Israel and Iran may be seeking an off-ramp to keep the latest flare-up of fighting from boiling over to an extended conflict in the wake of strikes between the two nations on Sunday and Monday. The attacks marked the most serious challenge to the shaky ceasefire that went into effect on April 8. They took place despite President Donald Trump urging both sides to stand down to let the sputtering peace process move forward.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it was halting attacks on Israel but maintained the right to resume them if Jerusalem continued “to target Hezbollah in Lebanon,” Fox News reporter Trey Yingst reported.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the decision to stop attacking Iran was made because “after we dealt a heavy blow to the terrorist regime in Tehran, it ceased its attacks on us. If the terrorist regime in Iran makes a mistake and attacks us again—we will respond with full force.”
در حال حاضر، آتش متوقف شده است، زیرا پس از اینکه ما به رژیم تروریستی در تهران ضربه محکم زدیم، حمله به ما را متوقف کرد.
اگر رژیم تروریستی در ایران اشتباه کند و دوباره به ما حمله کند – ما با قدرت پاسخ خواهیم داد.
In a post on his social media platform, President Donald Trump said both sides “are looking to do an immediate CEASEFIRE! Final negotiations on ‘Peace’ are proceeding, subject to ignorance or stupidity getting in its way.”
The ongoing U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, however, “will remain in place, and in full force and effect, until a ‘Final Deal’ is reached,” Trump added. “Things should move quickly.”
“Both sides, Israel and Iran, are looking to do an immediate CEASEFIRE! Final negotiations on “Peace” are proceeding, subject to ignorance or stupidity getting in its way…” – President DONALD J. TRUMP pic.twitter.com/zLoFSZo3jZ
As we noted yesterday, the latest Israel-Iran fighting was sparked by Israeli bombing of Beirut on Sunday. Hours after that took place, Iran launched missiles at Israel and Israel fired back. Initially on Monday, Israeli leaders said they were expecting a conflict that would last for at least several days and that Iran has sufficient stocks of ballistic missiles to carry that out, according to the Israeli N12 News outlet.
In addition, the IDF was preparing for more attacks from the Houthis and Hezbollah, N12 stated.
However, that analysis had apparently changed in recent hours.
Israel’s retaliatory strikes came despite Trump telling several reporters on Sunday that he was going to tell Netanyahu to hold his fire and that both sides had done enough to each other and should cease attacking. Those conversations pointed to either messaging to deceive Iran about a pending attack or further signs of strain between the two leaders.
Trump to Channel 13 News: ''I think Israel has responded enough, no need for more. We can achieve peace after 3,000 years.''
Netanyahu’s push to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon had reportedly already earned a invective-laden rebuke from Trump.
“You’re fucking crazy,” Axios said Trump told the Israeli leader in a phone call last week. “You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”
After Israel struck Beirut on Sunday, Trump told Financial Timesthat Netanyahu would have no choice but to accept any deal the U.S. negotiates with Iran, because he “calls the shots.”
“He won’t have any choice,” Trump told the outlet in a telephone interview. “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots.”
BREAKING: President Trump says Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will have "no choice" but to accept a US deal with Iran, because he "calls the shots," per FT.
Details include:
1. "I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots," Trump said
2.…
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) June 7, 2026
Despite Trump putting his foot down, overnight, “dozens of Israeli Air Force fighter jets struck nine Iranian air defense systems in western and central Iran, and this morning, the IAF struck three factories at a petrochemical complex in southwest Iran,” the Times of Israel reported. “The military says the strikes are only being carried out by Israel, but there is ‘full coordination’ with CENTCOM. Meanwhile, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir has spoken with his counterpart, CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper, three times, according to the military.”
U.S. forces “are assisting in intercepting incoming missiles,” I24 News Diplomatic Correspondent Amichai Stein reported on X. “So far, Iran has launched approximately 22–24 missiles, while the Houthis have fired two.”
An IDF official confirmed that to us, saying that “the Israeli strikes were fully coordinated with CENTCOM across multiple dimensions, including intelligence, defensive preparedness, and operational planning.”
CENTCOM declined to comment.
However, a U.S. official told TWZ that American forces “did not defend Israel with air defense against missiles and drones.”
IDF sources:
• The military is preparing for at least several days of combat.
• U.S. forces are assisting in intercepting incoming missiles.
• So far, Iran has launched approximately 22–24 missiles, while the Houthis have fired two.
Earlier on Monday, Israel released video it says showed attacks on Iranian air defense systems.
FIRST FOOTAGE: Watch IDF strikes targeting aerial defense systems in Iran, which housed missiles intended to target aircraft. pic.twitter.com/7pWhnOuSGV
That strike was part of a wave of attacks Israel carried out on Iranian air defenses across the country.
STRUCK: The IDF completed a large-scale strike on strategic defense systems belonging to the Iranian terror regime.
Recently, defense systems were deployed across Iran to restore the regime’s capabilities degraded during Operation Roaring Lion. The strike led to the… pic.twitter.com/eEqV2QnXK3
“These facilities were used by the armed forces of the Iranian terror regime to produce and export raw materials for weapons production,” the IDF posited. “The targeted infrastructure produced unique materials that serve as critical components for the development of ballistic missiles.”
confirmed. Among the 15 Targets IAF attacked is the Mahshahr Petrochemical Complex, officially known as the Petrochemical Special Economic Zone (PETZONE) in Bandar-e Mahshahr, Khuzestan Province. Right across the border from Kuwait !
Video emerged online showing the Israeli airstrikes in Tehran.
For the first time since the April ceasefire, Israel and Iran have attacked each other. Israel carried out strikes on western and central Iran including the Iranian capital Tehran.
While Iran launched missiles at northern Israel and said it is the beginning of a week of attacks.… pic.twitter.com/SmcwFKMw14
The attacks sparked a warning from the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.
“As a result of the current security situation in Israel, including Home Front Command alerts for multiple regions,” the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem is ordering “all U.S. government employees and their family members to shelter in place, and be prepared to move to a protected shelter in the event of a red alert, until further notice.”
As a result of the current security situation in Israel, including Home Front Command alerts for multiple regions, the U.S. Embassy has directed all U.S. government employees and their family members to shelter in place, and be prepared to move to a protected shelter in the event… pic.twitter.com/ohyK56GyNh
— U.S. Embassy Jerusalem (@usembassyjlm) June 8, 2026
Though both Israel and Iran say they are willing to stop fighting, tensions in the region remain high. We will continue to monitor the situation.
UPDATES
As we noted earlier in this story, the Houthi rebels of Yemen said they are banning Israeli ships from the Red Sea and took credit for missile attacks on Israel that took place on Sunday.
“We announce a complete ban on navigation for the enemy in the Red Sea, and any Zionist movements will be considered military targets for our forces,” said Brigadier General Yahya Sare’e, the Houthis’ spokesman. “We will confront escalation with escalation, and our operations will be escalating in line with the battle and our participation in the axis of jihad and resistance.”
“We affirm the right of our people and the free peoples of our nation to confront American-Israeli aggression,” he added. “We will not stand idly by in the face of the unjust siege on our people and the peoples of the axis of jihad and resistance.”
Sare’e also said the Houthis launched “a missile strike on sensitive targets of the Israeli enemy in occupied Jaffa, and achieving its objectives with precision, thanks to God.”
There were no reported injuries or damage from that attack.
Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis announce that they launched a missile attack on Israel and declared a ban on Israeli shipping in the Red Sea.#Yemenpic.twitter.com/LYYPB7bibK
— Al Arabiya English (@AlArabiya_Eng) June 8, 2026
As we have previously reported, there have been major and relevant concerns that the Houthis could effectively shut down the Bab el-Mandeb (BAM) strait, a narrow stretch of water between Yemen and Djibouti. Doing so would choke off a flow of oil exports from Saudi Arabia to the east, exacerbating a huge spike in oil prices after Iran closed off the Strait of Hormuz to most shipping. Having both straits closed at once is something of a ‘sum of all fears’ scenario for the global energy marketplace.
A new Houthi offensive would be a major cudgel for Iran, because it would open a new front in the war and draw in U.S. military resources at a time when they are already heavily involved in the region.
During the previous Houthi Red Sea campaign that stretched into early 2025, the U.S. and its allies deployed many warships, including the Eisenhower and Truman Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) to both defend against Houthi attacks and strike targets in Yemen. These operations resulted in a large expenditure of air defense munitions already under strain as Iran rained down missiles and drones across the Middle East.
You can see video from some of those encounters below.
Iran, meanwhile, insists it is maintaining its control over the Strait of Hormuz.
“No vessel without Iran’s permission has the right to pass through the Strait of Hormuz Command vessel of the IRGC Navy,” the official Iranian Fars News Agency stated on X. “It is announced to all vessels that entry of any vessel from hostile countries into the Strait of Hormuz is prohibited and, if observed, they will immediately be targeted.”
