis on the development and fielding of new and improved anti-ship capabilities that can be air-launched, as well as employed from the maritime and ground domains, across the U.S. military in recent years. Increment 2 ARRWs could also offer another means to strike mobile, high-value targets on land, such as ballistic missile transporter-erector-launchers.”

“For its part, the PLA has been actively developing and fielding various types of hypersonic weapons, including boost-glide vehicle designs. Its ever-growing arsenal of traditional ballistic missiles now includes several air-launched types, including ones with nuclear and conventional warheads. The latter are widely believed to be capable of being employed against enemy ships, as well as targets on land.”

If nothing else, after moving to cancel the ARRW three years ago, the Air Force has now fully reversed course and has placed its first order for production examples of this hypersonic missile.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post USAF Orders ARRW Hypersonic Missile Into Production, The Same Weapon It Nearly Cancelled appeared first on TWZ.

As the U.S. and Israel once again mull decisions on whether to resume strikes on Iran, regional powers held an unprecedented meeting in Tehran today in an effort to find ways to stave off a further conflict. The gathering of officials from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey reportedly also addressed the ongoing war between Riyadh and the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels of Yemen. Frequent Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure are adding to strain on the global economy that relies heavily on Middle Eastern energy supplies.

“The participants agreed to continue the dialogue to strengthen cooperation amongst the four regional countries, including for peace and security in the region,” the four nations said in a joint statement after the hastily called, last-ditch meeting concluded.

The meeting was the first meeting between Iran and the other three countries since they formed a new military alliance in August called the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement. The attendance of Saudi Arabia is of particular note as Iran struck Saudi Arabia repeatedly during Operation Epic Fury and Saudi Arabia hosted U.S. forces that attacked Iran. Iran’s proxies in Yemen, the Houthis, have been pummeling the Kingdom with drones and missiles as of late, too.

Regardless, details about the conclave are sparse, with officials saying this was just the first of what is expected to be a series of such efforts.

لقطات لاجتماع حلف مكة مع الجانب الإيراني في طهران https://t.co/JutzeDbAS0 pic.twitter.com/LZVW4NYfBv

— مالك الروقي (@alrougui) October 26, 2026

“Very good discussions took place between us,” Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told Iranian state television. “I feel that a new atmosphere is emerging in the region… I sensed a very positive atmosphere in the discussions among the gentlemen.”

“We have reached an understanding with Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia that the security of the region is achieved through its countries,” Rezaei added.

#عاجل | أمين مجلس الأمن القومي الإيراني: توصلنا لتفاهم مع باكستان وتركيا والسعودية بأن أمن المنطقة يتحقق عبر دولها pic.twitter.com/ILuUTH9k2r

— قناة الجزيرة (@AJArabic) October 26, 2026

The Tehran visit was called “as part of the continued efforts by the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement countries for de-escalation between parties involved in the ongoing crisis, and promoting dialogue and diplomatic solutions, in support of the mediation efforts carried out by the State of Qatar and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” Saudi Deputy Minister for Public Diplomacy Rayed Krimly said Monday on X before the meeting began. He used an alternative English spelling of the Saudi holy city.

HRH Prince Khalid bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Minister of Defense, leads the Kingdom’s delegation to the meetings that will be held today in Tehran, capital of Iran, between Makkah Joint Defense Agreement countries and officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran, with…

— AMB Dr. Rayed Krimly (@Rayedkrimly) October 26, 2026

Both Qatar and Pakistan have been key to previous efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the U.S.-Iran conflict. The two countries helped broker a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on June 17. The MoU provided a 60-day extension of the ceasefire to iron out an agreement to end fighting throughout the region, including Lebanon, prevent Iran from seeking nuclear weapons, end U.S. sanctions, and resume the flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz among other points.

That effort soon fell apart as the U.S. and Iran resumed striking each other. It has been more than a month, however, since the two nations traded direct blows.

“The visit underscores the pivotal role of Makkah Joint Defense Agreement countries in reinforcing regional security and stability, and working with all countries in the region to achieve that goal,” Krimly added about today’s Tehran meeting.

The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement was created as a pact designed to assist the Kingdom in its fight against the Houthis. An attack on one is supposed to be considered an attack on all. However, the agreement has evolved to take on the larger issue of overall regional stability amid concerns about the individual members’ own national security interests.

The Tehran meeting was attended by high-level officials, Krimly noted. Saudi Prince Khalid bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Minister of Defense, led the Kingdom’s delegation, he stated. In addition, Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistani Chief of Army Staff, and Ibrahim Kalin, Director of the Turkish National Intelligence all met with the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian, and Rezaei.

Before the meeting, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei ⁠said the discussions on regional security would include “Israel’s expansionist policies, developments in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, and the repercussions of U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran,” according to Reuters.

Baghaei said the meeting, ​proposed during a visit by Munir to Tehran last week, could be a first step towards establishing regional security mechanisms based on the interests of countries in the region.

Baghaei:

Regional security can only be ensured through trust and cooperation among the countries of the region. pic.twitter.com/6Sxi2soMXB

— Alireza Akbari (@itsalireza_akb) October 26, 2026

Iranian officials told Munir ahead of today’s meeting that there would be no talks with Washington until Tehran’s demands were met, Reuters reported, citing Iranian media.

It is unclear at this point whether any results from this round of meetings will change whatever plans U.S. President Donald Trump is drawing up for Iran. Before the meeting began, a senior U.S. official downplayed it to us when we asked about it.

“The United States is in a very strong position with control of the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian economy collapsing,” the senior U.S. official told us in response to our question about whether the Tehran meeting will influence any decisions by Trump on his next moves toward the Islamic Republic. “Iran has been decimated, and one way or the other, the conflict in Iran will be over very soon. President Trump holds all the cards and will do whatever is best for the United States.”

The Tehran talks took place after Trump once again claimed he was at an inflection point on deciding his future approach toward Iran. On Sunday, the American leader said it’s “getting to be decision time” on whether he will make a new deal with Tehran or resume attacks as Iranian and Houthi threats against Americans in the Middle East continue to grow.

“I have a decision to make: Do I finish it off, which would be very easy to do, or do I make a deal? That’s all,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures. “We don’t play games.”

“There won’t be a strike today,” he told reporters later Sunday as he left the White House. On Friday, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack suggested the U.S. could strike Iran as early as this past weekend, but that failed to materialize.

Trump on Iran:

There will be no attack today pic.twitter.com/LbOnwCW7hL

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) October 25, 2026

Still, tensions in the region are increasing.

U.S. forces in the Middle East “are prepared to launch new, potentially major, military operations against Iran ‘within 96 hours of receiving’ an order from President Donald Trump,” CNN reported on Sunday, citing two U.S. officials.

“Sufficient forces are now deployed in the region to carry out the potential attacks,” the sources told the network. “The scope of new U.S. military operations would likely go beyond efforts to simply ‘mow the lawn’ or maintain the status quo by striking radars, launchers and other Iranian assets that can be quickly reconstituted — as has been the case since Trump halted full combat operations earlier this year.”

You can read more about how the U.S. is deploying additional Navy, Marine and Air Force assets to the Middle East in our report about that here.

Adding to U.S. concerns, on Saturday, The Wall Street Journal reported that “U.S. intelligence suggests Iranian preparations to attack Americans throughout the Middle East have reached ‘advanced stages,’ prompting a sudden exodus of personnel from embassies and military bases throughout the region.”

Jay Clayton, the director of national intelligence, “summarized that finding in a brief memo Friday to Secretary of State Marco Rubio,” the newspaper added.

“Iran has substantially increased efforts to target U.S. personnel. The lethal plotting efforts by the Iranians against U.S. citizens have reached advanced stages in both the Middle East and certain other countries,” Clayton wrote.

The U.S. in recent days also “ordered the departure of diplomats and staff from the embassy in Saudi Arabia and other countries, initially citing threats from the Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen,” the Journal noted. “The U.S. also has evacuated personnel from military bases across the region in preparation for renewed fighting, according to U.S. officials familiar with the planning.”

Trump on Sunday told reporters that there “are two very different sets of intelligence reports on Iran. I have them both. They are very different.”

Trump on Iran:

There are two very different sets of intelligence reports on Iran. I have them both.

They are very different. pic.twitter.com/iV9Gui2iQM

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 25, 2026

Israel too appears to be continuing its planning for renewed hostilities with Iran. Its previous attacks during Operation Epic Fury were carried out in close coordination with the U.S., a cooperative effort that is ongoing.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday repeated his warning that Iran or its proxies could launch an attack before the close election to disrupt the vote, citing intelligence.

“The (military) is ready both to defend and to strike,” he said in a video statement. “You will suffer disproportionate blows far greater than you can imagine.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Sunday that Iran and its regional allies could launch attacks intended to disrupt Israel's October 27 election, declaring that the Israeli military is prepared for both defensive and offensive operations.

Speaking in front…

— The Tectonic (@thetect0nic) October 25, 2026

In addition, Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir “clashed over a military action that could renew the conflict with Iran days before Israel’s elections,” according to the Jerusalem Post. 

“Recently, Zamir received a directive from the political echelon to carry out an action, which security officials told N12 would ‘trigger a rapid escalation into a confrontation with Iran,’” the newspaper added. “Due to the sensitive nature of the action, N12 reported that Zamir requested an in-depth discussion and formal authorization before moving forward with the action.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz disputed those reports.

“I state unequivocally that there was no intention on Israel’s part to initiate an attack on Iran before the elections in Israel—when we made clear that if Iran attacks Israel, we will respond with great force, and all reports on the matter are entirely false,” Katz stated on X. “The attempt by opposition figures to exploit these reports to attack the Prime Minister and me and to cast doubt on our judgment—at a time when we are prevented for understandable reasons from addressing the details of the Iranian issue—is shameful and irresponsible. We will overcome this too.”

הפרסומים על פערים בין הדרג המדיני לצה"ל בנושא איראן הם מופרכים ושקריים לחלוטין.

מאז כניסתי לתפקיד שר הביטחון התיאום בין רה"מ וביני לבין צה"ל בנושא איראן הוא מלא – עם הישגים היסטוריים חסרי תקדים לטובת ביטחון מדינת ישראל.

זהו השיקול היחיד – וכך יהיה גם בעתיד.

אני קובע באופן חד…

— ישראל כ”ץ Israel Katz (@Israel_katz) October 26, 2026

Last Monday, in a phone call with Trump recorded live on Monday and posted on his X account, Netanyahu suggested future operations against Iran.

“Donald, we have a job to finish [in Iran]…and we’ll finish it together,” the Israeli leader told Trump. “We’ll finish it, and no one else will do it.”

That post appears to have been since been deleted.

Actions by both Trump and Netanyahu are taking place against a backdrop of heated domestic politics in their respective countries.

With continued Republican control of Congress on the line, the Nov. 3 midterm elections are a huge factor in Trump’s plans. The president has previously said the war with Iran would end “immediately after the election” and has reportedly told aides he expects to resume strikes on the Islamic Republic after the midterms. Domestic U.S. polls show the ongoing conflict continues to be deeply unpopular with voters, who are also eager to see it concluded.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu faces a vote on his future tomorrow in a nationwide parliamentary election, and there are concerns, as we noted last Friday, that the Israeli leader could use a new conflict with Iran to bolster his hold on office. Given the fractious nature of Israeli politics, election results will not necessarily immediately determine who Israel’s next prime minister will be.

“Coalition negotiations can take weeks or even months as parties attempt to reach agreements on who will govern and under what terms,” The National noted. “Israel has a history of political deadlock. Between 2019 and 2022, the country held five elections as parties repeatedly struggled to form stable governments.”

Iran isn’t just threatening the U.S. and Israel.

“Following the intensification of Berlin’s anti-Iranian stance, Tehran has warned of the consequences should Germany directly enter the military conflict, emphasizing that facilities and military installations associated with Germany in the region could become targets within the scope of Iran’s legitimate defense,” the semi-official Iranian Fars News Agency reported on Sunday.

BIG: Iran has warned Germany that all German military bases and facilities across the region will be considered legitimate targets if Berlin openly joins military action against Iran.

Source: Iran’s Fars, citing information obtained by its security and defense correspondent

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 25, 2026

As mentioned earlier in this story, officials meeting in Tehran also addressed the ongoing fighting between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia and its proxies in Yemen.