CENTCOM says its forces once again disabled a ship trying to run the blockade. This time, the effort involved an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) firing “a precision munition into the ship’s engineering and steering spaces after the crew failed to comply with directions.”
The incident, involving the Palau-flagged M/T Marivex, took place as the unladen oil tanker transited international waters in the Gulf of Oman toward Iran, the command stated on X.
“Marivex is no longer sailing to Iran,” CENTCOM added.
This was the seventh ship trying to run the blockade that CENTCOM forces disabled, the command noted. In addition, it said it “redirected 134 ships that complied, and allowed 42 vessels supporting humanitarian aid to pass since initiating the blockade on April 13.”
You can read more about how the other six ships were disabled in our story here.
According to a release from U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), the U.S. disabled an unladen oil tanker, the M/T Marivex, in the Gulf of Oman today. Per the release, a “precise munition” from an F/A-18 Super Hornet was fired into the engine and steering areas of the vessel when the… pic.twitter.com/qyW4WBhfLa
Given existing concerns that Iran has mined the Strait, “US allies will seek Trump’s approval for a Europe-led plan to demine the Strait of Hormuz at next week’s G7 summit in France,” Bloomberg News is reporting. “The UK and French-led mine-clearing mission is operationally ready and set to deploy in the days after any Iran deal. Securing a G7 endorsement of the mission is one of the main goals of the summit. European leaders see it as a way of showing the continent is stepping up to help the US after Trump’s fury it didn’t back his war.”
US allies will seek President Donald Trump’s approval for a Europe-led plan to demine the Strait of Hormuz at next week’s Group of Seven summit in France. https://t.co/Byy6mE94rh
You can read more about what it takes to conduct demining operations in our exclusive interview with a former MH-53E pilot who carried out those operations, which you can read here.
My exclusive interview with a pilot who flew the behemoth MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters on counter mine missions over the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.https://t.co/C0tvO2sLKp
Despite the renewed fighting, Iran’s president says his country has not abandoned diplomacy.
“Our priority is national security and the peace of our people. We will defend the rights of the nation with authority and will not retreat in the face of any threat,” Masoud Pezeshkian stated on X. “Diplomacy and defense are the two wings of national power; we have neither abandoned the field nor the negotiating table. God willing, with unity and rationality, Iran will emerge triumphant from this trial as well.”
اولویت ما امنیت ملی و آرامش مردم است. با اقتدار از حقوق ملت دفاع میکنیم و در برابر هیچ تهدیدی عقبنشینی نخواهیم کرد. دیپلماسی و دفاع دو بال قدرت ملیاند؛ نه میدان را ترک کردهایم و نه میز مذاکره را. به امید خدا با وحدت و عقلانیت ایران از این آزمون نیز سربلند عبور خواهد کرد.
In a post on X, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-connected Tasnim news agency claims Iran fired a new jet-powered drone at Israel during its waves of attacks yesterday. The outlet provided no details about the weapon or any imagery of it in flight. TWZ cannot independently verify the claim.
Iran Utilized Newly Unveiled Jet-Powered Drone in Overnight Strikes on Israel
Iran employed a previously unseen jet-powered drone in its overnight attacks on Israel, according to Seyed Mohammad Taheri, a military analyst at Tasnim News Agency’s War Interpretation Desk. https://t.co/ATvBOUmiOZpic.twitter.com/Z4SBHawMcz
— Tasnim News Agency (@Tasnimnews_EN) June 8, 2026
In a significant development, Airbus has announced that its H145 twin-engine light helicopter is being developed in an uncrewed version, the U145. The move continues and expands the manufacturer’s work in the uncrewed helicopter space and reflects similar developments around the globe — most notably, an uncrewed version of the UH-72 Lakota, which is the U.S. Army’s variant of the H145.
The U145 was officially revealed today, ahead of the ILA Berlin airshow, starting this week, during which a full-scale mock-up will be displayed. Airbus says it is planning a first flight of the U145 — with a safety pilot onboard — before the end of this year, and is aiming for entry into service at the beginning of the next decade.
At @ILA_Berlin, we introduce the Airbus U145: an uncrewed, fully autonomous variant of the H145. Optimised for cargo with no cockpit, an integrated nose door, and full autonomy, its first flight is set for late 2026. https://t.co/MbodUxYxyIpic.twitter.com/2EnMXzog6c
“With the U145, we are offering our customers an autonomous, uncrewed version of our H145 helicopter — combining the proven airframe, power and useful load of the H145 with the autonomy of a UAS,” said Matthieu Louvot, CEO of Airbus Helicopters, in a company media release. “To develop the U145 and its capabilities as a multi-mission UAS, we will be teaming up with leading autonomous mission partners to further expand the UAS ecosystem in Europe,” he added.
The U145 will have a maximum takeoff weight of around 8,400 pounds, and is described as a “mission-agnostic solution for civil and military applications, primarily high-volume cargo supply.” Airbus has announced the payload will be up to 2,600 pounds. In comparison, the uncrewed version of the Lakota, the MQ-72C Lakota Connector, will carry a maximum payload of around 4,000 pounds, although this includes slung loads. With that in mind, the U145 and MQ-72C will likely end up offering very similar payload capacities.
A model of the uncrewed version of the Lakota, now known as the MQ-72C, on display at the 2024 Sea Air Space convention. Jamie Hunter
The MQ-72C is expected to be able to cruise at speeds of 135 knots out to ranges of at least 350 nautical miles, according to the Airbus website.
Already at this stage, the company is pitching the U145 for specific military roles, including armed scouting and surveillance. Airbus is also planning to adapt the U145 as a “drone mothership” that will carry “launched effects,” on which the company is partnering with European missile house MBDA. A similar concept is currently being pitched by Sikorsky, with its uncrewed version of the Black Hawk helicopter, dubbed the U-Hawk, which is also intended to be able to fire dozens of launched effects such as surveillance and reconnaissance drones and loitering munitions.
Airbus also envisages the U145 operating in conjunction with conventional helicopters as part of crewed-uncrewed teaming.
German special forces members take off from Lechfeld Air Base, Germany, aboard a pair of H145Ms during Exercise Air Defender 2023. U.S. Air National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Joseph R. Morgan Tech. Sgt. Joseph Morgan
The U145 will offer full autonomy, Airbus says, being equipped with a specialized sensor suite and artificial intelligence. For an uncrewed logistics aircraft, the ability to autonomously navigate along a predetermined route using programmed waypoints would provide a practical foundation for autonomous operations. However, more advanced capabilities — such as dynamically adjusting flight paths and responding in real time to emerging threats or unexpected obstacles — would also be very valuable, especially when conducting resupply missions in contested or high-risk environments.
The U145 will have no physical cockpit, so it cannot be flown with human pilots onboard. Other significant changes include adaptations for cargo missions, including a clamshell nose door, a loading platform, and a dedicated cargo floor. The existing rear clamshell doors are retained, as are the cabin side doors. The same configuration has been adopted for the MQ-72C, and a pass-through cargo hold is a big advantage that other crewed helicopters in this class cannot match.
A look in through the rear of a UH-72 in a medical evacuation configuration. The H145 is essentially similar. U.S. Army National Guard
Other features of the new uncrewed helicopter will be carried directly over from the H145, more than 1,800 of which are currently in service.
These features include a powerplant of two Safran Arriel 2E engines equipped with a full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) and a fenestron tail rotor.
The U145 is the next step in the manufacturer’s development of uncrewed helicopters. As such, it follows on from the smaller VSR700, a rotary-wing uncrewed air system which was derived from the crewed Cabri G2 light helicopter.
A VSR700 completes a test flight, accompanied by an H145. Airbus
It is unclear what elements might be ported across from the MQ-72C, also called the Unmanned Logistics Connector (ULC), which is being developed separately by Airbus U.S. Space and Defense, together with its partners Shield AI, L3 Harris, and Parry Lab. Based on the U.S.-made UH-72B Lakota, the MQ-72C is similarly autonomous and is primarily aimed at the U.S. Marine Corps. You can read more about the MQ-72C in our previous coverage of the aircraft, here and here.
Other U.S. efforts in this space include optionally crewed and uncrewed versions of the larger H-60 Black Hawk series. The U-Hawk demonstrator, a fully uncrewed version of the Black Hawk helicopter, is intended to carry cargo and deliver launched effects and similarly features clamshell doors in the nose. At the heavier end of the scale, Boeing has said its future plans for the H-47 Chinook include creating a path toward an uncrewed version of the aircraft.
However, these kinds of capabilities are increasingly being eyed by other services around the world, too.
With this in mind, Airbus is hoping to leverage the existing customer base for the H145, which has footprints on six continents. The H145 is already in service, or on order, with a growing number of international military operators for utility and light-attack missions. The uncrewed version maintains significant commonality, which will bring down support and maintenance costs.
At the same time, the U145 has obvious commercial applications. Airbus highlights its suitability for roles like disaster management and firefighting, although it would also be ideal for cargo conveyance, especially remote resupply work and logistics support to offshore platforms and remote areas on land, for example.