“The urgency of the initiative was underscored by fresh explosions in Riyadh overnight and warnings of a hostile aerial threat, as the Houthis claimed another attack on the Saudi capital’s international airport,” Gulf News reported. In addition, the Houthis are expanding their attacks on oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, including a recent strike near the Shaybah oilfield. Combined with a spike in Iranian attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the Houthi strikes on Saudi oil interests have sent the price of Brent crude rising. However, the Tehran talks may be tempering things. According to OilPrice.com, the per-barrel price of Brent crude was over $115 as of Monday evening, a slight drop from Friday, when it was more than $117.

With the issue of oil flow in mind, Adm. Brad Cooper, the commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), visited the Strait of Hormuz on Oct. 25 as U.S. forces reached “the milestone of assisting Gulf partners in exporting more than 1.5 billion barrels of crude oil since summer,” Cooper said.

Cooper “observed the current operational environment while flying in a U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook over the international waterway,” according to a CENTCOM post on X. “More than 3,000 commercial vessels have successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz with support from CENTCOM forces over the last six months.”

“We continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Gulf partners and the shipping industry,” said Cooper. “This visit underscores our strong commitment to continued freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.”

CENTCOM added that “American forces successfully cleared the strait’s international shipping lanes of sea mines laid by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).”

“Today, primary transit routes in the Strait of Hormuz remain free and clear of Iranian sea mines thanks to incredible efforts by our people,” said Cooper. “We remain intensely focused on keeping commercial traffic flowing as we work with our teammates in the U.S. interagency, Gulf Cooperation Council, and shipping industry.”

In recent months, “over 95% of ships navigating the Strait of Hormuz have sailed through safely despite the IRGC’s unwarranted aggression, clearly demonstrating that the United States and regional partners control the international waterway,” CENTCOM claimed. TWZ cannot independently verify this.

That the four-way meetings between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey will continue to seek a peaceful way forward is a positive sign. Still, how much, if at all, this effort changes the threat picture are open questions and the answers will be provided by Washington, Jerusalem and Tehran in the coming days and weeks.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Last-Ditch Meeting In Iran Seeks To Stave-Off A Restart Of All-Out Fighting In The Region appeared first on TWZ.

The Pentagon is reportedly aiming for U.S. military installations to be able to continue essential operations for at least 90 days, or roughly three months, without any external support. The installation of new small nuclear reactors and other infrastructure is key to this part of a larger plan called Fortress America. The main intent is to ensure America’s armed forces can remain functional and ready to protect the homeland in the face of any massive disruptions to power grids and other supply chains due to major conflicts or other crises. For years, TWZ has been sounding the alarm about the glaring vulnerabilities of America’s critical civilian energy infrastructure, including to drone swarms and cyberattacks, which could cripple key military capabilities right where they live.

Fox News was first to report on the 90-day base resiliency goal yesterday, citing documents it said it reviewed. This is part of the extremely wide-reaching Fortress America initiative the Pentagon announced last month, which covers everything from improved physical and cyber defenses at facilities to securing reliable access to critical defense industrial resources. The “Fortress” in Fortress America is technically an acronym that stands for Federal Operations for Resilience, Troop Resources, Energy Supply, and Survivability.

Today, at Secretary Hegseth’s direction, the Department of War is announcing FORTRESS America—a national insurance policy for the American homeland.

Every major military installation in America will generate its own power.

We are bringing our critical supply chains home.

We… https://t.co/2kMQtw2r81 pic.twitter.com/Ptu8VQ5pv3

— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellASW) September 30, 2026

“Under FORTRESS, every major military installation in the continental United States would be expected to sustain essential operations independently for at least 90 days, including access to electricity, water, fuel and communications,” according to Fox.

Fox News’ story also includes comments about Fortress America from Pentagon chief spokesperson Sean Parnell, but it is unclear if he explicitly confirmed the 90-day target. TWZ has reached out for more information.

Parnell did put particular emphasis on the importance of reducing reliance on civilian power generation as part of the larger Fortress America plan. Previous reports have said that Parnell was key to formulating this initiative. He has also been discussed as a potential frontrunner to become the next Secretary of the Army.

“Power is combat now. Without electricity, you lose communications, water, logistics, assembly lines and just basic military command structures,” Parnell told Fox. “We don’t want to rely on standard civilian municipal infrastructure to run our national defense. We just simply can’t. It’s an intolerable risk.”

It should be pointed out here that some U.S. military bases do have their own power plants now, but this is not something that is far from universal across the board.

Secretary Pete Hegseth made similar comments when he first unveiled the Fortress America initiative during a speech to service members at the U.S. Marine Corps’ base in Quantico, Virginia, in September.

“We are launching Fortress America, a national insurance policy for the American homeland,” Hegseth said at that time. “Every major military installation in America is going to generate its own power, independent of the civilian grid. If an adversary takes down the grid by cyber attack, by sabotage, or by any means, our bases stay lit, our aircraft keep flying, our command centers never go dark.”

Fox News’ report says that “portable nuclear reactors,” as well as “large-scale battery storage and microgrids capable of disconnecting military installations from the civilian electrical grid,” are key elements of the plan to achieve this independence when it comes to generating electricity.

The U.S. military, in cooperation with the Department of Energy, has already been heavily investing in the development and installation of so-called microreactors at bases across the country. In August, the U.S. Army, in partnership with the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), notably cut new deals with five companies as part of a plan to install more than 20 microreactors at bases, starting in 2028. This effort, called the Janus program, is not limited to Army installations.

The video below offers an overview of one of several microreactor designs the U.S. military is currently pursuing.

Establishing new microgrids and other supporting energy infrastructure has also been an important focus for the U.S. military in recent years.

Details about how bases are expecting to maintain supplies of water and fuel, as well as communications connectivity, for 90 days or more are, as yet, still not entirely clear. All branches of the U.S. military have already been exploring new and novel options for ensuring the availability of water and fuel in future contingencies, though generally with more of an eye toward tactical operations. Relevant developments, including the possibility of using a process called carbon transformation to turn ambient air into fuel, could easily be applicable in a homeland defense scenario.

Fox News’ story also makes no mention of how sufficient food for personnel at these facilities would be sustained, but that would have to be part of the equation. In his remarks in September, Secretary Hegseth also made clear that making sure supply chains delivering munitions, medicine, and even blood would be unbroken in any future crisis was part of the Fortress America vision. As already mentioned, the initiative also extends much more broadly into matters of physical force protection, cyber defense, and the resilience of America’s defense industrial base.

“For decades, we built the most powerful military in the world,” Hegseth said at Quantico. Then we “regrettably made it dependent on foreign mines for rare earths, on overseas factories for microchips, on foreign supply chains for weapons, and on a civilian power grid to keep the lights on at our bases.”

“We’re bringing our critical supply chains home: the rare earths, the specialty metals, the semiconductors, the propellants, mined in America, refined in America, built in America by American workers,” he added at the time. “We are building long-overdue strategic reserves, deep enough to fight through disruption.”

More specific details about how the Pentagon now intends to pursue these aims have yet to be more fully defined.

“The Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment is directed to stand up the FORTRESS America Program Office within thirty (30) days,” according to a memo dated September 30, which was released after Hegseth’s September speech. “The Program Office shall report directly to the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment who will appoint a member of the Senior Executive Service to lead the day-to-day operations, assisted by a two-star Military Advisor, and shall begin as a lean core cell that scales to full operating capability within months – delivering results in weeks, not years.”

There is also a question of how much of the Fortress America initiative will actually be new. As mentioned, just when it comes to increased energy resiliency, including through the installation of new microreactors, this is something that has already been top of mind for the U.S. military for years now. In 2022, the U.S. Army had a publicly stated goal for every one of its bases to have its own microgrid by 2035 as part of a larger plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. In 2024, the Department of the Air Force rolled out its own Installation Infrastructure Action Plan (I2AP) that included a target to have new microgrids in place at 16 bases by Fiscal Year 2030. In May, the U.S. Navy announced plans to demonstrate the ability of the supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford to act as a floating nuclear power plant as part of broader “energy resilience and mission assurance” plans.

The U.S. military has also already been heavily engaged in efforts to secure access to critical resources, especially rare Earth elements in light of China’s continued dominance in that market globally, and otherwise expand America’s domestic defense industrial base. Physical hardening of bases, especially against emerging drone threats, has been more of a heated debate, as TWZ has been following closely for some time now. However, even before Fortress America was unveiled last month, there had been signs that institutional attitudes were shifting.

“The [Fortress America] program aligns basing and infrastructure projects to ensure they are collectively advancing toward greater independence,” the aforementioned September 30 memo itself notes.

There are additional questions to be answered as to how the U.S. military expects to fund its expansive Fortress America ambitions and the schedules for implementing them. This will all be heavily influenced by how much the initiative leverages efforts that were already ongoing. At the same time, concerns about underinvestment in infrastructure modernization, in general, across America’s armed forces, and the worrisome cascading impacts thereof, are hardly new.

There are still key elements of the Fortress America initiative that have yet to be fully proven out. This is particularly visible when it comes to microreactors, which hold the promise of being simpler and safer to build and operate compared to traditional nuclear power plants. Despite significant progress with this technology just in recent years, environmental, proliferation, and other concerns continue to be raised. You can read more about all of this here.

Today, the Department of War will execute Operation Windlord, the first C-17 airlift of a nuclear reactor, in partnership with the Department of Energy and Valar Atomics.

Three C-17s Globemasters carrying the 8 modules of the Ward250 reactor will fly from March ARB to Hill AFB. pic.twitter.com/uIL7LMxACQ

— Isaiah Taylor – making nuclear reactors (@isaiah_p_taylor) February 15, 2026

On top of all this, it should be noted here that the U.S. military and the rest of the U.S. government already have mechanisms in place to ensure key functions can continue, even in the midst of the gravest of crises, such as a limited nuclear attack. This is known as continuity of government planning, and includes a network of hardened and otherwise resilient facilities designed to support continued military operations and other activities in those ‘doomsday’ scenarios. But these facilities are few in number and focus on strategic capabilities compared to what the Fortress America plan envisions.

At the same time, the dangers posed to civilian power grids in the United States, in particular, are only growing in scale and scope, both in the physical and cyber domains. Existing domestic U.S. energy infrastructure is aging and has been increasingly strained to meet routine day-to-day demands for decades now.

The potential for uncrewed aerial attacks on power plants and power lines has been real for years. The basic barrier to entry when it comes to weaponized drones, including converted commercial types, is also already low. Drone threats, broadly speaking, are only set to expand as swarming technology and artificial intelligence-driven capabilities continue to proliferate, as you can read more about in this past TWZ feature. A well-informed enemy could concentrate a small number of resources on highly critical points in the grid to have vastly outsized effects, using drones or any other kinetic means.

The threat of various types of cyberattacks is also no longer limited to blockbuster movies and other popular media. This was made clear all the way back in 2021 with the ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline, a key American oil pipeline system, and has only become more evident since then, including in the course of the war in Ukraine. U.S. authorities have run major exercises to help prepare for exactly these kinds of threats in the past. These are also capabilities where the barrier to entry has been steadily lowering over the years. Increasingly open access to powerful artificial intelligence agents with the ability to overwhelm networks and software to find critical vulnerabilities faster than humans can react is perhaps the most concerning layer of risk.

We have been reporting on this coming together for some time, it’s incredibly important. More so than a new fighter or an additional destroyer every couple years. Absolutely critical, and becoming more so with each passing day. Yes it’s scary, but it’s far scarier not doing this https://t.co/u09x0PeHZ7

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) October 25, 2026

If a major conflict with a global competitor like China were to break out, physical and cyberattacks on energy infrastructure would be an extremely attractive avenue to hobble U.S. military forces, including airpower, before they can even leave their bases. The capacity to threaten grids in the United States, at least to certain degrees, has become worryingly within reach of smaller nation-states, as well as non-state actors and even lone wolf attackers, too. Firmly attributing cyberattacks to a nation-state, at all, can be challenging.

There is also a secondary component to all of this for responding to major natural disasters, which are another way U.S. grids can end up being knocked out for extended periods of time. These same circumstances could easily leave military bases, as well as their surrounding communities, without access to fresh water and other supplies. The U.S. military routinely plays a key role in responding to such crises.

“This is not a wait-and-see kind of a thing. We want to move out pretty quickly to get to that energy [resilience]. Those solutions can include investments in microgrids, battery backup storage,” a senior U.S. defense official said last week at a Defense Writers Group roundtable, according to a separate report from Air & Space Forces Magazine. “First and foremost, it’s doing the assessments of the installations to make sure we understand power generation and where we’re going to go with that, and then getting those deployed.”