A standard H145 demonstrates its capabilities for offshore missions. Airbus
An Airbus spokesperson toldBreaking Defense that the U145 has not been developed for any specific national or European acquisition.
Undoubtedly, there is growing recognition in Europe, in particular, that changes in the geopolitical landscape mean that the continent cannot necessarily rely on the United States to meet its defense needs. Developing the U145 in addition to the MQ-72C aligns with Europe’s ambition to strengthen its sovereign capabilities.
With the U145, Airbus is betting that autonomous rotorcraft will become an increasingly important part of military operations. By leveraging a proven helicopter platform, it should accelerate the transition to uncrewed operations, but the drone helicopter will be entering an increasingly competitive marketplace.
Footage has emerged showing the destruction of a drone by a French Rafale fighter over Latvia earlier today. The engagement underscores how the drone war unleashed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine is increasingly spilling over borders, as well as the growing reality of the drone threat to NATO.
The French Air and Space Force confirmed that its Rafales, currently deployed in neighboring Lithuania, were scrambled in response to the drone incursion. The drone was identified before one of the fighters shot it down over an uninhabited area. The incident was a “demonstration of the French Armed Forces’ commitment to contributing to the security of Europe’s eastern flank,” the service said in a statement on X.
Lettonie | Destruction d’un drone par les Rafale
Survol d’un drone au dessus du territoire letton Décollage sur alerte des chasseurs engagés dans la mission de l’OTAN Baltic Air Policing depuis la base aérienne de Šiauliai Identification et destruction… pic.twitter.com/NFIMSP7Ibl
— Armée française – Opérations militaires (@EtatMajorFR) June 8, 2026
A detachment of French Air and Space Force Rafale jets is currently engaged in the NATO Baltic Air Policing mission from Šiauliai Air Base, Lithuania.
This morning, French fighter jets deployed to NATO Air Policing at Šiauliai Air Base shot down a drone that entered Latvian airspace.
Lithuania thanks our French allies for their swift and professional action in safeguarding the security of our region.
This is not the first time that a NATO fighter has shot down a drone in the Baltic region as part of the Baltic Air Policing mission. On May 19 of this year, a Romanian F-16 shot down a Ukrainian drone over Estonia after it strayed into NATO airspace, reportedly due to Russian electronic warfare interference. Last September, NATO fighters shot down at least three, and likely four, Russian drones, after 19 reported violations of Polish airspace. Polish authorities assessed that the drones “did not veer off course but were deliberately targeted.”
However, this is the first time that an incident of this kind has been captured on camera.
At least two videos are now circulating on social media showing the engagement playing out.
One shows the moment that a Rafale launches an air-to-air missile, leaving a prominent trail of smoke, before detonating seconds later.
Another video, from a different angle, shows the immediate aftermath of the shootdown. Another trail is seen in the background of both videos, but it’s unclear if this is evidence of a previous missile launch, or a contrail from another aircraft that previously transited the airspace at a different altitude.
In a typical Baltic Air Policing configuration, the Rafale is armed with MICA air-to-air missiles. These beyond-visual-range weapons can be fitted with either an active radar seeker or an infrared seeker head, with a mix normally being loaded. The MICA uses a thrust-vectoring motor for improved agility and has a reported maximum range of around 37 miles.
Lituanie | Le succès des vols conjoints commence au sol
Préparation d'un vol d'entraînement avec des avions de chasse et :
Montage d'armements entre mécaniciens des deux pays alliés
— Armée française – Opérations militaires (@EtatMajorFR) June 6, 2026
The Latvian Armed Forces provided more details of the shootdown, noting that a yellow alert was originally issued for the Ludza, Balvi, and Aluksne districts this morning at 9:20 a.m. local time. This led to NATO fighters being launched.
At 9:40 a.m., this alert level was increased to orange for the Ludza and Rēzekne districts. At this point, it was confirmed that some kind of drone was entering Latvian airspace. A military spokesperson told the Reuters news agency that the drone entered Latvian airspace from Russia.
The Latvian Armed Forces warned residents in these areas to “Seek shelter indoors, close windows and doors — follow the two-wall principle.” It added: “If you notice a low-flying, suspicious, or dangerous object, do not approach it and call 112.”
At 10:05 a.m., the Latvian Armed Forces confirmed that NATO fighters were over the Rēzekne district, and a “foreign” drone was shot down over the Berzgale parish.
Berzgale is less than 20 miles from the nearest Russian border, and around 340 miles from the closest Ukrainian border, with Belarus, a close Moscow ally, separating Latvia and Ukraine.
A map showing the approximate location of the drone shootdown in Berzgale, Latvia. Also marked is the Russian naval base at Kronstadt that came under Ukrainian drone attack last week. Google Earth
NATO’s Baltic Air Policing mission has safeguarded the airspace of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania since the three countries joined the alliance in 2004. Because the Baltic states do not maintain fighter fleets capable of continuous air-defense duties, allied nations rotate detachments of combat aircraft to bases in Lithuania and Estonia, where they remain on quick-reaction alert around the clock.
The mission routinely scrambles fighters to identify and intercept Russian military aircraft operating near NATO airspace, particularly flights to and from Russia’s heavily militarized Kaliningrad exclave that often occur without flight plans, radio contact, or active transponders.
French Rafales recently encountered this Russian Navy Su-24M carrying free-fall bombs during a flight over the Baltic. French Armed ForcesOne of two Russian Navy Su-30SMs intercepted over the Baltic by French Rafales during the current Baltic Air Policing detachment. This example carries a Kh-31 series anti-ship or anti-radiation missile. French Armed Forces
Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, NATO expanded the mission with additional aircraft and operating locations, making Baltic Air Policing one of the alliance’s most visible peacetime deterrence operations on its eastern flank.
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the expanding drone war between the two countries has provided another layer of responsibility to the Baltic Air Policing mission.
A Rafale B is ready for takeoff as part of an earlier Baltic Air Policing mission in Lithuania, in the Baltic States, December 2024. Photo by PETRAS MALUKAS / AFP PETRAS MALUKAS
For most of its history, Baltic Air Policing centered on scrambling fighters to identify Russian bombers, fighters, reconnaissance aircraft, and transports flying near NATO airspace. The war in Ukraine has seen the increasing proliferation of drones that can travel hundreds or even thousands of miles, creating a new challenge for NATO air defenses.
Since 2022, there have been several incidents, including drones and missile debris entering or crashing in NATO territory, including in Poland and Romania. Late last month, a Russian kamikaze drone strayed into Romanian airspace before striking a residential building, injuring civilians, in what appears to have been the first incident of its kind.
A russian drone carrying explosives, involved in the bombing of infrastructure in Ukraine crashed in Galați, Romania, causing a fire on the roof of a residential apartment building.
Two persons sustained minor injuries and several residents required medical attention, the… pic.twitter.com/P8jzYFrEEp
We asked NATO for more details of today’s incident, including whether it could confirm reports citing the Latvian military that the drone had entered its airspace as a result of Russian electronic warfare. This is a threat that is by now commonplace in the Baltic region.
“While the circumstances surrounding this incident are still under review, jamming is known to occur in this region, and can pose serious safety risks, including to civil aviation,” a spokesperson for the alliance told us.
In recent days, Ukraine has carried out a number of high-profile drone attacks against Russian targets in and around the Baltic region.
In the last week, Ukrainian drones appear to have hit the St. Petersburg oil terminal, the Baltic Fleet base at Kronstadt, and a weapons factory in the Tambov region.
As we observed in our previous reporting, there have been very few confirmed Ukrainian attacks of any kind against the Baltic Fleet. However, satellite and other imagery that emerged in the wake of the recent drone strike reveals extensive damage inflicted on the Steregushchiy class corvette Boikiy.
Footage of the Russian Navy Baltic Sea Fleet corvette Boikiy burning in its Kronstadt drydock after a Ukrainian drone strike yesterday. pic.twitter.com/9CHz4aLdY8
Another satellite image of the Russian corvette Boikiy following yesterday's Ukrainian strike. What is interesting here is that the active fire was captured before firefighting crews managed to extinguish it. @planet image taken on June 3 at 16:30 local time. It burned for hours. pic.twitter.com/PzcHxoSxGk
Today’s incident provides visual evidence of advanced NATO fighters used to shoot down drones over alliance territory. While effective on this occasion, this kind of interception can be inefficient due to the mismatch in cost between the drone and missile. It is notable that the French Ministry of Defense has plans to introduce a lower-cost counter-drone capability on the Rafale by the summer. Trials of a pod loaded with 68mm laser-guided rockets have already begun.
Un Rafale équipé de roquettes guidées laser aperçu à Istres. Les essais ont donc enfin démarré. Ici une nacelle Thalès JF12, donc 24 roquettes 68mm au total. Une corde de plus à l'arc du Rafale, la chasse au Shahed est OUVERTE ! pic.twitter.com/6v0xSMkUJ1
As a result, NATO has accelerated work on layered defenses that include short-range ground-based air defenses, electronic warfare, and other counter-drone technologies.