The Pentagon is certainly making a new push now to make sure that, as Secretary Hegseth put it last month, “America cannot be starved out, shut down, or cut off.” However, there is clearly still work to be done to meet a goal of bases being able to go three months without outside help and the many other aims of the Fortress America plan.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post 90 Days No Help: Fortress America’s Goal To Make Bases Resilient Bastions In A Crisis appeared first on TWZ.

No single Argentine capability shaped British planning during the 1982 South Atlantic conflict more than the pairing of the Dassault Super Étendard strike fighter and its deadly AM39 Exocet anti-ship missile. Against that threat, the British launched a series of special forces operations, all with the same objective: kill the Argentine pilots and destroy their aircraft and missiles before they could be used again. Together, the strike fighter and missile pairing had proven to be the biggest threat to the Royal Navy task force that had been sent to recapture the islands.

Five Super Étendard aircraft and five AM39 Exocet missiles had been delivered to Argentina before a French embargo took hold. The jets were flown by the Argentine Navy’s 2nd Naval Fighter and Attack Squadron out of Río Grande, on Tierra del Fuego, a region at South America’s southernmost tip, shared by Chile and Argentina. The Super Étendard/Exocet combination had already cost the British the destroyer HMS Sheffield on May 4 and the container ship Atlantic Conveyor on May 25.

The special forces operations were broken down into four phases — named PLUM DUFF, MIKADO, KETTLEDRUM, and IMPI — the last of which is the least well-documented, and the focus of this article.

PLUM DUFF was the insertion phase and was a reconnaissance mission. On May 16, an RAF Hercules airdropped eight special forces troops onto RFA Fort Austin to form a recce party. On the night of May 17/18, a Sea King HC4, ZA290, lifted off from the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible for a one-way flight to Tierra del Fuego, where the men were to observe Río Grande and report back. The patrol was set down far from the objective and never completed the reconnaissance; the helicopter crew flew on into Chile, where the aircraft was deliberately burnt to try and hide the evidence, while they tried to evade capture.

MIKADO was the planned attack phase, and it depended on that missing intelligence. Two Hercules were to air-land up to 70 men of B Squadron, 22 Special Air Service (SAS), directly on Río Grande — the air operation order of May 19 also named Río Gallegos, further up the Argentine coast, as an alternative. The men would destroy the Super Étendards and their Exocets on the ground, kill the pilots, and then withdraw overland into Chile. Commander Task Force 317, at Northwood, accepted from the outset that the mission could well cost both Hercules.

The aircrew did not refuse the task, but they were blunt about what it demanded: formation landing by two heavy transports on a possibly heavily defended, icy military runway, with a probable 20-knot tailwind, at night and on passive night-vision goggles in minimum light levels, with intelligence that was inadequate to support any air-land option at all. The RAF planning team recommended an airdrop as the better way to maintain a covert posture, and the Senior Air Staff Officer at Headquarters 38 Group warned the Air Commander to watch for overambitious schemes coming out of the SAS.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense formally cancelled MIKADO on June 4.

KETTLEDRUM was planned as the third of the set. It was aimed at Puerto Deseado, Santa Cruz Province of Argentina, and would have inserted a Special Boat Service party (SBS, the Royal Marines’ special forces unit) from the submarine HMS Onyx — a boat that will reappear before the end of this story.

None of the three was executed as planned.

Less well-known is that the cancellation of MIKADO produced a fourth project: Operation IMPI, named after a Zulu fighting force.

Cancelling MIKADO did not mean the wider operation was over. Also on June 4, the U.K. Ministry of Defense tasked CTF 317 to produce a new plan for special forces to destroy the combat effectiveness of the Super Étendards.

CTF 317’s staff went to work on what became IMPI. The planning document, Ops 1/3, is dated June 14 — the day of the Argentine surrender in the islands. In broad terms, the objective was to be attacked by special forces arriving both by air and by sea.

That much has been known, in fragments.

What has not been published until now is the fact that the operation had already been resourced.

At 2240Z on June 12, Maj. Gen. Jeremy Moore, commanding the land forces as CTG 317.1, signalled Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward’s battle group (CTG 317.8), with Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse at Northwood (CTF 317) and Commodore Michael Clapp’s amphibious group (CTG 317.0) as information addressees. The message called for B Squadron, 22 SAS, to be made available for operations as soon as possible: cover was needed against rapid developments of an unfavorable nature in West Falkland (Gran Malvina), and the theatre’s existing special forces assets were fully absorbed supporting the battle for Stanley — and IMPI. Operation IMPI, Moore noted in passing, was by then self-sufficient.

Examining two lines of routine signal traffic settles several things at once. Forty-eight hours before the surrender, IMPI was not a staff study but an operation that had been resourced, and that was enough to consume the theatre’s special forces and justify calling a fresh SAS squadron forward. It is also the only contemporary, operational-level reference to IMPI released so far: everything else comes from a narrative written years afterwards.

As that later narrative describes it, the concept behind IMPI was much leaner than MIKADO. Against two Hercules and 70 men, the air element of IMPI rested on a single RAF Hercules.

The aircraft was to fly from Ascension Island, refuel in flight, and then track east of the Falkland Islands and south of Cape Horn before making a low-level approach below Argentine radar cover for a night landing of special forces at the airfields codenamed San Jose and Arco Iris. Other special forces would have been inserted by sea. That air element, as will be seen, is the most questionable part of the entire file.

The routing is worth attention, because it rules out the intuitive picture of a direct run south from Ascension. Instead, the aircraft would have entered from the least-covered and least-expected direction, coming around the bottom of the continent rather than from the northeast.

The precise identities of San Jose and Arco Iris are not established in the declassified record.

The most likely reading is that they stand for Río Grande and Río Gallegos — the airfields at which the planned navigation ended, and the two named in MIKADO’s air operation order a month earlier. For a document circulating through restricted channels, encrypting the names of the two targets was an elementary precaution, although it should be noted that an operational order would more commonly have designated them simply as Target One and Target Two.

None of this rules out Chilean participation in other phases of the operation; if anything, it suggests it’s more likely. The narrative survives inside a folder classified Top Secret and restricted to the Chief of the Air Staff, whose declared subject is cooperation with Chile. That setting contrasts with the earlier stage of the planning, when mounting and recovering a special forces insertion from a Chilean airfield was considered and expressly discounted on political grounds — much as the use of an Antarctic strip was discounted after the New Zealand High Commission advised that the Antarctic winter precluded safe trans-polar flight.

The maritime half of IMPI can be traced in the records of those who were there.

Navigational support for the final phase was to come from the nuclear attack submarine HMS Conqueror. On June 9, 1982, Conqueror was off Bahía Camarones, working as an advanced picket and hunting targets of opportunity that ventured outside the 12-nautical-mile limit of Argentine territorial waters, with authority to sink any civilian vessel judged to be running to the Falklands/Malvinas; that same morning the sub had in fact entered Argentine territorial waters trying to locate the Argentine Navy’s Task Group 79.2.

That day, Conqueror received preparatory information on IMPI. The sub’s task was to come to periscope depth and act as a radio beacon, giving the Hercules a radio reference against which to refine a navigation that, low and at night, allowed no error. The resulting picture is an odd one: a nuclear submarine deployed on interdiction off the Patagonian coast, turned into a navigation aid for a transport aircraft.

The insertion itself fell to HMS Onyx, the Oberon class diesel-electric boat that had already taken part in Operation KETTLEDRUM and the only conventional submarine Britain deployed to the South Atlantic. On June 14, at 0815Z, lying in San Carlos Water, Onyx embarked a party of 10 men from B Squadron, 22 SAS and the SBS for the mission. The timing matches Moore’s signal of two days earlier almost exactly.

The plan called for the submarine to surface some two nautical miles offshore at night. The troops would close the beach in Gemini inflatables and destroy the objective — aircraft and missiles, if any were there — using anti-tank weapons and demolition charges.

What happened next illustrates the inertia of military machinery. The Argentine surrender in the islands came on that same June 14, hours after the party had gone aboard Onyx. Even so, preparations did not stop at once: on June 15 the embarked troops carried out practice landings from a Gemini. That does not mean IMPI was ever executed — it was not — but it does show that with the strategic outcome already settled, the machine was still rehearsing.

The British record closes the matter with administrative dryness: the surrender of the Argentine forces in the Falkland Islands and the cessation of hostile activity by Argentine aircraft resulted in the operation being cancelled.

The air part of the mission is another matter entirely and is where IMPI becomes more uncertain.

The only link between IMPI and an aircraft is a single paragraph in an RAF historical narrative. The folder that holds it was opened on April 18, 1986 — four years after the war — as an eyes-only briefing file for the Chief of the Air Staff, and the pages appear to be a working draft rather than a finished submission, carrying pencil amendments throughout.

Had a Hercules been earmarked, there is no doubt which unit would have provided it. The Special Forces Flight that runs through the whole chapter — five crews, commanded by a squadron leader, exercising regularly with SAS and SBS Sections — appears with its squadron number blanked out, yet the number surfaces a few paragraphs later, where two of its crews are described training on the probe-fitted Hercules C1P. The unit was No. 47 Squadron, RAF, home-based at Lyneham, and it would keep the special forces air support role for decades afterward.

The men who were at Ascension with that detachment, however, say they had nothing to do with it. Reliable sources with direct knowledge of the flight’s activity state that they never saw the codeword at the time, had never heard of the operation until this file surfaced, and consider it inconceivable that a special forces Hercules and crew could have been earmarked for a mission of this kind without the flight — a community of five crews that has stayed in touch ever since — learning of it at some point in the intervening four decades. By June 14, at most one aerial-refueling-qualified special forces crew was at Wideawake.

That skepticism is reinforced by the way the same narrative handles events those crews lived through. Its account of their own work-up does not survive contact with their logbooks.

For example, a practice infiltration into RAF Laarbruch in Germany that the narrative describes as successful had in fact been detected; the Hercules was notionally shot down about two miles out on the approach. The ramp toes (attachable extension plates located at the very end of the rear cargo ramp) it describes as droppable at 20 to 30 knots were never meant to be lowered with the aircraft moving, which would have been unsafe and risked the airframe. There are other anomalies, too.

A document that misstates the squadron’s own exercises is thin evidence on which to place that squadron over Tierra del Fuego.

What is not in question is what the Special Forces Flight could have done, had it been asked.

By mid-May the flight had two crews qualified in air-to-air refueling — one deployed to Ascension, the other held in the United Kingdom to train the others — flying Hercules C1s fitted with probes and, where the task required it, additional fuel tanks in the fuselage. It had rehearsed stream landings and rapid offloads, parachute insertion below radar cover to a pinpoint coastal feature, as well as flying on ANVIS goggles at 250 feet over sea and land. The goggles themselves were fitted to the crews’ helmets by RAE Farnborough specialists in a single day in mid-April. The reach was demonstrated on May 16, when the sortie that dropped the PLUM DUFF party stayed airborne for 24 hours and five minutes, with Victor tankers refueling some 1,800 miles from Ascension. Almost none of it was routine: nearly everything the force did during the conflict was improvised, at speed, in a matter of weeks.

What never had an answer — not for MIKADO, and not for whatever IMPI intended — was the other end of the problem. Putting men ashore deep inside Argentine territory was the solvable half. Getting an aircraft and its passengers out again after a direct action, from a strip in range of the Argentine Air Force, was not.

All of the above is reconstructed from lateral references: the RAF’s narrative in file AIR 20/13036 at the National Archives, unit records, submarine logs, operational signal traffic, and the accounts of participants.

The specific file — the one holding the complete plan with its annexes, the identification of the airfields and the execution sequence — remains closed. It is DEFE 71/980, titled Operation Corporate (Falklands Conflict): Operation IMPI, retained at the National Archives at Kew with no announced opening date. Until it is released, the air element of IMPI cannot be settled either way.

Forty-four years after the conflict, the last British special operation of the war is still, in essence, a document the British state is not prepared to show. That is not a trivial detail: the files touching on cooperation with Chile have consistently been the most reluctantly opened of all.

What remains is an operation of two halves. One of them is solid: a resourced plan, declared self-sufficient on June 12, with a nuclear submarine briefed to act as a beacon, 10 men of the SAS and the SBS embarked in a conventional submarine in San Carlos on the morning of the surrender, and rehearsals continuing the following day. The other half — a lone Hercules coming round Cape Horn to land on a codenamed strip — rests on one paragraph of a flawed staff narrative and is rejected by the only men who could have flown it.

Either way, the obsession is the same.