Fighters, however, will always remain a critical last-resort option, especially when a drone poses an immediate threat or when a visual identification is required.
Today’s video not only illustrates the changing face of the Baltic Air Policing mission due to the Russian war in Ukraine, but highlights the growing threat posed by drones and cruise missiles that can cross borders with little warning, whether deliberately or not.
Iran has launched a new barrage of missiles at Israel, according to the Israeli Defense Forces. Iranian officials say the attack, the first such strike since the April 8 ceasefire, was in response to Israel bombing Beirut a few hours ago. With Israel under direct attack from Iran, how much longer the ceasefire will hold is an open question.
“A short while ago, the IDF identified missiles launched from Iran toward the territory of the State of Israel,” the IDF stated on Telegram. “Defensive systems are operating to intercept the threat.”
Sirens were sounded in several areas across the country following the identification of missiles launched from Iran toward Israel. https://t.co/BtjlfxOegW
A third round of sirens sound in northern Israel, after the IDF intercepted several Iranian ballistic missiles. No initial reports of injuries or damages.
A senior Israeli official tells Israeli media: “There will be a forceful response.” pic.twitter.com/BixzsXOrhs
— Ariel Oseran أريئل أوسيران (@ariel_oseran) June 7, 2026
Additional video purported to show the Iranian missile launches.
Visuals of Iranian Ballistic Missiles fired towards of State of Israel which were later intercepted and neutralised. pic.twitter.com/Xnfaiy1XZD
Earlier on Sunday, Israel attacked what it said was a Hezbollah command center in the Dahieh section of Beirut. Israel claimed it was in response to Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel.
STRUCK: A Hezbollah command center in the Dahieh area, following Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on northern Israeli communities.
The targeted command center was used by Hezbollah terrorists to advance terror attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF soldiers operating in southern…
BREAKING: In what appears to be a declaration of war by Iran against Israel, a third wave of missile alerts has been activated across Israel within minutes
President Donald Trump spoke with several media outlets in the wake of the Iranian attack. He is urging restraint between the Israel and Iran.
He told Fox News that the attack wasn’t helping negotiations and said he would suggest to Iran that “you shot your missiles, that’s enough, get back to the table and make a deal.”
On Israel striking Beirut earlier today: “I’m not happy about it,” President Trump said.
As I was speaking with President Trump, I could see incoming Iranian missiles out the window soaring toward northern Israel.
"It's certainly not going to help negotiations," President Trump told Fox News.
The president told Axios reporter Barak Ravid that he was going to call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and tell him to hold his fire.
“I’m about to call Bibi right now and tell him not to respond,” Trump told the outlet. “Both of them have already done their part. Israel had its strike and Iran had its strike. We don’t need another one.”
“The Iranian missile fire didn’t hit anyone. I hope Israel doesn’t respond. If Bibi attacks them back, it’ll just drag on like it has for the past 47 years, or the past 3,000 years,” Trump told Ravid. “We’re very close to a final deal with Iran. It’ll be a good deal. I don’t want it to blow up because of what’s happening now.”
ציטוטים נוספים משיחת הטלפון שלי עם הנשיא טראמפ: "ירי הטילים האיראני לא פגע באף אחד. אני מקווה שישראל לא תגיב. אם ביבי יתקוף אותם בחזרה, זה פשוט יימשך כמו ב־47 השנים האחרונות, או ב־3,000 השנים האחרונות." טראמפ הוסיף:"אנחנו מאוד קרובים להסכם סופי עם איראן. זה יהיה הסכם טוב.… https://t.co/g7pshIL497
The IDF said Iran made “a grave mistake” by attacking, said its operations against Hezbollah will continue and warned Israelis that more attacks could be launched.
IDF Spokesperson: The Iranian regime made a grave mistake when it once again chose terrorism
Trump told Financial Times that Netanyahu will have no choice but to accept any deal the US negotiates with Iran, because he “calls the shots.”
“He won’t have any choice,” Trump told the outlet in a telephone interview. “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots.”
Trump added that Iran’s strikes had not changed his desire to conclude US-Iran negotiations. “It’s not going to have any impact on the deal,” he told the FT.
“We’ll see how it ends up,” Trump continued. “But they [the missile strikes on Israel] were attacks that did not kick at all. It’s one of those things that’s been going for 3,000 years, or 47 years, depending on how you count.”
BREAKING: President Trump says Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will have "no choice" but to accept a US deal with Iran, because he "calls the shots," per FT.
Details include:
1. "I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots," Trump said
2.…
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) June 7, 2026
UPDATE: 9:50 PM EDT-
As we suggested would likely happen, Israel has retaliated against Iran.
“A short while ago, the Israeli Air Force struck military targets belonging to the Iranian terror regime in western and central Iran,” the IDF stated on Telegram.
UPDATE: 9:56 PM EDT –
Iranian media reported that “explosion sounds were heard in areas of Tehran, Isfahan, and Tabriz.”
Video and images have emerged on social media claiming to show the aftermath of the Israeli attacks.
Video from Isfahan as the Israeli military said it launched airstrikes on military targets in western and central Iran.
— ZaidBenjamin زيد بنيامين (@ZaidBenjamin5) June 8, 2026
UPDATE: 10:58 PM EDT –
In a post on X, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) says it has “identified the launch of a missile from Yemen toward Israeli territory, aerial defense systems are operating to intercept the threat.” “The public is requested to follow the Home Front Command’s defensive guidelines,” the IAF added.
צה״ל זיהה כי שוגר טיל מכיוון תימן לשטח ישראל, מערכות ההגנה פועלות ליירט את האיום. יש לפעול לפי הנחיות פיקוד העורף.
Inside the firebird motif of the F-47 patch, there is an exaggerated planform of what we see in Project Fear’s video of what is very likely Boeing’s NGAD demonstrator shot outside of Area 51. It also aligns with what we can extrapolate from the concept renderings of the F-47 that have been released.
Mainly, the design includes forward canard foreplanes with a tapered central fuselage, rear-set and highly-swept wings, and no traditional tails. The wings have a high dihedral before drooping toward their tips, creating an appearance akin to the Klingon Bird of Prey from the world of Star Trek. That reference isn’t just my own. Boeing’s Bird of Prey from the 1990s clearly shares design similarities, especially in the wing area, as we originally stated after the first official concept art’s release. The Bird of Prey’s patch also cryptically shared its basic planform.
On the Bird of Prey patch, we see a traditional Klingon knife, made famous by Star Trek, with the blade’s hilt making up the Bird of Prey’s planform. In fact, the only detail to throw it off is the t-guard at the bottom of the handle, which appears like canards. Even the cockpit is there. Of course, it isn’t clear at this time when this patch began to circulate in the public domain or if it was after the Bird of Prey was declassified in late 2002. Regardless, in the F-47’s case, the demonstrator’s exact features remain closely guarded secrets, at least officially.
(Screenshot)
Attempting to decode or draw insights into the military’s notoriously cryptic classified program patches is hardly a new practice. Books like Trevor Paglen’s I Could Tell You but Then You Would Have to Be Destroyed by Me is an excellent example of this and the fascination around this unique blending of art, technology, and national security.
In years of reporting on these topics, I have been told multiple times that there is more in patches than many realize, including hints at designs of classified aircraft. This runs pretty counterintuitive considering the government’s extreme protocol for classification, but vague representations of general design concepts are far from giving up an actual blueprint of a classified aircraft. Nonetheless, it is fascinating to see the practice occur for two highly classified aircraft that are directly related, and it’s something we keep an eye on regularly, as well.
Still, with all this in mind, it may be time to take a look back at some of the most interesting patches floating around to see if an exotic planform of an aircraft could be hiding amongst their stitches.
The U.S. Air Force Weapons School at Nellis Air Force Base, in Nevada, recently completed its final weapons instructor course for the A-10 Warthog. Despite an extension in service for three A-10 squadrons to 2030, and recent combat operations in the Middle East, the Weapons School has shuttered its elite training course in line with USAF divestment plans for the type, which were previously set for the end of 2026.
TWZ’s Jamie Hunter recently visited the 66th Weapons Squadron (WPS) and got a detailed cockpit and walk-around tour of an A-10C with “Trippin,” an experienced instructor pilot attached to the unit.
A full episode that goes in-depth with the A-10 Weapons School will kick-off TWZ’s first season of Special Access on YouTube soon, so stay tuned!
In the latest flare-up of tension during a very shaky ‘ceasefire,’ “Iran has launched multiple drones towards the Strait of Hormuz,” a U.S. official told us. “U.S. forces have taken out at least four of them.”
The statement comes as unconfirmed reports are emerging online of explosions on Iran’s Kharg Island. The official, who spoke to us on condition of anonymity to discuss operational issues, declined comment about those claims.
Big Development
The United States Airforce just launched an intense airstrike on Kharg Island of Iran. Reportedly Air Defence & missile launch site of IRGC has been targeted. pic.twitter.com/qseXJ5g6B7
Kharg Island, which has come under attack before during Epic Fury, is Iran’s main oil export facility. An attack on the oil infrastructure would represent a major escalation.
News of the U.S. takedown of the drones is the latest kinetic incident in the Strait and comes amid sputtering peace talks. As we wrote last week, the U.S. struck Iranian targets and Iran launched missiles and drones at Kuwait and Bahrain in an exchange that severely damaged Kuwait International Airport, killed several people and injured scores more.
You can see video and images of damage from the June 3 attack below.
This is what Iran did in my country, Kuwait: it killed innocent civilians by bombing Kuwait International Airport. Violating all international norms
— حمد عبدالكريم السعيد (@Hamad_Alsaid) June 4, 2026
Other exchanges have occurred around the strait, where U.S. Navy ships says vessels, including their own, were fired upon, which resulted in reprisal attacks on shore targets.
UPDATE: 6:56 PM EDT –
CENTCOM confirmed U.S. forces attacked Iranian facilities and shot down Iranian drones..
“Moments ago, CENTCOM forces shot down four Iranian one-way attack drones that were launched toward the Strait of Hormuz,” the command stated on X. “The attack drones posed an immediate threat to regional maritime traffic. U.S. forces subsequently struck Iranian coastal surveillance radar sites in Goruk and on Qeshm Island to defend against further attacks. American forces remain vigilant and postured to respond to unjustified Iranian aggression in self-defense.”
Moments ago, CENTCOM forces shot down four Iranian one-way attack drones that were launched toward the Strait of Hormuz. The attack drones posed an immediate threat to regional maritime traffic. U.S. forces subsequently struck Iranian coastal surveillance radar sites in Goruk and…
In a post on X, CENTCOM claimed that “U.S. forces intercepted multiple Iranian ballistic missiles and drones launched by Iran toward the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf neighbors, June 5. “
“Iran fired seven ballistic missiles toward Kuwait and Bahrain,” the command stated. “Initial assessments indicate six of the missiles launched by Iran were intercepted and a seventh did not reach its intended target. There are currently no reports of harm to U.S. personnel, and Iranian claims of damaging U.S. 5th fleet headquarters in Bahrain are false. CENTCOM forces remain vigilant and postured to continue responding to unwarranted Iranian aggression in self-defense.
The Iranian attack took place hours after the previously mentioned CENTCOM strikes on Iranian coastal targets.
The CENTCOM post included a video showing those strikes.
For decades, the massive MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter has served as the Navy’s primary airborne mine countermeasure platform, dragging massive mine hunting sleds through waters all around the globe. However, the Sea Dragon’s days are now numbered, with the last 11 aircraft scheduled to sunset sometime next year. With the MH-53E’s demise on the horizon, we reached out to one of its former pilots, Steve Jones — a man who came to know this monster intimately during the Global War On Terror. He had plenty of stories to tell and provided us with a new understanding of the often misunderstood counter-mine mission.
The MH-53E’s mission is also, of course, extremely topical right now thanks to ongoing tensions with Iran. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently told senators that the Islamic Republic mined “large segments” of the Strait of Hormuz, endangering shipping in the region.
As it currently stands, the mighty Sea Dragons, which are considered one of the military’s most dangerous to fly due to numerous fatal mishaps, are being phased out in favor of the smaller MH-60S Seahawk paired with a suite of new aerial mine countermeasures systems, as well as other new technologies, like uncrewed underwater and surface vessels. The Navy’s overall mine hunting force is going through a transition that is controversial, to say the least, with many questioning if the Pentagon is investing enough resources in this critical missions set.
Petty Officer 1st Class Rawad Madanat
With all these issues in play, in an exclusive, wide-ranging, two-hour interview, Steve Jones offered in-depth insights about the Navy’s airborne counter-mine mission, the Sea Dragon’s capabilities and dangers, current mine sweeping operations, as well as everything from what it was like to narrowly avoid getting entangled with a surfacing sub to his experiences ferrying celebrities like Robin Williams and Tom Jones around a war zone.
So, with the stage being set, let’s get into this incredible exchange.
Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity.
Then-Navy Lt. Steve Jones in an MH-53E Sea Dragon. (Courtesy Steve Jones)
A: During the time that I selected, you could choose SH-60 Seahawks, you could choose CH-46E Sea Knights and the MH-53 Echo. You could choose SH-3 Sea Kings, but they were kind of winding down the H-3s, which is the same as the presidential helicopter Marine One that they fly now, but they were flying out of Norfolk and Puerto Rico, primarily for VIP transport.
So, I looked at the 53 for a lot of reasons. One, I liked the instructors that came from that community in the advanced helicopter training. And two, I just thought the helicopter just really looked awesome, and it was big, and so that’s why I chose it, and I just thought it would be a good personality fit, work fit for me, and it ended up being that way.
An MH-53E Sea Dragon, assigned to the “Blackhawks” of Helicopter Mines Countermeasures Squadron 15 (HM-15), takes off from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) during flight operations on the ship’s flight deck, April 5, 2025. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Soren V.P. Quinata) Petty Officer 3rd Class Soren Quinata
Q: What are the main differences between the Navy’s MH-53E and the Marines’ CH-53E Super Stallion?
A: It’s primarily the same aircraft. Except our aircraft has larger fuel sponsons, so we could carry more gas. The reason for that is ideally we’d want to be able to fly an hour to where the mission objective was, be able to stay on station for about an hour, and be able to fly back. That requires at least three and a half, four hours of gas and extra fuel in those side sponsors. And that allowed us to do that. So instead of a small sponson with two tanks, we had one big sponson with four fuel tanks that were inside each of the sponsons on either side of the aircraft.
Q: So how much gas would that larger sponson hold?
A: About 22,000 pounds of gas.
U.S. Navy Aviation Boatswain’s Mates (Fueling) prepare to refuel an MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter, attached to Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 15, on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). (Official U.S. Navy photo) Courtesy Asset
Q: Talk about the training and some of the biggest challenges of flying that huge aircraft.
A: Typical Navy training is two years of flight school, and then after flight school, we went to our Replacement Air Group, which we call the RAG, that was in Norfolk, Virginia. You spend about a year, or up to 10 months, in Norfolk, Virginia, learning primarily how to fly the helicopter, how to land the helicopter, and we do that in the combination with the Airborne Mine Countermeasure Squadron. We used aircraft from Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 14 to learn how to fly the different mission sets and learn aircraft familiarization. And then from there you either get assigned to HM-14, which was in Norfolk, Virginia, or HM-15, which was in Corpus Christi, Texas. HM-15 has now moved to Norfolk, Virginia. [Editor’s note: HM-14 sunsetted in 2022.]
Sailors assigned to the “Vanguard” of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 14 (HM-14) posed for a photo in front of an MH-53 “Sea Dragon” helicopter prior to the squadron’s last flights Dec. 8, 2022. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Malachi Lakey) Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Malachi Lakey
The training takes about 10 months. Mine was a little bit longer because when I actually joined that community, the aircraft were down because of a crash off the coast of Corpus Christi, Texas. There was a problem called ‘thermal runaway,’ where the bearings in the main rotor head would fail, and they would seize together and get hot, and we lost a few sailors from HM-15. And until they figured out why and how to prevent it, it took about a year for those aircraft to come back up, so I was in Norfolk for maybe about a year and a half, almost two years, before I got to Corpus because of that bearing issue.
Q: What was it like when you finally got out there and learned how to fly while pulling a mine countermeasure sled?
A: There’s different types of equipment that you use and it takes a special kind of person to be able to maintain the situational awareness – both flying the aircraft and what’s happening in the back – because there’s dangers in the back. You have a very confined area, lots of equipment, and under lots of tension, and so the very first couple of times, the instructor is kind of handling everything, and you’re just kind of riding along.
An MH-53 Sea Dragon helicopter from the “Vanguards” of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron Fourteen pulling a Mark 105 Magnetic Influence Minesweeping System (SLED). (Photo by BOB HOULIHAN / NAVY VISUAL NEWS / AFP) BOB HOULIHAN
Then eventually you start to do more tasks, physical tasks, in terms of flying and maintaining a stable platform for the men and women that are working in the back, and then over time those skills translate into a larger situational awareness, where you’re now a mission commander – where you’re flying the aircraft, but also, conducting the mission in the back is your primary responsibility. The positions are second pilot or co-pilot, and then you become a Helicopter Aircraft Commander (HAC), which is like the captain, and then you become an Airborne Mine Countermeasures Mission Commander (AMCM MC), meaning you’re flying the aircraft, you’re the commander of the aircraft, but you’re also commanding the mission.
Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Spencer and Lt. Cmdr. Nik Bochette, assigned to the Vanguards of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 14, perform a pre-flight check on an MH-53 helicopter. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Jessica L. Dowell/Released) Petty Officer 2nd Class Casey Hopkins
Q: Did you become a mission commander?