Between June 4 and June 14, 1982, while the final battle for Port Stanley/Puerto Argentino was being fought and the Argentine land campaign was collapsing, part of the British planning effort was still revolving around five French-built aircraft, their 10 aircrew, and their missiles. That the plan carries the date of the surrender itself, that it was still being rehearsed the following day, and that it remains classified today says a good deal about how far the British were prepared to go to destroy the Super Étendards and their Exocets.

Contact the editor: thomas@thewarzone.com

Mariano Sciaroni holds a master’s degree in Strategy and Geopolitics as well as a postgraduate diploma in Contemporary Military History, both earned at the Argentine Army’s Military Academy. Sciaroni has published five books and numerous articles on military and naval history. He is also an active member of the Argentine Institute of Military History and serves as a sub-lieutenant in the Argentine Army Reserve (Army Aviation Reserve Squadron). You can find out more about his books here.

The post Britain’s Final Plan To Kill Argentina’s Super Étendards Attack Jets appeared first on TWZ.

British defense contractor Babcock has confirmed that it is putting itself forward for the U.S. Navy’s future frigate program, with its Arrowhead 140 general-purpose frigate, the design behind the Royal Navy’s Type 31 class, expected to form the basis of its proposal. The move adds another foreign-designed warship to Washington’s search for a relatively mature frigate that can be built quickly and in significant numbers.

Babcock has held preliminary discussions with Pentagon officials and is expected to submit an expression of interest before the end of October, according to recent reporting by The Telegraph and Navy Lookout. The proposal is understood to potentially involve Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), America’s largest military shipbuilder, with the two companies exploring an arrangement that could see the Arrowhead 140 built in the United States under license.

“Of course we’re interested. We have a world-class frigate, close links to the U.S. and U.S. industry. It would be insane for us not to respond,” Sir Nick Hine, head of Babcock’s marine business and a former Second Sea Lord, told The Telegraph.

The initiative comes as the U.S. Navy seeks to accelerate the acquisition of smaller surface combatants after the troubled Constellation class frigate program was axed. Japan’s upgraded Mogami class, South Korea’s Chungnam class, and Turkey’s Istanbul class have also been reported as candidates for the Navy’s international frigate effort. You can read more about all three designs here.

Fincantieri Marine Group, which had developed the cancelled Constellation class frigate for the U.S. Navy, also says it sees a possible new opportunity in the service’s latest frigate plans. 

Meanwhile, German defense contractor Rheinmetall, a newcomer to the surface combatant market, recently unveiled its GMF 140 frigate, which it has said it plans to offer “initially as part of a procurement project in North America” before pursuing opportunities with other allied navies.

For Babcock, the opportunity would be a major expansion of its relationship with the U.S. defense industry. If successful, the company would likely provide the design, engineering expertise, and potentially the intellectual property needed for American shipyards to manufacture the frigates.

This would mirror the process for the Polish Navy’s Project 106 Miecznik (Swordfish) class, which is building three new multirole frigates in Poland, rather than using the company’s own facilities in Britain.

The Navy’s assessment of potential options is due by November 12. No contract has been awarded, and the details of any Babcock-HII proposal remain unconfirmed.

The Arrowhead 140 is the foundation of the Royal Navy’s five-ship Type 31 program, which is being built at Babcock’s Rosyth shipyard in Scotland. The design is derived from the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class frigate. As well as Poland, the warship has also been selected for Indonesia.

The Arrowhead 140 has a baseline length of approximately 455 feet, a beam of 65 feet, and a displacement of around 5,700 tonnes, although national variants may be considerably heavier. The vessel uses a conventional combined diesel-and-diesel (CODAD) propulsion system and can achieve speeds exceeding 28 knots. Its design emphasizes long endurance, with a baseline endurance of approximately one to two months. The AH140 incorporates a flight deck and hangar for naval helicopter operations, accommodation for embarked personnel, boat-handling facilities, and adaptable mission spaces. Its modular architecture allows customers to integrate different sensors, combat management systems, electronic warfare equipment, and weapons according to national requirements.

Taking the Polish Navy’s Project 106 class as an example of an Arrowhead 140 iteration, this is a notably heavily armed adaptation, featuring a 76mm Leonardo Strales main gun, a 32-cell Mk 41 vertical launch system for surface-to-air missiles, eight Naval Strike Missiles for anti-ship strike, and lightweight torpedo launchers. The Polish variant is reported to have a maximum displacement of approximately 7,700 tonnes.

The Type 31 is a general-purpose warship capable of undertaking maritime security, escort, and surface warfare missions. Its relatively large hull offers considerable internal volume for weapons, sensors, aviation facilities, and future upgrades.

That could make it attractive to a U.S. Navy looking for a ship able to protect convoys, operate independently, and supplement its larger destroyers. A frigate with a significantly lower operating cost than an Arleigh Burke class destroyer could still take on a range of missions, freeing more capable combatants for broad area air and missile air defense, sustained strike operations, and other more demanding tasks.

The Arrowhead 140’s size could also provide flexibility in accommodating American weapons and combat systems. However, a U.S. version would require a defined configuration, and there is no publicly established weapons fit for a potential American variant.

At the same time, the Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigate has not yet entered operational service, and its baseline configuration is not optimized for every mission the U.S. Navy may require. In particular, the integration of the sonar and other systems needed for sustained anti-submarine warfare would be a significant undertaking.

The Navy will also have to wrestle with how much of the existing design can be retained while meeting its own requirements. One of the major lessons from the Constellation program was that extensive modifications to an existing foreign design can create huge cost and schedule risks. With so little left of the original design after it was adapted to Navy specifications, this eventually doomed the program.

For Babcock, it will be essential to keep the Arrowhead 140 as close as possible to its established configuration, while integrating essential American equipment, to keep the proposal competitive.

Babcock does not operate a shipyard in the United States, making an American industrial partner central to its approach.

HII, which operates major shipbuilding facilities at Newport News and Ingalls, would offer substantial experience constructing warships for the U.S. Navy. Babcock and HII already have an established relationship in the submarine sector, including work supporting the Virginia class attack submarine program.

Babcock’s facilities in Rosyth and Bristol manufacture tactical missile-tube assemblies for General Dynamics Electric Boat, supporting the Common Missile Compartment used by the U.S. Navy’s Columbia class and the Royal Navy’s Dreadnought class ballistic missile submarines. HII has also expanded its relationship with Babcock through work involving Virginia class submarine components.

Those existing industrial relationships could provide a foundation for a surface-ship partnership. Under a potential arrangement, Babcock could transfer the necessary design rights and provide technical support while an American yard undertakes construction.

Such an arrangement would fit the Trump administration’s stated goal of using allied expertise to accelerate warship production while rebuilding domestic shipbuilding capacity. It would also allow Babcock to pursue a potentially significant U.S. order without requiring Rosyth to absorb a large new construction program alongside its Royal Navy commitments.

The prospect of HII supporting more than one design raises questions about production capacity, program priorities, and how the company would manage competing demands on its shipyards.

More generally, the administration’s interest in foreign frigates reflects growing concern about the time and expense involved in developing new American warships.

The Constellation class program was supposed to provide a modern replacement for the Navy’s retired Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates. Based on the European FREMM design, it underwent extensive modifications for American service before suffering serious schedule and cost problems. The Navy subsequently abandoned the program.

The service is now pursuing FF(X), a patrol frigate intended to be easier to build and field. Its initial configuration, however, is not expected to include a vertical launch system, limiting its ability to provide some of the capabilities associated with a more heavily armed multi-mission combatant.

HII is building the FF(X) frigate, based on the Coast Guard’s Legend class National Security Cutter. It is somewhat telling that they would partner with Babcock on the foreign frigate offering considering they already have the FF(X) contract.

The international frigate effort is intended to examine whether a ship based on an existing allied design could provide a different balance of capability, cost, and delivery speed.

An August presidential memorandum opened a route for the Navy to consider allied designs and, under limited circumstances, overseas construction through a national security waiver. The approach has been compared with a model in which an initial small number of ships could be constructed abroad before production moves to U.S. yards.

The reported framework limits overseas construction to no more than two ships and ties it to investment in American shipbuilding. Any eventual Babcock proposal would therefore need to demonstrate how the design could be transferred and produced domestically at the required pace.

That could be a big challenge. Babcock’s own Type 31 production line is already committed to the five ships ordered by the Royal Navy, while setting up an American production line would require workforce training, supply-chain development, and the transfer of manufacturing knowledge.

HMS Bulldog has officially entered build.

The ceremonial Steel Cut for our fourth Type 31 frigate marks another major step forward for our programme, joining a production line that is gathering real speed.

More to come from Rosyth later this evening.https://t.co/ZoTM5OWNVv pic.twitter.com/35Y3qBpMJg

— Babcock International (@Babcockplc) February 24, 2026

The Navy will also need to establish whether a foreign design can meet its minimum operational requirements without undergoing the kind of extensive redesign that dogged the Constellation program.

Babcock enters a field that already includes several established frigate designs from Japan, South Korea, and Turkey — and potentially more.

Each offers a different combination of design maturity, combat systems, production capacity, and potential industrial arrangements. The Mogami and Chungnam programs have operational ships in service, while the Arrowhead 140 has been selected for multiple export programs but is yet to enter operational service.

Babcock’s selling point is likely to be the Arrowhead 140’s size, adaptability, and established design pedigree, combined with the prospect of American production through HII.

With the Arrowhead 140 adopted by multiple navies, this brings potential cost savings through economies of scale, shared design evolution, and collaborative upgrades across the fleet. A wider international user base also brings the possibility of overseas industrial partnerships, including training and logistical support around the globe.

At the same time, U.S. Navy selection would represent a major endorsement of the platform and would further strengthen its position in other export markets.

For now, Babcock’s confirmation that it intends to pursue the opportunity adds another contender to the Navy’s search for a new frigate. Whether the Arrowhead 140 advances beyond the initial expression of interest will depend on how its capabilities and production prospects compare with the other candidates. And critically, Babcock and its U.S. partners will need to convince the Pentagon that they can deliver a ship that meets the Navy’s requirements without repeating the delays and redesign challenges of the Constellation program.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post British Type 31 Frigate Variant Offered To The U.S. Navy appeared first on TWZ.

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 week’s caption reads:

The interior of the launch control equipment room in the underground of the Oscar-1 Minuteman Missile Alert Facility on Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, June 18, 2020. The Oscar-01 MAF was constructed at Whiteman AFB in 1963 and determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by Missouri SHPO in 1998. The facility consists of a one-story surface structure, assembled as a Launch Control Support Building (LCSB), and two sub-surface, re-enforced concrete encapsulated steel pods- a Launch Control Center (LCC) and Launch Control Equipment Building (LCEB). These two sub-surface wings are connected by a Tunnel Junction and accessed by an elevator. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Alexander W. Riedel)

PRIME DIRECTIVES:

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

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

U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack suggested on Friday that the U.S. could strike Iran as early as this weekend. His statement caps a week of growing speculation about whether America and Israel could resume major attacks on the Islamic Republic.

“Could there be a strike this weekend? Absolutely,” Barrack told online commentator Mario Nawfal when asked to explain the end game of efforts to seek a diplomatic resolution. “The president is very clear. He’s open and available and accessible to a deal. And we’ve been at the table for months and months and months… the nuclear proliferation and where we go with the enrichment and all those things are, are details, the punctuation in the chapter that needs to be finished.”

BREAKING: AMB. TOM BARRACK WARNS U.S. STRIKE COULD HAPPEN THIS WEEKEND

I asked Trump's Special Envoy, Tom Barrack: “Could there be a strike on this this weekend?

His answer was direct: "Absolutely.”

Amb. Barrack laid out exactly where things stand with Iran right now.… pic.twitter.com/upe7UlgGvb

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 23, 2026

Asked about Barrack’s comments regarding the potential timing of a strike on Iran, President Donald Trump told reporters that the ambassador “is a powerful man, I guess. If that’s the case, I don’t know anything about it.”

Q: Your ambassador to Türkiye said that "absolutely" there could be a strike on Iran this weekend.

Trump: He is a powerful man, I guess.

I don't know anything about it. pic.twitter.com/uDAqSYUocJ

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 23, 2026

Speculation about a return to hostilities was sparked earlier this week after heavy activity of fighter aircraft was reported over Iraq.

Israeli Fighter Jets Simulate Possible ATTACK on Iran Over Iraq

Around 10 Israeli fighter jets reportedly flew through Syrian airspace into Iraq tonight, conducting simulated attack runs.

Similar flights have occurred for DAYS as Iran remains on HIGH ALERT over a possible… pic.twitter.com/nK0c24vFP2

— Ryan Rozbiani (@RyanRozbiani) October 19, 2026

On Wednesday, Axios reported that dozens of Israeli fighters flew through Syrian and Iraqi airspace toward the border with Iran on Monday as part of a “power projection” exercise.