A: I did. So I was fully qualified in the MH-53 Echo in my squadron, so I was a mission commander. I worked the maintenance side, so I was the maintenance check pilot and functional check pilot. It takes a lot of maintenance, and then post maintenance, and you have to do post maintenance flights to be able to make sure the aircraft is safe for anyone else to fly. So I spend most of my time in those areas in that squadron.
A U.S. Navy Sailor with Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 14 guides an MH-53 helicopter from a vehicle carrier ship at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, Sept. 14, 2022, after completion of aircraft maintenance. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Darien Wright) Cpl. Darien Wright
Q: What are the MH-53’s unique quirks and advantages?
A: One of the advantages was pure brute strength. You had three GE engines, so you could handle lots of torque, and the way that we hunted and swept for mines was pulling sleds in the water, which causes thousands and thousands of pounds of stress, so it’s really like a forceful instrument in the water. The operation requires the coordination of not only meteorologists and Operations Specialists, which are like intel specialists in mine warfare, but then you have the maintainer, you had two pilots and a crew chief, plus it could be up to four people in the back, depending on the type of gear you’re stowing in the back, so it really takes coordination from the front.
An explosive ordnance disposal technician, assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 5 Platoon 502, operates a communications system aboard an MH-53 helicopter belonging to Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 14. (U.S. Navy Combat Camera photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Alfred A. Coffield) Petty Officer 1st Class Alfred Coffield
The disadvantage is that it’s a very expensive aircraft to operate. Every hour of flight, required 24 hours of maintenance, and if a squadron had 10 helicopters, which we did at one point in time, you’re looking at the largest deployable squadrons in the Navy, like 600-plus people to operate these aircraft.
With everybody working together, we advertise that we could be anywhere in the world in 72 hours, where there’s a mine threat. We could break down the helicopters, put them in a C-5 and then reassemble them anywhere in the world in 72 hours. After 9/11, for Operation Iraqi Freedom, we did deploy by C-5. We took half the helicopters to Sicily and the other half went to Bahrain and took 11 C-5s in order to move a squadron that size into those two locations, so big footprints, lots of money, lots of parts.
An MH-53E Sea Dragon assigned to the “Blackhawks” of Helicopter Mine Counter Measures Squadron 15 is offloaded from a U.S. Air Force C-5 Galaxy, March 14, 2003, at the U.S. naval base at Sigonella, Sicily. (Photo by Damon J. Moritz/U.S. Navy/Getty Images) U.S. Navy
Q: How fast could the Sea Dragons fly?
A: The 53 is a fast helicopter. One of the fastest out there. We were limited to 150 knots for airframe preservation. Under towing conditions, we typically flew between 18 and 25 knots, depending on the device in the water. Each vehicle had different performance parameters to properly deploy the device. Under rapidly changing conditions we always had to maintain proper speed and altitude control.
Q: The Sea Dragon has experienced a notoriously high rate of mishaps. Did that ever concern you? What do you think contributed to this record?
A: It did. If you’ve ever seen one or been on one, been close to one, or heard one, you’ve got 100-foot long machine with millions of moving parts, right?
Our maintenance crews were very good, I always felt safe flying. I think you have to if you choose to fly that particular weapon system, but there were a lot of accidents. And I knew folks that were killed in MH-53 accidents who I went to flight school with, and buddies.
It’s a very complicated machine that did a very important mission, and accidents do happen, both mechanically, but also because of pilot error. In combination, you end up losing a lot of airframes. Besides the United States, there is only one other nation that flew that airframe, and that was the Japanese for their mine sweeping operation. It’s a very complicated, expensive machine, and that’s why not very many people flew it.
An MH-53E helicopter belonging to the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces takes off during Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Iwakuni Friendship Day, May 5, 2004, at MCAS in Iwakuni, Japan. (Photo by Koichi Kamoshida/Getty Images) Koichi Kamoshida
Q: Did the danger concern you?
A: You know, you’re in your 20s, right? So you feel a little bit invincible. I’ll tell you a story. When I switched from 53s and started flying C-130s, after the Haitian earthquake, I flew into Guantanamo Bay, and my old squadron was there on the same ramp as we were. So I walked over to see who I still knew there, and they had a 53 turning on the deck there, and I was just going, ‘wow, I couldn’t believe I used to do that,’ and not thinking about how many things have to go right in order to have a good day. And I just kind of said to myself, ‘it’s really a young person’s game,’ because you gotta kind of hit the ‘I believe’ button on a lot of things, because there’s just a lot of opportunity for negativity to come in. Weather, environment, and then the mechanics of things.
MH-53 pilot Lt. Steve Jones in Bahrain, circa 2002. (Courtesy Steve Jones) Picasa 2.7
Q: What were the biggest factors contributing to the Sea Dragon mishaps?
A: With any aircraft system, the largest factor that contributes to any accident is the human factor. Yes, engines will fail, components will fail, but a lot of times it was human error that caused the ultimate catastrophe because when an emergency happens, you have three criteria in order to gauge when you should land.
The two critical ones are ‘land immediately,’ meaning if you do not ditch in the water or put the aircraft down, it is going to come apart in flight. The other critical criteria is ‘land as soon as possible,’ meaning as soon as you have a safe place to land, then you land as soon as possible. Then you have another condition where you can continue to fly, but flying is not recommended. And so that decision factor between land immediately and land as soon as possible, it’s a bit of a gray area, right? You have a set of skills you can fly, but you can never time when the aircraft is going to come apart.
For example, in the Corpus Christi crash, they knew that they had a problem. I’m not second-guessing the pilot, but it was in that gray area between land immediately and land as soon as possible.
The aircraft commander chose to try to bring the aircraft closer to the beach, so you could survive a ditch, because putting a helicopter in the water – nothing is guaranteed, right? Then you have no control. However, bring it closer to the beach means you’re flying that much longer. So land immediately, there could have been more survivors.
Not to ‘Monday morning quarterback’ anything. I probably would have made the same call. And then with the new equipment that was put on the aircraft, there are lights now placed in a monitoring system that kind of took the gray area out of those decisions when it came to thermal runaway with the main rotor head. So now the decision is clear. Land immediately if certain indications happen, and land as soon as possible if certain indications happen. Prior to 2000, we didn’t have that.
Q: The Sea Dragon community has been well-documented for being neglected by the Navy. What was your experience when you were flying it? Why do you think that was?
A: It’s a unique mission set. It kind of came online during the Vietnam War and Haiphong Harbor, and clearing those mines, and then again in Desert Storm, when the USS Tripoli was hit by a mine.
Mining sea straits is a very cheap way to stop a huge navy, such as the one that we have in the United States. However, the Navy, in my opinion, didn’t necessarily see the value in that mission. There are very limited resources. There’s only so much money to go around, and large strike groups and ships just took priority. We were always probably a little bit underfunded, in my opinion, for a mission that’s important, which you can see today with the Strait of Hormuz. But it was definitely a huge problem that many people did not talk about during the first two Gulf Wars.
An Iranian mine-laying boat. (Iranian state media) (Iran State Media)
Q: Why was it a huge problem?
A: Well, when you try to move a carrier strike group into a small area like the Persian Gulf, by putting mines in the water, you create doubt in a captain’s head. The captain is responsible for thousands and thousands of lives, and the battle group commander is responsible for thousands and thousands of more lives, plus the strategic reason of why they’re there. If a mine is discovered, then everything has to pause. You can’t land Marines on the beach, you can’t move the strike group closer to the shore. The ability for you to project power ashore, all that kind of comes to an end.
Q: How does the MH-53E go about this unique mission set? Can you walk us through what a mission would look like from start to finish?
A: Depending on the intel, you’ll have a threat and the threat could be you suspect that there’s mines in the water, or that you know that there’s mines in the water. So, typically it’s ‘you suspect,’ right? And we used the AN/AQS-14, or “Q-14.” There’s about three different versions of the Q-14. It’s a side-looking sonar, which you drag in the water – we call it the fish. We would fly the fish at certain depths based on the terrain and what was in the water. That was called mine hunting.
MH-53 crew members and the AN/AQS-14 side-looking sonar. (Courtesy Steve Jones)
So initially you would always kind of begin with a hunting mission, where we could, or the OS operator, or the console operator would mark what they view as a mine-like contact. You’re really kind of looking at the sonar and distinguishing between man-made objects and natural objects. If you believe it’s a man-made object, and then you would mark a tape. You could also, real time, send that image back to the ship, but that capability came a little bit later.
We also had devices that allow you to sweep. A mine can be triggered by different mechanisms. Sometimes they’re triggered by contact.
Some mines are acoustically triggered, meaning you can set that mine to blow up for a certain type of ship acoustics. For instance, a destroyer has a different set of acoustics from an amphibious ship, from an aircraft carrier. If you want to let 1,000 destroyers pass you or a submarine and then wait for the aircraft carrier, you can tune it to that way. So we had devices that could mimic the sound signatures of different ships, and you could tow that in the water, you could tow it really fast. One of the reasons why we were successful is that we could do large areas of the ocean relatively quickly.
An MH-53E Sea Dragon from Helicopter Mine Countermeasure Squadron (HM) 15, aboard the multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1), performs Mine Countermeasure training using the MK-105 sled. (U.S. Navy photo/Lt. Cmdr. John L. Kline) U.S. Naval Forces Central Comman
The last piece for sweeping is the magnetic variation. Each ship is a metal hull, and as a ship is moving through the water, it has a magnetic signature, and then we have gear, which you could tune to mimic certain types of ships in the water, in order to have them explode behind the gear that we’re towing in the water.
So you hunt, that means you’re searching, and then you sweep, and then that means you’re clearing. Sometimes you can clear using other technology, such as sometimes the Avenger class ships would go in and sweep, and not us. Sometimes you would use dolphins to work with EOD teams in order to sweep mines. It just depends upon the threat, on what the second tool is used after you hunt.
The most time that I spent was in the hunting phase of the mission set. In Bahrain, every week, a couple days a week, we would hunt. We would do the Strait of Hormuz. We would do the approaches into Saudi Arabia for the tankers. We would do the approaches into the Suez Canal, just to be sure that there are still no mines in that area.
That is for what we call change detection, meaning you map the ocean floor, and then over time, because of consistency, you’ll be able to tell if something changed. If something changed, then you went in to investigate further. It’s constant because the ocean floor is constantly moving, and then somebody could easily place a very cheap object that could be devastating.
An MH-53 Sea Dragon, Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 14 attached to USS Anchorage (LPD 23), controls an Mk-105 magnetic mine sweeping sled. (U.S. Navy Photo by Ensign Lindsay Lewis/Released) Ensi Lindsay Lewis
Q: Walk me through how a mission would take place.
A: The intel can be good sometimes, sometimes the intel is lacking. The weather has to be at a certain sea state in order for it to be successful, and you can’t do it at night, right? You have to do it during a daytime in littoral situation, so you’re pretty close to shore and you are susceptible to threats that are on the beach. That is the mission set and if you don’t know where the mines are, that’s why you begin with hunting. The Q-14 is a relatively quick device to deploy. You can pull it in the water relatively fast. Then you can real-time send images back, or you can collect tapes to study for that change detection.
When you’re going out for a mission, you’ll have your standard aircraft brief, where the crews get together and talk about the state of the aircraft, the conditions, the environmental conditions of today. And then you’ll get into the mission brief on where the ship is, or where the shore is, and where actually the square, or the box, or the rectangle is, where we’re going to conduct a mission. We talk about the distances from that point that we’re going to deploy the gear, because it takes time to be able to do that, and then we’ll enter what we suspect is a minefield or an area of interest from which we want to be able to tow in.
Then we fly what we call tracks. It’s almost like rows on a field, like cornrows, and we go up, down, up, down, and you have to stay within track by feet, okay? If you, if you stray as little as 20 feet off track, then you have to redo that track, because you want to have a continuous picture of the ground. And so it may take two or three sorties to cover an entire minefield.
And then times where the device may have strayed off track. It takes time, but we can do it quicker than a ship doing it on its own, like the Avenger class ship, and so between the aircraft brief and the mission brief, and executing, it’s like a six, seven hour day in the heat or in the cold, depending on where you are.
There’s no air condition on that helicopter. So everybody’s working in those conditions based on the information that we bring back. Then the tactics folks that are supplied to us by COMINEWARCOM (Commander, Mine Warfare Command), which was our bosses, those intel folks will say what needs to happen next, meaning there’s nothing that needs to happen now, or we need to investigate this further. And then they pick the next tool for us to be able to deploy, or they go with the EOD and dive teams to go take a closer look.
Lt. Sean Johnson, left, and Cmdr. Derek Brady, commanding officer of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 14, right, pilots a MH-53E Sea Dragon out to amphibious dock landing ship USS Pearl Harbor. (U.S. Navy photo Lt. Cmdr. Jeremy Braun/Released) Seaman Molly Evans
Q: How fast are you flying, and how high are you flying? How deep do the sleds go?
A: The helicopters are anywhere between 25 and 75 feet over the water, depending on the gear, because the speed in which we pull through the water is extremely important. You could go as fast as 25 knots in some cases, which is about the top speed, or you’d have to go as slow as 12 knots.
Q: How deep do the sleds go?
A: The depth of some of the gear is classified, or at least it was at my time. I’m not sure now, but you could go relatively deep. It’s under lots and lots and lots of tension, and the reason why you had to go very deep is that some gear has to be able to get to the sea floor at certain distances, because there’s also the subsurface fleet that is operating down there, and mines will affect them as well.
Q: What’s the tension like when you’re dragging a sled?
A: You’re looking at around 15,000 to 20,000 pounds of tension. The aircraft will kind of buckle. You look at the side of a 53, it has a crease from the tension that goes on it.
If there is a swell in the sea state, sometimes the Doppler radar – which would kind of track how fast you’re going forward, backwards, or sideways – it’ll go from forward to negative, meaning we’re actually getting pulled backwards by the sea state. And the engines would automatically just start – the torque would come in as the blade did a bigger bite out of the air. And the aircraft will kind of turn, because of the torque. It’ll kind of turn and whine, and you’re just flying an out of balance flight, nose down.
A US MH-53E military helicopter drags a MK 106 Combination escorted by two military Zodiak boats during an operation off the USS Ponce to clear mines from Khor Abdullah at the entrance to Umm Qasr port in the western Gulf, 29 March 2003. (Photo by RABIH MOGHRABI/AFP via Getty Images) RABIH MOGHRABI
Q: Did you ever have the sled get tangled up behind you?
A: Yes. It can get caught on things in the water, and the tension will spike. If the tension spikes too high, or the gear gets fouled in something, you always have the option to guillotine or cut the gear.
Q: Did the aircraft have other devices that helped in the mine hunting mission?
A: Yes. In addition to the Q-14, we had the Mk 104 acoustic device, mine chain cutting devices and the Mk 105, a huge gas generator, which produces electrical charges in the water for those magnetic-seeking mines that change the magnetic variation.
There’s at least six devices that I know of that are used for hunting mines, including something as simple as what we call a MOP, which is stands for Magnetic Orange Pipe, which is what they used in Vietnam.
Essentially you have this pipe, it looks like a telephone pole, which is about the size of a telephone pole or larger, and it’s orange. It has a positive charge on one end and negative on the other end. It’s just a magnetic pipe that we would tow in the water. It’s probably the easiest thing that you can tow, and the simplest, but it’s looking for those magnetic variations. The problem with the magnetic orange pipe is you can’t change it, so it’s set for a certain amount of tactics. You can see how that could become obsolete in today’s environment.
A US MH-53E military helicopter using a cable drags an MK 106 sled sent out from the USS Ponce as mine clearance takes place in Khor Abdullah at the entrance to Umm Qasr port in the western Gulf March 29, 2003. (Photo by RABIH MOGHRABI / AFP) RABIH MOGHRABI
Q: How does the Sea Dragon integrate with other mine hunting capabilities, like the Avenger class ships or other assets?
A: We worked as a team, but obviously we’re a tool in that larger mine warfare strategy. We were the speed aspect of that, meaning we could have left holes, but if you’re trying to move at the speed of war, then sometimes we were the tool that was required. And if you have 72 hours to be somewhere, speed is required. We could do that to be sure that the fleet can continue to do what it needs to do, but if you’ve got time, then you could sail a ship or move one of those slower small boats into that environment, that makes sense.
Q: Did you ever work together with Avenger class ships?
A: Maybe in the same AOR, but other than an exercise where you would see an Avenger class ship working the tow area, and then we will be working our tow area. It was under controlled condition. When I was doing change detection, and during work conditions, we were operating concentrated on our mission set, they’re probably concentrating on their mission set, and between the two pictures, they came together in the operation center to have a very clear picture.
A stock picture of the US Navy’s Avenger class mine-hunter USS Pioneer. USN
Q: When was the Sea Dragon actually used for this mission operationally? How did it perform?
A: It was used throughout Iraqi Freedom, from Shock and Awe to the pull-out to the drawdown. If not every day, every week there was change detection in mine operations, because it’s always a threat. It’s a very cheap weapon that non-state actors can get off the black market. One mistake or one mishap causes devastating consequences for the individuals on that ship, but also the mission, so it’s a constant threat, and still is a threat.
During my time, actively hunting for mines to be sure that those straits and those approaches remain clear, dominated my entire career in the community. From the time I started and then I towed to my last days in the squadron, which was in 2005.