The sorties, extending some 800 miles away from Israel proper, were launched after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made a surprise trip to Israel earlier this week to meet with that country’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly to discuss new plans to attack Iran.

“Israel notified the U.S. in advance and described the operation as a training exercise [on Monday] intended for ‘power projection’ and aimed at deterring Iran from launching attacks against Israel ahead of the elections [in that country],” according to Axios. “Dozens of fighter jets and refueling aircraft” were involved.

After the Axios story came out, there were unconfirmed reports of additional major Israeli military air activity on Wednesday night.

Intense IAF fighter jet activity is now being reported over Iraq, especially on the border with Iran.

Meanwhile, continuous takeoffs are taking place from the Ramon, Nevatim, and Ovda airbases. https://t.co/c35xIbtAAu

— MoloMonitor (@MoloWarMonitor) October 21, 2026

The last known Israeli strikes on Iran came in June. The U.S. military officially concluded major combat operations against the Islamic Republic in May, but tit-for-tat strikes have continued since then as part of an ongoing blockade of Iranian ports. For its part, Iran has continued to launch strikes on commercial vessels in and around the Strait of Hormuz, which continues to have major impacts on global energy markets despite U.S. efforts to safeguard the flow of tanker ships out of the Persian Gulf.

As TWZ editor-in-chief Tyler Rogoway pointed out on X Wednesday evening, the commotion over Iraq was likely practice runs and would be part of the prelude to any major new air operation targeting Iran. Conducting sorties relatively close to the Iranian border would also offer opportunities to gain valuable intelligence about the current state and disposition of that country’s air defenses.

“Dry runs are important for such a large integrated operation,” Rogoway noted. “They can be scaled as the operation gets closer. Getting a large part of the intended force up and in position can really help with the chances of mission success if the actual order to execute is given. So many moving parts to align. Not great to find out any weak spots on night one of a new offensive.”

“Stimulating Iran’s air defenses is critical,” he added. “By Iran operating as if a full scale attack could be coming, their air defenses can be detected, categorized and geolocated. This is absolutely critical prior to a major air operation. Surveilling them during times of lower alert does not provide the same fidelity of actionable intelligence. Knowing where those threats are and how they are operating can mean the difference of life and death and/or will help standoff munitions make their way to their targets as those defenses can be suppressed, destroyed, or avoided entirely via careful mission planning.”

Couple things on the large scale tactical aircraft activity over the Middle East tonight:

I don't have any info on this operation or if it truly has gone kinetic, but here is likely what is happening if not:

1.) Dry runs are important for such a large integrated operation. They…

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) October 21, 2026

“U.S. officials said the Israelis knew that Iran’s air defense systems would detect the sortie[s on Monday],” Axios’ report also noted. “Some U.S. sources said they had the impression that Israel was hoping the Iranians would fire at the aircraft, providing a justification for launching strikes against Iran.”

TWZ cannot confirm this; however pushing Iran to react would not fit with the goals of a major exercise like this.

There have been other signs that a major new round of U.S. and/or Israeli strikes on Iran might be looming on the horizon. Fox News reported earlier this week that the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and the rest of its carrier strike group, as well as the Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group carrying the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), were heading to the Middle East, citing unnamed U.S. officials.

“The ships will arrive in the Middle East by the end of November,” the officials said, according to a post on X from Fox’s Jennifer Griffin on Tuesday. “These new deployments will add about 10,000 sailors and Marines to the Middle East.”

Per @Liz_Friden The U.S. is sending the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group and the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit to the Middle East, two U.S. officials confirm to Fox News. The ships will arrive in the Middle East by the end of November, the officials said. These new…

— Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) October 20, 2026

There have been indications of increased U.S. military air activity in the Middle East recently, as well. Observers have called attention to the particularly significant influx of aerial refueling tankers to bases in the region, as well as in Europe, which would be critical to any new major air campaign.

US Tanker Fleet Update 21/OCT/2026 #IranWar‌

Overall numbers across CENTCOM and Europe have now stabilised back to the levels they were at back at the start of September, around 190-195. There are a few tankers dotted around at other sites temporarily (Glasgow Prestwick and… pic.twitter.com/taKi8op7Tv

— DefenceGeek (@DefenceGeek) October 21, 2026

In addition, there are claims that Russia is evacuating its scientists from the Bushehr Nuclear Power plant and other Russians ahead of a potential new round of strikes. TWZ cannot independently verify this.

BREAKING: Russian airforce TU-134 used to evacuate high ranking personnel has just left Iran with its transponder off rumoured to be picking up Russian scientists from Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant.

We saw similar evacuation flights before US strikes on Iran in February… pic.twitter.com/dFLvQvesNk

— WarMonitor (@WarMonitor3) October 23, 2026

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the U.S. and Israeli militaries had “developed specific plans for renewed strikes against Iran after the American midterm elections,” citing U.S. officials and other people briefed on the deliberations.

Authorities in Washington and Jerusalem appear to be planning “a short but intensive operation” that would last between three and five days, the newspaper added. “The targets would likely include Iran’s energy infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and missile and drone arsenal. Some officials say one more big round of attacks could push Iran’s economy over the brink and force the country to make diplomatic concessions after nearly eight months of conflict.”

Separately on Wednesday, NBC News also reported that the Pentagon and U.S. State Department were relocating personnel from bases and diplomatic facilities in the Middle East, amid the possibility of new strikes on Iran, as well as broader regional security concerns. The State Department subsequently pushed back on that report, saying that non-emergency U.S. government employees and dependents had only been directed to leave Saudi Arabia in response to attacks from Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen.

This is inaccurate. The U.S. Department of State issued an ordered departure for non-emergency U.S. government employees and their family members in Saudi Arabia only.

Iranian-supported Houthis have increasingly engaged in hostilities against Saudi Arabia, including attacks on… https://t.co/yNrCwDcfIg

— Tommy Pigott (@statedeptspox) October 21, 2026

A high-ranking Israel Defense Forces (IDF) official we spoke with said a new war with Iran is not a foregone conclusion.

“I would describe the situation as increasingly tense, with a real risk of renewed escalation,” the IDF official told us. “However, I would be cautious about concluding that another war is inevitable or that its timing can be reliably predicted.”

“The recent IAF [Israeli Air Force] activity is significant, as are the reported military preparations and the increasingly confrontational rhetoric from both Washington and Jerusalem,” he added. “But military readiness, deterrence, and operational planning do not necessarily mean that a final political decision to launch another campaign has been made.”

“We do not see any indications of a need to strike Iran before the election,” IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir also said during a recent closed-door meeting, according to Israeli media reports. At the same time, “if we determine that a strike on Iran is necessary, we will carry it out.”

“Iran is once again attempting to develop a nuclear bomb,” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu also warned again this week, according to The Jerusalem Post. “My directive to the IDF, the Mossad, and the defense establishment… [is] to overthrow the regime in Iran.”

The IDF official also raised questions about the potential efficacy of any new major air campaign against Iran.

“Both Trump and Netanyahu have previously described the results of earlier rounds of fighting as a decisive, even total, victory, emphasizing the damage inflicted on Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, its production and supply chains, and its nuclear infrastructure,” the official noted. “This raises an obvious question: If the results were as decisive as they claimed, what has changed to make another confrontation necessary now?”

“I believe we must recognize the limitations of trying to defeat a country like Iran through targeted killings and stand-off kinetic strikes alone,” he added. “Such operations can destroy infrastructure, eliminate key personnel, disrupt production, and delay military programs. They can impose significant costs on an adversary. But they do not necessarily eliminate the adversary’s strategic ambitions, prevent the regeneration of capabilities, or produce a durable political outcome.”

U.S. President Trump’s repeated threats to launch strikes on a very hardened Iranian facility known as Pickaxe Mountain have raised similar questions. The Pickaxe Mountain site is believed to be tied to Iran’s nuclear program, but is also arguably the hardest-to-reach target in the country, and has gone untouched in previous U.S. and Israeli operations.

CBS News reported last week that the White House and Pentagon “have prepared plans to use a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb [MOAB] to hit military sites in Iran,” including Pickaxe Mountain, “if ordered by President Trump.” However, the 22,000-pound-class MOAB, also designated the GBU-43/B, is not a deep-penetrating munition, and it was not immediately clear from that story how the weapon might be employed. The bomb is also only known to be currently cleared for employment via C-130-type aircraft. It has only been used in combat once, in Afghanistan in 2017, where the skies above were entirely permissive. You can read more about the targeting challenges specific to Pickaxe Mountain, and what options the U.S. military might have for halting, or at least degrading activity there, in a previous TWZ feature here.

MOAB’s use case would be limited against sites like Pickaxe Mountain. While its unique overpressure effects could harm any personnel openly exposed inside tunnel systems, it is unlikely to destroy or even heavily damage the hardened facilities themselves. It could cause damage to external support infrastructure and act as a psychological weapon in its own right, but it is not a bunker buster in any way.

Not what this weapon is really used for. Psychological effect, maybe https://t.co/hDWSXYKexr

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) October 15, 2026

The puzzling leak about the MOAB may be part of the administration’s effort to use the media to try and compel Iran to negotiate. This has been a glaring pattern throughout the ebb and flow of this conflict and a common tactic used by the Trump administration.

Talking threatening plans against Iran here. They are always planning and have a slew of options.

The leaks and sources are by and large fully aware what their marching orders are. It’s coordinated. A lever this admin pulls non stop right on cue.

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) October 15, 2026

For its part, Iran is operating on the assumption that a U.S.-Israeli attack is a “certainty,” The Jerusalem Post reported on Wednesday, citing Iran’s Fars News Agency, a quasi-state media outlet affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). “The report, which cited a senior Iranian security official, added that Iran will consider U.S. politicians legitimate targets if such an attack involves the assassination of Iranian officials.”

The IRGC has also threatened to launch expanded retaliatory attacks on targets across the Middle East in response to any new waves of strikes.

As we noted earlier in this story, Iran continues to actively attack commercial shipping in and around the Strait of Hormuz. The official Iranian IRNA news agency reported that the IRGC Navy claimed that it recently struck four ships transferring oil cargoes in the northern Persian Gulf, while three other vessels suffered damage after striking mines west of the Strait of Hormuz.

While TWZ cannot independently verify those claims, the Ambrey maritime security firm said that the number of vessels damaged during Strait of Hormuz transits has “increased sharply” this month.

“During the two weeks from 3 to 16 October, the number rose to 11 and 13 vessels per week, respectively, compared with an average of three to four per week in the preceding weeks,” Ambrey senior analyst Daniel Mueller noted today in the company’s latest security assessment. “This increase coincided with an expansion of Iranian operations aimed at restricting transits deemed unauthorized, while the US continued to facilitate transits along the Omani coastline.”

On Oct. 9, “the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) threatened to pursue and target vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian authorisation throughout the wider Gulf region,” Mueller added. “During October, incidents attributed to Iran involved merchant vessels off Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Sohar, Oman. Between 8 and 16 October, six merchant vessels – five tankers and one gas carrier – were damaged outside of the Strait of Hormuz. Additionally, a tanker was damaged offshore Iraq on 20 October.”

Reports emerging earlier this week from The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post do say that oil exports from the Persian Gulf have returned to prewar levels thanks to U.S. efforts to safeguard tankers out of the region.

“Middle East oil flows, including shipments through Hormuz and alternative routes across the region, averaged more than 24 million barrels a day in the week through Oct. 18, surpassing prewar levels of 23.3 million,” according to the Journal, citing ship tracker Kpler. “Preliminary figures show Hormuz oil flows, including offshore transfers in the Gulf of Oman, came to around 14 million barrels a day on average for the same period, or 82% of prewar levels.”

From the @WSJ: “Persian Gulf oil exports have surpassed prewar levels, as an improvised shipping system under U.S. protection is helping tankers move oil through one of Iran’s fiercest waves of attacks in the Strait of Hormuz.”https://t.co/SJo2jlUfew

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) October 21, 2026

However, global energy oil markets continue to be under immense strain as a result of the ongoing fallout from the conflict with Iran, thanks in no small part to surging insurance costs for shipping companies. This has been further exacerbated now by Yemen’s Houthis expanding their attacks on oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, including a recent strike near the Shaybah oilfield. The Houthis are also exerting their own pressure on shipping passing through the Bab Al Mandab Strait, a critical chokepoint that links the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

A Saudi-led coalition supporting Yemen’s internationally recognized government has been embroiled in an on-again-off-again conflict with the Houthis since 2014. Fighting with the Iranian-supported Yemeni militants in and around the Red Sea was inflamed last year as a by-product of Israel’s 12 Day War with Iran. The Houthis also retaliated with missile and drone attacks in support of Iran in the wake of U.S. and Israel launching their major operations against the regime in Tehran in February.

The U.S. government and the Houthis have been observing a tenuous ceasefire since May 2025. This has continued despite the Yemeni militants now imposing a blockade on the Bab Al Mandab Strait, and a new campaign of strikes on Saudi ships in the southern part of the Red Sea, as well as targeting critical energy terminals on that body of water and Saudi refineries. Iranian proxies have also struck the vital East-West pipeline that carries oil to the Red Sea to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. That line has reportedly since reopened after being shut down following a long-range drone attack.

The two sides have also been fighting battles across much of Yemen and the conflict between the two parties is ongoing.

“On Wednesday, two people were killed and two others injured by debris from intercepted drones near a processing plant at the Shaybah field, one of the biggest oilfields in Saudi Arabia,” The National noted. “Operations at the Shaybah field and its processing facilities remain unaffected, but the attack rattled markets again amid concerns about potential disruption to Saudi supply just as the Kingdom has largely restored its exports via the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea.”

As a result, the per-barrel price of Brent crude has jumped to more than $114 as of Friday morning, according to OilPrice.com, the highest that it has been since May during intensified fighting between the U.S. and Iran.

In addition, Saudi Aramco has told staff to evacuate its Dhahran headquarters and work remotely, Reuters reported, citing six people with knowledge of the matter. The move came a day after two people were killed in an attack on a nearby airport. The order marked the ​first time Aramco had asked staff to evacuate its headquarters since the start of the Iran war, Reuters added.

The Houthis “caused extensive damage ⁠to the company’s headquarters earlier this month when they struck the building, with fire spreading across several floors,” the outlet explained.

Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia have spurred Britain to commit to providing “defensive counter air missions to support the protection of Saudi cities and critical national infrastructure against aerial attack, using RAF Typhoon fighter jets,” Defense Secretary Wes Streeting said in a statement. “These aircraft will operate in a defensive role and will not conduct offensive strikes against the Houthis. The UK will provide an RAF A400M to support the movement of defense materiel within Saudi Arabia, alongside UK military advisers to support Saudi staff officers.”

“The continuing attacks from the Houthis on our ally Saudi Arabia are absolutely despicable,” Streeting said.

As we noted earlier in this story, the U.S. is continuing its naval blockade of Iranian ports.

U.S. Central Command said Thursday on X that its renewed naval blockade of Iranian ports, now in its 100th day, “has helped prevent Iran from exporting at least $25 billion worth of crude oil and constrained the IRGC’s ability to fund proxy militias, criminal networks, and terrorism. There have been no exports or imports to Iran by sea except for the humanitarian aid U.S. forces have allowed.”

Today marks 100 days since CENTCOM forces resumed America's steel wall naval blockade against Iran. This effort has helped prevent Iran from exporting at least $25 billion worth of crude oil and constrained the IRGC's ability to fund proxy militias, criminal networks, and… pic.twitter.com/DwiamYBdHY

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) October 22, 2026

For its part, Iran is operating on the assumption that a U.S.-Israeli attack is a “certainty,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-affiliated Fars News Agency reported, according to the Jerusalem Post.

“The report, which cited a senior Iranian security official, added that Iran will consider U.S. politicians legitimate targets if such an attack involves the assassination of Iranian officials,” the publication added.

The IRGC also announced that it was preparing to unveil a new weapon, which it dubbed the “Father of All Bombs,” in response to U.S. threats to use the most powerful conventional bomb in the American arsenal against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Jerusalem Post also reported.

Officials, however, declined to offer any details about what kind of weapon it is, its power, whether it is operational or when it will be shown to the public, the Post noted.

In addition to the strategic and tactical issues in the region, the IDF official we spoke with raised concerns that “domestic political considerations may influence the rhetoric and decisions” of Prime Minister Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump. Israel is holding nationwide parliamentary elections on October 27 that could have significant domestic political ramifications. The same is true of mid-term elections in the United States in November.

“I cannot know their precise calculations, but the possibility that political incentives could affect decisions with such enormous strategic consequences should not be dismissed,” the IDF official cautioned. “With Israel’s elections approaching, I sincerely hope that Netanyahu will not make a decision with far-reaching consequences for the country’s security based, even partly, on immediate political considerations. The stakes are simply too high for military action to become a means of reshaping a domestic political narrative.”

In a phone call with Trump recorded live on Monday and posted on his X account, Netanyahu thanked the American leader for his election endorsement and suggested future operations against Iran.

“Donald, we have a job to finish [in Iran]…and we’ll finish it together,” the Israeli leader told Trump. “We’ll finish it, and no one else will do it.”

בשיחה עם ידידי הנשיא טראמפ לאחר שהודיע על תמיכתו בי בבחירות. יחד אנחנו הולכים להסיר את האיום האיראני לתמיד! צאו להצביע מחל! pic.twitter.com/GuPEAPn0Tc

— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) October 19, 2026

As for Trump, the President has previously said the war with Iran will end “immediately after the election” and has reportedly told aides he expects to resume strikes on the Islamic Republic after the midterms. Domestic U.S. polls show the ongoing conflict continues to be deeply unpopular with voters, who are also eager to see it concluded.

Speaking to reporters Thursday afternoon, Trump acknowledged that the Iran war could have a negative impact on Republican hopes for the midterms.

“Well in one way, they love it because I’m doing what should have been done by other presidents, and another way maybe they don’t,” Trump said. “It’s — there’s a price to pay, which I knew immediately when I did it, but we can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon. I mean, in one way, people probably don’t love it, but many people, many great patriots, really love it. This should have been done a long time ago by other presidents. The Iran War, and we’ve knocked the hell out of them, and we may do it a little bit further.“

Q: How do you feel the Iran war impacted the midterm races?

Trump: In one way, they love it. In another way, maybe they don't. There's a price to pay. pic.twitter.com/qtkE9M2vSQ

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 22, 2026

Later on Thursday, the American president said that: “We’re gonna have Iran finished very soon, one way or the other. It’s almost insignificant to me which way.”

U.S. President Donald Trump on Iran:

"We're gonna have Iran finished very soon. one way or the other. It's almost insignificant to me which way.

It's going to be done very soon, and your gasoline prices and your oil is going to come tumbling down."
pic.twitter.com/vIGviqe8gi

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) October 23, 2026

While indicators are pointing to the U.S. and Israel at the very least in the very late stages of planning for new strikes against Iran, even if that doesn’t happen, the Middle East will remain a top concern. The ongoing threats to shipping and the escalating fighting between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia are having increasingly dire impacts on gas prices, which is spiking inflation, and causing heavy pressure on the global economy.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post On The Brink Of Epic Fury Round Two? appeared first on TWZ.

General Atomics has tapped Spirit Defense, a subsidiary of Boeing, to help produce FQ-42A Vengeance Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones. This follows the U.S. Air Force’s announcement last month that it wants to have at least 500 CCAs in inventory by 2032. Years ago, TWZ highlighted the likelihood that industrial partnerships like this would be required to meet the service’s aggressive volume and schedule goals for the CCA program.

General Atomics’ Aeronautical Systems, Inc. division (GA-ASI) announced the team-up with Spirit on FQ-42 production earlier today. The Vengenace is one of two designs the Air Force has ordered into production under the first phase, or Increment 1, of its CCA program. The other is Anduril’s FQ-44A Fury. The 500-drone target the Air Force has laid out covers a mixed fleet of both FQ-42s and FQ-44s. The service is still planning to acquire additional CCAs, potentially with completely different designs, through a follow-on Increment 2.

When it comes to FQ-42 production, “Spirit Defense’s role as a fuselage design-build partner brings together the company’s engineering and advanced manufacturing capabilities to support the program from design through production,” according to a GA-ASI release. “Partnering with Spirit Defense is a strength multiplier for the company and the nation, offering manufacturing capacity and industrial depth to scale CCA production faster, while strengthening production resilience, and reducing the risk of single points of failure.”

“We’re excited to be working with Spirit Defense,” David R. Alexander, GA-ASI’s President, said in an accompanying statement. “We’ve established our proven design, development, and manufacturing capability for the FQ-42. With Spirit Defense, we add capacity, which is exactly the kind of production resilience our U.S. Air Force customer is looking for with its CCA ramp-up. This kind of partnership represents the scalable industrial base the Air Force and the U.S. Department of War are looking for from industry.”

“The intent for them [the Air Force] is to go up to as many as 500 aircraft by 2032,” Mike Shortsleeve, Vice President for Strategy Business Development at GA-ASI, also told TWZ’s Jamie Hunter on the floor of the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference in September. “We’re ready to do that production.”

At the conference, Shortsleeve highlighted investments in additive manufacturing and advanced robotics, along with efforts to build out the company’s skilled workforce, to help meet those production demands.

General Atomics is already an established drone maker with significant serial airframe production experience of its own. At the same time, the company is seeing growing demand for its MQ-9B series of drones, including a sale to the U.S. Coast Guard announced earlier this month. The MQ-9B design builds on the highly successful MQ-9A Reaper. It is also pursuing a host of other opportunities in the U.S. and abroad that could add production demands.

Mike Atwood, GA-ASI’s Vice President of Advanced Aircraft Programs, notably acknowledged potential hurdles for meeting CCA production demands, specifically, in the past.

“We have basically a hot production line where I can take an MQ-9 out and put a Collaborative Combat Aircraft in,” Atwood said on an edition of The Merge podcast back in 2024. “We were able to essentially take Reaper parts out of stock rooms and build the first [CCA] aircraft.”

“Composites are inherently expensive … they’re really for high-performance applications where you need certain strength and stiffness,” he also noted at that time. “When you look at Collaborative Combat Aircraft … we’re actually falling back on more metallic – what we call hybrid structures, metal frames with composite skins.”

The production of advanced composites and hybrid structures is Spirit’s main business. The company also has a well-established history of working as a subcontractor on military aerospace projects, including in support of bleed-edge programs like the B-21 Raider bomber.

It is also important to note here that, before its founding as an independent company in 2005, Spirit was actually a division of Boeing. By the early 2020s, Spirit had been suffering from significant financial losses and quality control lapses. Boeing subsequently decided to reacquire it in a multi-billion-dollar deal. The acquisition process began in 2024 and was finalized last year. Since then, Boeing has faced continued challenges in getting the firm back on track.

In 2024, when General Atomics and Anduril were selected to move ahead in the Increment 1 phase of the Air Force’s CCA program, TWZ explicitly raised the prospect of both companies bringing in help, especially to meet future production demands. At the time, the focus was more on Anduril, which was not a major airframer at the time and had yet to establish significant production facilities of its own for Fury. It was also unclear then whether the Air Force might pick a single winning Increment 1 drone rather than go the route it ultimately chose of ordering batches of both designs.

However, as we wrote at the time: “No matter who is selected in the end as the prime contractor, a large pool of manufacturer partners will likely be key to meeting the Air Force’s production volume and schedule goals.”

As an aside, Boeing is already in the CCA business itself, with the MQ-28 Ghost Bat developed originally through a separate subsidary in Australia. The company has been working to expand its own production capacity to build those drones in recent years.

Generally speaking, the ability of defense contractors to rapidly scale production to meet U.S. military demands, and do so affordably, is steadily becoming a more common point of discussion across all major acquisition programs. Being able to acquire and field CCAs in relatively large volumes and at a price that makes sense is absolutely central to the whole concept being these drones.

“The nuance here that probably is overlooked, is the fact that they’re [the Air Force] recognizing with 500 that they require, the factory floor is now becoming part of the battle space,” General Atomics’ Shortsleeve had told TWZ at the AFA conference last month. “So the ability for companies to be able to manufacture and produce those aircraft in numbers that are needed for the fight rapidly is going to be a key part to going forward in the future.”

The Air Force is otherwise still very much laying the rest of the groundwork for fielding its future CCAs operationally toward the end of the decade. A full playbook for deploying, launching, recovering, supporting, and otherwise operating CCA-type drones on a day-to-day basis, let alone employing them tactically, still has yet to be written. Answering these questions will be important for other CCA programs across the U.S. military and elsewhere globally.

General Atomics’ new partnership with Spirit Defense underscores how production of Increment 1 CCAs is ramping up already in reponse to the Air Force’s current CCA program goals.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post General Atomics FQ-42 CCA Drone Production Ramp Up To Be Boosted By Boeing Subsidiary appeared first on TWZ.

Denmark is set to acquire Anthem long-range strike weapons from U.S.-based defense startup Covenant, as well as Joint Strike Missile (JSM) cruise missiles from Norway’s Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace. The twin-track approach by the Nordic NATO member will give it new options for launching long-range strikes from the ground and air. Furthermore, Denmark’s move reflects a broader European push to acquire longer-range strike options, especially by NATO allies seeking to deter Russia.

Danish Defense Minister Jeppe Bruus announced the planned purchases yesterday. He said the new weapons would strengthen Denmark’s ability to respond to an attack and strike targets “behind enemy lines,” according to Reuters. Copenhagen has not disclosed the number of missiles involved, the value of the purchases, or expected delivery dates.

“We’re in a serious and deteriorating security situation, and that is why we are building up the defense and strengthening our combat power,” Bruus told reporters. The planned acquisitions are a “strong signal that we have the ability to strike back,” he added, without explicitly naming any particular adversary.

The Danish government did say last year that it would pursue new long-range offensive precision weapons, in general, in response to the growing security concerns in Europe amid Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine. Bruus’ announcement comes amid a new surge in geopolitical friction between Russia and members of the NATO alliance.

The two new acquisitions will provide Denmark with important complementary strike options. Anthem is a ground-launched weapon, while JSM is designed to be air-launched, including by stealthy F-35 fighters just like those in Danish Air Force service today. Together, the weapons are set to expand the range of platforms from which Denmark can deliver stand-off precision strikes and give its armed forces additional options for attacking high-value military targets.

Anthem is being developed by Covenant, a U.S.-based defense company that has also outlined plans to establish missile production in Germany and Israel. The system’s selection by Denmark gives the company an important European customer as NATO members seek to expand their inventories of long-range weapons.

Covenant’s Anthem is in a category of munitions that increasingly blurs the line between long-range kamikaze drones and traditional cruise missiles. It is designed to offer a lower-cost, longer-range strike capability that can be produced more easily and at greater scale than many existing systems. Covenant has not publicly disclosed the weapon’s range. Still-unconfirmed reports put it at roughly 740 miles (1,200 kilometers). It is also said to carry a warhead weighing more than 200 kilograms (441 pounds). It also uses a solid rocket motor to provide an initial boost at launch before transitioning to a heavy-fuel jet engine for cruise flight.

Currently, it is unclear how exactly Anthem is launched. It has already undergone testing with the U.S. Army, and images from those trials show the weapons being handled on the ground using a tricycle undercarriage. This may point to rocket-assisted takeoffs from runways.

Last month, Covenant announced it had already conducted more than 200 test flights of Anthem and had secured roughly $150 million in orders. It also disclosed that an unidentified international customer was expected to begin receiving German-built weapons before the end of this year. This may well be Denmark, though there could also be other customers that have yet to emerge publicly. Meanwhile, U.S. Army deliveries are expected in 2027, under an accelerated qualification contract.

Anthem reflects a broader push, globally, for new long-range strike weapons that can be manufactured rapidly and in large quantities, potentially trading some of the performance and sophistication of more expensive, ‘exquisite’ weapons for affordability, scalability, and mass availability. Recent conflicts in the Middle East, as well as the war in Ukraine, have underscored the challenges of bolstering stockpiles of critical munitions and replenishing them during prolonged fighting.

JSM, developed by Kongsberg in cooperation with U.S. defense contractor Raytheon, is a traditional air-launched cruise missile capable of being employed against targets on land and at sea. It is capable of being carried internally and externally on the A and C variants of the F-35. The design has also been fit-checked for external carriage on a variety of other tactical jets. As already mentioned, JSM will provide an entirely new standoff precision-strike option for Denmark’s F-35As. These are the only tactical jets in Danish service today following the retirement of the country’s F-16s in January.

Kongsberg has identified Denmark as the seventh country to select JSM, although the final contract scope and value remain subject to negotiations. JSM is an enlarged derivative of the surface-launched Naval Strike Missile (NSM), which has also seen growing worldwide sales in recent years, including to the U.S. military. Since 2025, Denmark has also been fielding NSM on its Iver Huitfeldt class frigates and as part of a ground-based coastal defense system.

Since JSM is designed to be air-launched, its maximum range is dependent in part on the altitude at which the missile is released, as well as the speed of the aircraft carrying it. Kongsberg has said in the past the missile can fly out to a range of more than 300 nautical miles, but also that its reach is significantly cut back when it is employed in its low-altitude penetration mode.

The JSM carries a 260-pound warhead and uses a combination of GPS, inertial navigation (INS), and terrain mapping to guide it toward its target. The terrain-mapping capability provides an additional means of navigation, helping the missile maintain its course even in environments where GPS connectivity is degraded or unavailable.

The missile switches over to an imaging infrared seeker to provide precise target discrimination during the terminal phase of flight. Because the seeker operates passively, it does not rely on emitting radiofrequency signals, reducing the risk of detection and making it immune to conventional radiofrequency jamming. The agile JSM’s overall design also includes reduced-signature features to help limit its detectability and improve its survivability on the way to the target.

A two-way datalink also allows the missile to receive updated targeting information while en route, or to be redirected toward an entirely different target during the mid-course phase of flight.

The dual purchases build on a broader Danish effort to field new options for holding targets at extended ranges at risk. Denmark previously operated eight M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), but retired them in 2004. The country is now introducing Israel’s PULS rocket artillery system, which can employ different rocket and missile types depending on the mission. Presently, the Danish military looks to be fielding PULS just with artillery rockets.

In terms of Denmark’s current and future ground-based capabilities, PULS — which stands for Precise and Universal Launch System — and Anthem will serve different. In Danish service, PULS provides a flexible rocket artillery capability, while Anthem will offer a cruise-missile-like option for longer-range precision attacks.

The acquisition of JSM also reflects the importance of Denmark’s F-35 fleet to its future combat capability. Air-launched weapons offer mobility and flexibility, but their employment depends on available aircraft. In this context, Denmark’s planned expansion of its F-35 fleet from 27 to 43 aircraft, announced in October 2025, will provide a larger platform base for its emerging long-range strike capability. It should also be noted that, in June of this year, Denmark requested to buy 200 AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles with Extended Range (JASSM-ER) for its F-35 fleet. It’s unclear if the JSM has now been selected in preference, or if both will be procured. Unlike the JSM, JASSM-ER cannot fit in the F-35’s internal bays.

There could be some overlap here between Denmark’s growing array of air- and ground-based strike capabilities, as well. Dutch F-35As demonstrated their ability to provide targeting data to PULS launchers during a NATO exercise last year. A ground-launched weapon like Anthem also provides an alternative long-range strike option that does not require a fighter to carry it aloft, creating additional operational flexibility.

For Denmark, acquiring JSMs and Anthems also offers the appeal of adding a capable higher-end munition alongside a more affordable, readily available long-range strike weapon. Reuters has reported that Covenant expects Anthem to eventually cost in the mid-six-figure range, although a final unit price has not been disclosed. Meanwhile, the JSM has a reported unit cost of approximately $2.8 million.

As mentioned, the announcement of the Anthem and JSM purchase is fully in line with prior statements from the government in Copenhagen about acquiring new long-range strike options. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen previously urged the military to accelerate procurement across the board after years of comparatively limited defense spending. In

The long-range strike acquisitions also fit into a broader NATO effort to strengthen deterrence across the Baltic region and the alliance’s northeastern flank.

Denmark occupies a strategically important position linking the Baltic Sea to the North Sea, while its forces contribute to NATO’s regional presence and reinforcement plans. The ability to strike targets deep behind enemy lines will provide a new ability for Denmark to threaten an adversary’s military infrastructure, command facilities, and other critical targets.

Denmark is far from alone in pursuing new long-range strike capabilities. In September, Latvia moved to acquire Anduril’s Barracuda family of long-range strike missiles, building on its earlier order for Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missiles. Poland is expanding its own layered strike capabilities, while France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom are working on the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA) initiative to accelerate the development and procurement of next-generation weapons. The efforts reflect a wider shift across Europe toward restoring deep-strike capabilities that have been relatively scarce among NATO’s European members since the end of the Cold War.

All of this is happening while the Baltic states, in particular, increasingly voice their concerns that Russia could seek to exploit vulnerabilities along NATO’s northeastern flank. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have all warned about the risks posed by Russian force expansion, airspace incursions, sabotage, and other potential provocations. In response, NATO has stepped up its regional posture through initiatives, including Operation Eastern Sentry.

The news about Denmark’s new long-range strike plans has already drawn a heated reaction from Moscow. Russia’s embassy in Copenhagen accused Denmark of pursuing confrontation with Russia and warned of “inevitable disastrous consequences,” Reuters reported.

Many details about the planned Anthem and JSM acquisitions still remain to be learned. However, the announcement yesterday is a clear signal of Copenhagen’s intention to give its armed forces a more substantial ability to threaten targets at distance, and reflects still-growing trends elsewhere in Europe.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Denmark To Buy Anthem Munitions, Joint Strike Missiles In Dual Long-Range Strike Push appeared first on TWZ.

The U.S. Air Force is exploring options for adding air-to-air combat capabilities to its bombers as part of efforts adjacent to its latest fighter force structure plans. The service has raised the possibility of the B-21 Raider, specifically, taking on an air-to-air role, and potentially doing so in cooperation with Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones, in the past. As TWZ has explored for years, the B-21’s inherent attributes – size, extreme range, high operating ceiling, broadband low-observability (stealthiness), and advanced sensors – could actually make it especially well suited to taking part in air-to-air combat missions. The Air Force’s other bombers could also be part of these future plans.

Aviation Week was first to report on the potential for bombers to help bolster the Air Force’s air-to-air combat capacity after obtaining a copy of a new long-term fighter force structure report submitted to Congress last week. Media coverage of this report first began to appear earlier this week following a roundtable on Tuesday with Lt. Gen. David Tabor, the service’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs. The full report, which is unclassified, was not disseminated to reporters at that time.

The Air Force’s central goal now is having 1,509 combat-coded fighters in inventory by 2035, which is hundreds more than it has in service today. This will come from the acquisition of new F-35As, F-15EXs, and F-47s. There are already questions about how realistic this plan might be, and the service has acknowledged several hurdles it will need to overcome. You can read more about this in our initial reporting here.

“Accordingly, the USAF is also evaluating additional recapitalization options, including a new capacity fighter, increased reliance on CCAs [Collaborative Combat Aircraft], and developing air-to-air capabilities on bombers,” the latest fighter force structure report says, per Aviation Week.

“A new capacity fighter” may refer to the possible acquisition of new-production F-16 Vipers, which Lt. Gen. Tabor said at the roundtable could be an option in the future, according to an earlier story from Air & Space Forces Magazine. He also said making any such decision was not an “urgent” priority. This is just one possibility here. The Air Force has floated ideas for other new fighter concepts beyond the F-47 in recent years. Lockheed Martin has talked about the potential for expanding on the F-35 design.

At the roundtable on Tuesday, Tabor also made clear that the introduction of CCAs would influence future fighter force structure plans, but the expected scale and scope of those impacts remain unclear. He does not appear to have addressed the role bombers could play in this equation at that time. The new fighter report itself does not elaborate further on the potential use of bombers, based on Aviation Week’s story. TWZ is seeking more information.

When it comes to the possibility of Air Force bombers, and the B-21 more specifically, taking on an air-to-air role, this is not the first time the possibility has been raised, as mentioned earlier.

“As the NGAD [Next Generation Air Dominance] review goes forward, like, is it possible that what that ends up with could be the B-21 taking a larger role?” reporter Stephen Losey, working at the time for Defense News, asked then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin at the Military Reporters & Editors (MRE) Conference in 2024.

“We have not taken that off the table,” the Air Force’s top officer said in response to Losey’s question, but did not elaborate.

At that time, the Air Force’s NGAD program was undergoing a deep review, and the future of the sixth-generation fighter component of the effort had come into question. The decision was ultimately made to continue pursuing plans for what has now become the F-47.

For years now, TWZ has been highlighting how the B-21 could serve in multiple roles beyond just that of a traditional bomber, including in an air-to-air capacity. Air Force officials have themselves described the Raider as having multi-mission capabilities, which could extend into the realm of air-to-air combat.

“If we were to characterize it [NGAD] as a fighter, we would be… thinking too narrowly about what kind of airplane we need in a highly contested environment,” then-Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Pleus told what was then just Air Force Magazine back in 2019. This could be “a B-21 that also has air-to-air capabilities” and can “work with the family of systems to defend itself, utilizing stealth – maybe that’s where the sixth-generation airplane comes from.”

Pleus’ comments had tied in with adjacent discussions at the time and thereafter about how the B-21 might operate together with future CCA drones. Pleus, who was subsequently promoted to lieutenant general and whose lasting posting was as Director of Staff at the Air Force’s top headquarters at the Pentagon, retired in August of this year.

It remains unclear how the Air Force might be considering employing the B-21, or any of its other existing bombers, in air-to-air combat. This could entail loading out bombers for direct air-to-air engagements, or the integration of new capabilities to help them find targets or to otherwise enable new supporting roles, or a mix of all of the above. The process of achieving air superiority is not limited to neutralizing aerial threats, either.

As TWZ has written in the past in the context of an air-to-air role for the Raider in particular:

“The Raider has the potential to serve as a launch platform for air-to-air missiles, especially outsized very long-range types. Its payload capacity would give it the ability to carry a large volume of smaller air-to-air missiles, as well. B-21s could also employ air-to-ground munitions in support of the suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses mission (SEAD/DEAD), which is also part of the air superiority equation.”

“Maybe most significantly, the B-21s could also act as airborne nerve centers in support of counter-air missions, especially for controlling drones like the Air Force’s planned fleets of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), and have the ability to do so even in the most heavily contested of airspaces. Uncrewed aircraft, in turn, could feed targeting data back to Raiders with air-to-air loadouts. B-21s might even be able to launch some of those drones themselves.”

Deeply networked ‘kill webs’ that bring together distributed arrays of sensors and other supporting elements across vast distances and multiple domains, coupled with very-long-range air-to-air missiles, open up new operational possibilities more generally. This applies to Air Force bombers beyond the B-21.

When it comes to longer-range air-to-air missiles, the Navy has notably already fielded the AIM-174B air-launched version of the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6). The service more recently disclosed another such missile in flight testing now, the AIM-424 Malice.

The Air Force has pursued similar missile developments in the past and put out a call for a new anti-air missile with a maximum range of at least 1,000 nautical miles just in June. The service has been exploring multi-stage types with modular designs that could be configured for longer- and shorter-range engagements, as well. These are all just programs we know about, and do not speak to the developments the Air Force and others could have underway in the classified realm.

There is also the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) LongShot program, which the Air Force, as well as the U.S. Army and Navy, have been involved with over the years. The aim of that effort is to demonstrate the concept of an air-to-air missile-carrying drone to help extend the reach and reduce the vulnerability of tactical fighters and bombers.

On top of all this, tactical fighters are generally ill-suited to, and in some cases outright incapable of, carrying the kinds of outsized payloads being discussed here. This underscores the potential value of incorporating bombers into this equation as a means to engage targets at extreme ranges.

Even in a closer proximity support role of fighter aircraft, B-21s, as well as B-52s, could contribute to air-to-air fight as arsenal ships for longer-range weapons, firing on demand from the rear in coordination with crewed and uncrewed platforms operating at the tip of the tactical edge. B-21s could also use their penetrating capabilities to command drones of their own that provide penetrating fighter-like capabilities.

New air-to-air capabilities on Air Force bombers could include self-protection systems, too. Years ago now, the B-21’s prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, patented an anti-missile defense system for stealthy aircraft designed to fire hard-kill interceptors. The Air Force, as well as the Navy, have openly expressed interest in similar defensive capabilities for aerial refueling tankers and other larger planes. Just being able to provide localized close-in defensive ‘bubbles’ around individual bombers could impact the calculus when it comes to future air-to-air combat requirements.

To reiterate, these are all concepts we have discussed in depth for roughly a decade.

Speaking more broadly about Air Force future fighter force structure demands, as we wrote previously:

“In recent years, sustainment costs, broadly, have only become an increasingly serious concern for the Air Force, as well as the other branches of the U.S. military, especially when it comes to complex manned platforms, such as the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Fleet size and the readiness of those fleets are also highly pressing issues. So, at least in the near term, it’s not surprising that NGAD may end up focusing more on exploring available lower-cost options with distributed capabilities as alternatives to traditional air combat assets with highly centralized capabilities, such as manned fighter jets packed with ‘exquisite’ technologies.”

Despite the decision in the end to proceed with the more exquisite F-47, these points have only become more pronounced as time has gone on. How many F-47s the Air Force ultimately intends to buy is another question that looks to remain unanswered by the latest fighter force structure report. At the same time, there are clear signs that the Air Force is planning to significantly increase its planned B-21 fleet size. The official acquisition target has long been at least 100 Raiders, but the Air Force and Northrop Grumman have said a new topline figure is expected to come in the Fiscal Year 2028 budget proposal next year. The service is now explicitly aiming to have at least 500 CCA drones in service by 2032, too. All of this will compete for funding and other resources, at least to a degree.

In the meantime, there has been a “persistent decline in AA [aircraft availability] rates across the USAF tactical fighter fleet,” which “is the direct mathematical consequence of operating an inventory with an average age exceeding 31 years,” the Air Force’s latest fighter force structure report says, according to Aviation Week. “As legacy platforms – such as the F-16C/D, F-15E, and A-10C – operate well beyond their original engineering service lives, they experience compounding structural fatigue, widespread corrosion, and subsystem degradation.”

“Achieving the mandated AA rates required for a peer-conflict scenario necessitates aggressive divestment of the oldest airframes to fund the procurement of highly available, modernized platforms like the F-35A and F-15EX,” the report adds, per that outlet. Furthermore, “to counter the [Chinese] industrial capacity and numerical advantage in fielding fighters like the J-20 and J-16, the USAF must embrace a hybrid force of manned and unmanned systems.”

With all this in mind, active consideration of new air-to-air roles for bombers, as well as the possibility of “increased reliance on CCAs” and the potential to acquire new current-generation F-16s, at least seems to reflect a hedge strategy on the part of the Air Force.

If nothing else, the door clearly remains open to bombers being a key part of the Air Force’s ‘fighter’ vision in the future.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post USAF Confirms Bombers Could Have A Major Air-To-Air Combat Role appeared first on TWZ.

New satellite imagery shows four of China’s new KJ-3000 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft at the Xi’an Aircraft Company (XAC) facility at Xi’an-Yanliang, raising the possibility that the large radar planes are moving toward or have entered serial production.

Satellite imagery captured on October 5 and provided by Vantor shows three KJ-3000s near the XAC factory in the western part of the facility, with a fourth at the nearby China Flight Test Establishment (CFTE). J. Michael Dahm, a senior fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, assesses that the presence of four aircraft points to the type having entered serial production.

Andreas Rupprecht, an analyst of Chinese military aviation and TWZ contributor, offered a more cautious assessment, noting that the imagery could indicate that series production or low-rate initial production (LRIP) has begun. However, he also pointed out that all four previously identified prototypes could simply have been at the facility at the same time. Specifically, he identified the aircraft seen at the CFTE portion of the airfield as being a prototype.

Whatever the explanation, the imagery offers a fresh look at a program set to significantly expand China’s already substantial airborne surveillance and battle-management capabilities.

The KJ-3000, also referred to as the KJ-20, is based on the four-engine Y-20 transport aircraft, specifically the improved Y-20B variant powered by Chinese-made engines. The aircraft features a large circular radome mounted above the rear fuselage, along with a prominent series of antennas on the forward fuselage. An aerial refueling probe is mounted above the cockpit, while a conspicuous intake at the base of the tailfin is likely intended to provide cooling air for its extensive onboard electronics.

The first low-quality photographs of the aircraft began circulating in December 2024. More detailed imagery emerged in May 2025, showing an example at an undisclosed Chinese airfield. That aircraft, bearing the serial number 7821 and assessed to be the first example, was still wearing primer, in contrast to the examples now seen at the XAC factory.

The KJ-3000 is expected to address longstanding limitations in China’s existing large jet-powered AEW&C fleet. To date, only four KJ-2000 Mainring aircraft have been completed. Based on the Russian-built Ilyushin Il-76MD transport, the KJ-2000 program was constrained by the limited availability of suitable airframes, and now faces the twin issues of reliance on Russian supply chains and aging aircraft.

A domestically produced Y-20-based platform provides a more sustainable basis for a much larger AEW&C fleet, with greater scope for upgrades and potentially export opportunities.

The larger airframe should also provide advantages over China’s numerous turboprop-powered AEW&C aircraft, including greater speed, range, and endurance. Its higher operating altitude would give its radar a better vantage point for detecting and tracking targets, particularly low-flying aircraft and missiles that may be masked from ground-based sensors by terrain or the radar horizon.

The aerial refueling probe could further extend the aircraft’s range and time on station, although the precise operational capabilities of the KJ-3000 remain unclear.

The exact configuration of the KJ-3000’s primary radar has yet to be established. China’s existing KJ-2000 and smaller KJ-500 use fixed radomes containing three active electronically scanned array (AESA) antennas to provide 360-degree coverage, rather than the rotating radomes found on aircraft such as the U.S. E-3 Sentry and Russia’s A-50 Mainstay. Whether the new aircraft follows the same approach remains to be seen.

As well as its large AESA radar, the new aircraft is likely to carry additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, while its communications equipment could make it an important networking node for Chinese forces operating across the vast distances of the Indo-Pacific. Such capabilities would be particularly valuable for coordinating combat aircraft, including uncrewed ones, sharing targeting information, and extending the reach of China’s integrated air defense and broader military networks.

The KJ-3000 is also part of a broader expansion and diversification of China’s AEW&C fleet. Alongside the new jet-powered aircraft, the People’s Liberation Army continues to field and develop smaller platforms based on the four-turboprop Y-9 transport family.

These include the KJ-500, which has been produced and delivered at a rapid pace, as well as the newer KJ-700, believed to combine radar with electro-optical and infrared sensors for a broader range of surveillance missions. The precise capabilities of the KJ-700 remain uncertain, but you can read about the platform in more detail here.

The smaller turboprop aircraft offer advantages of their own. They are better suited to operating from dispersed and relatively austere airfields, and they regularly appear at Chinese island outposts and in the strategically important Taiwan Strait. Together, the different types give Chinese forces a range of options for surveillance and command and control, from persistent coverage close to home to operations farther afield.

The U.S. Department of Defense has repeatedly highlighted the growing importance of China’s AEW&C fleet.

In its latest annual report on Chinese military developments, the Pentagon specifically pointed to the KJ-3000:

“The PLA conducted an initial flight with the KJ-3000 Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft, which will serve as a surveillance aircraft to monitor aircraft, ships, and other vehicles. The KJ-3000 will probably be the world’s first model to use digital radar and will be capable of anti-jamming, passive detection, and target identification.”

Airborne radar and command-and-control aircraft are also important force multipliers for increasingly capable Chinese combat jets, including the stealthy J-20 and aircraft armed with long-range air-to-air missiles. Radar planes like these can serve as critical networking nodes for data sharing and, in some cases, allow Chinese fighters to prosecute targets without turning on their own radar.

In 2022, then-Pacific Air Forces commander Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach praised the command and control associated with J-20 operations, noting that some of China’s long-range air-to-air missiles benefit from support provided by the KJ-500.

For China, a larger and more capable AEW&C fleet would support both the defense of its airspace and efforts to project military power across the Indo-Pacific. These aircraft could help coordinate operations around Taiwan and the South China Sea, improve situational awareness over maritime approaches, and support combat operations at greater distances from the mainland.

The same Pentagon report from 2025 further noted:

“China’s integration of support aircraft, such as the KJ-500 airborne early warning aircraft, provides the PLAAF with improved ISR capability to support PLA operations, as demonstrated during surge operations near Taiwan.”

A domestically developed, jet-powered platform such as the KJ-3000 would be a logical centerpiece of that effort, particularly since it can be produced in substantially greater numbers than the KJ-2000.

The prospect of China expanding its fleet of large, jet-powered AEW&C aircraft stands in contrast to the U.S. Air Force’s troubled effort to replace its aging E-3 Sentry. The U.S. E-7 Wedgetail program has encountered major hurdles, raising concerns about a potential gap in airborne battle management as China continues to field new capabilities.

The October 5 imagery does not confirm that serial production has begun. Further imagery showing additional airframes, activity around production facilities, or aircraft in new operational markings may provide a clearer indication of the program’s progress.

Regardless, the KJ-3000 appears poised to become an important addition to China’s expanding airborne surveillance and command-and-control architecture.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Four KJ-3000 Radar Jets At Chinese Factory Point To Serial Production appeared first on TWZ.