A U.S. Navy sailor directs an MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter launching March 28, 2003 at the port of Umm Qasr, Iraq. The helicopter was part of a mine clearing unit that cleared the way for the British Navy ship, Sir Galahad, that delivered the first wave of humanitarian aid in support of the U.S.-led Operation Iraqi Freedom. (Photo by Bob Houlihan/U.S. Navy/Getty Images) U.S. Navy
Q: How did the Sea Dragon perform?
A: I would say, since there was not a mishap, it performed as designed. It doesn’t mean that the mines were not there. During Iraqi Freedom, mines were put in the water, but we didn’t have the mishaps like we had before that I can recall. So I would say it was a success.
In this U.S. Navy handout mines are seen which were found on four Iraqi vessels that were intercepted in the Khor Abd Allah waterway by U.S.-led coalition forces March 26, 2003 in the Arabian Gulf. (Photo by Joseph Krypel/U.S. Navy/Getty Images) U.S. Navy
Q: Any close calls during any of your sled-towing flights?
A: I got disoriented one time with vertigo. Like I mentioned earlier, you’re on an out-of-balanced flight, so your ears are doing one thing, your eyes are doing another thing, and sometimes there’s low fog over the water early in the morning. Under tow there was a time where I got vertigo and put the aircraft in an undesired state, but there’s two pilots. I recognized it and told the aircraft commander ‘I’ve got vertigo.’ He took the control and saved it. Being that close to the ground, getting vertigo could have devastating effects, right? We just ended up releasing the gear that day.
Q: How do the big rearview mirrors help with towing?
A: Mirrors are super important for situational awareness when lowering the equipment into the water and for ensuring the tow cable is staying on track. The co-pilot is crucial while under tow because they are responsible for making sure the aircraft remains clear of obstacles and threats. The pilot flying will be head-down monitoring performance of the helicopter and the gear deployed. The pilot flying will maintain navigation in the minefield and overall safety. When flying, looking out of the windows was a brief luxury.
Q: Tell me about the time you encountered a surfacing sub while dragging your sled.
A: It was sometime in 2003 or 2004. We were flying over the Strait of Hormuz, towing a side-looking sonar to do bottom mapping. I’ve got a very loud helicopter in the air and a sonar that’s pinging on the bottom, so it probably was not a surprise where we were to the submarine, but their location was a surprise to us.
It’s a bright sunny day. The water looked beautiful, and we’re just doing a random tow. And all of a sudden, this big black submarine surfaced right in front of us. Just popped out of the water, and right in line with our track.
I think I was maybe 50 feet over the water and the gear is behind me. Now I have to turn like a semi truck, having to turn myself and the gear all at the same time to maneuver around the submarine. I said something like ‘holy shit’ and I remember I banked to the right because I think it was the easiest thing to do. There’s more space.
We ended up able to clear the sub, but it had a startling effect. So either they were in the wrong spot or we were in the wrong spot, I couldn’t tell you. But no one came and knocked on the door, saying that I did something wrong. So I’m gonna leave it as if they were in the wrong spot.
During his time flying Sea Dragons, Steve Jones saw a submarine – like the guided-missile submarine USS Georgia pictured here transiting the Strait of Hormuz – surface right in front of him as he was towing a mine sweeping sled. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Indra Beaufort/Release) Petty Officer 1st Class Indra Beaufort
Q: What was it like aerial refueling such a monstrous helicopter and did you use it operationally often?
A: Very intimidating at first. However, it is all about training. Yes, you are very close to the other airplane, but that is not your focus. Your focus is on check points. Align your check points and the aircraft will plug. Once you connect and position the aircraft above the wing and propeller wash, the ride is smooth. When I switched over the flying C-130s, it would have been nice to go full circle, but never got the chance to give fuel.
We almost did aerial refueling during a possible mission scenario, but the plan was scaled back and we ended ship hopping. I only used the boom in training. I’m sure it happened, but didn’t know anyone who did it. They were there for a reason, and we trained for it.
Pilot’s view of an MH-53E during aerial refueling.(Steve Jones)
Q: What’s the operational situation regarding Iran at the time you were flying?
A: Annoying. They have a lot of islands that are in the Persian Gulf that are their territory, and sometimes during operations, when you’re either delivering cargo or going to field a tow, it puts you in close proximity with those islands. At the same time, if it’s necessary, you could have your own boat team in the water as well. It was post-Cole [a reference to the October 12, 2000 attack on the USS Cole just a few years earlier by explosive-laden suicide boats at the port of Aden in Yemen. The blast ripped a 40-foot-wide hole near the destroyer’s waterline, killing 17 U.S. sailors and injuring nearly 40 other crew members.]
So you have fishing boats in the water, and you don’t know who’s on that boat that is getting close to your ship. But when you got close to Iranian territory, they will speak up on the radio, and tell you to turn around, that you’re approaching their territory,. Even though you know exactly where you are, and you know exactly where this island is, they’re still going tell you are in violation of their airspace.
Then it’s always a constant threat, right? So, if I were to have to ditch a helicopter or airplane in the water, they’ve got boats in the water. You wouldn’t want to get captured by them, where they could say you are in violation of their sovereign territory by mistake, and then it becomes an issue.
We were flying helicopters without GPS, so you’re using visual navigation maps and whatnot. I’m sure there’s a GPS on those birds now, but at the time, I had a handheld GPS from Academy Sport, where I marked the islands myself, so I knew exactly where I was, or at least the best that I could manage with the equipment, to be sure that was in the right position.
Q: Did they ever directly threaten you while you were on those missions?
A: No. They talked about violating their airspace, but they never intercepted or anything like that. I think that would be a huge mistake. It would not be a good day for them.
Q: Tell us about other locales where Sea Dragons operated.
A: We had detachments in South Korea for the North Korean threat from underwater mines. We did exercises in the Pacific. We did exercises with Japan because there’s a threat of mine in those straits, like the Strait of Malacca.
There’s obviously a threat in the Pacific theater. But because of the situation with Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, I spent most of my time in the Middle East.
An Mh-53E Sea Dragon from Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 14 deploys the Mk-105 sled from the USS Anchorage (LPD 23) well deck, part of air mine countermeasure operations during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise 2014. (U.S. Navy Photo by Ensign Lindsay Lewis/Released) Ensine Lindsay Lewis
Q: Were there any difference between operating in the Persian Gulf area and the Pacific, or Europe?
A: A lot of the effectiveness of what we do is dependent upon water. The salinity of the water, the sea state, the amount of garbage and trash that’s in the water. So those environmental threats change the tactics. That’s why you need to practice out there.
In terms of the purpose of the mission, that does not change, but how you go about it does change. If you’re closer to a near-peer actor, it’s going to require better intelligence, different types of equipment in order to counteract the threat. I would say the Iraqi Navy was not near-peer in terms of mine tactics, but the Chinese could probably be very different in terms of mine tactics. They would be a more sophisticated enemy in this case, which would heighten everything.
Chinese mine-laying AJX002 unmanned underwater vehicles seen during the military parade marking the 80th anniversary of victory over Japan and the end of World War II, in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on September 3, 2025. (Photo by Greg Baker / AFP) GREG BAKER
Q: Did the Iraqi Navy or the Iraqis present a threat to your aircraft? Did they harass you, fire at you?
A: No, not during my time. I think maybe possibly during the first Gulf War. The threat was that there, it was always a threat when you’re operating close. So yes, something could have happened. They’ve got boats, they’ve got men in the water.
Q: What are your thoughts about the current MCM missions taking place now in the Middle East? Just how hard is it to clear an area of mines like the Strait of Hormuz?
A: I would say that it is difficult. All mine clearing operations are difficult because you’re talking about the needle in the haystack. Like literally, and you know they’re deploying something that can be hoisted by one person and thrown overboard into the water or by a machine, and you can deploy a lot of mines in a very short time in a concentrated, tactical way, or randomly. It really doesn’t matter, it’s still a threat.
I would say it is difficult because people talk about how narrow and small the Strait of Hormuz is, but you have to remember the earth is large, and there is just a sheer volume of water, and square miles or square kilometers on which something can happen.
It is a very daunting task, and so having more MH-53E helicopters probably wasn’t the solution for the future.
From reading, and then from hearing from my peers that are still in, the tactics are different, but also the equipment that they use to detect this threat is also different. It is faster. It is unmanned. You can deploy more assets quicker because you’re not relying upon one machine or two machines at one time being deployed.
Q: What equipment are they using now? What are the differences?
A: I retired in 2017 and it has changed dramatically. For one, it is more integrated into the fleet, so you’ll have multi-mission capabilities, meaning an MH-60Ss can be used for different sets of missions, from delivering cargo, to deploying different sensor arrays. You have AI for detection assistance. You have side-looking sonar, which instead of being towed are now on underwater unmanned vehicles. So I think more of what you’re looking at now is a mission package of sensors that can be deployed.
When you have sensor sets, it’s integrated into the larger Navy strategic picture better. I think that that was lacking in the past in a way, because you have to cover such a large volume of area, you need more sensors and eyes to be able to do that, and I think that’s the strategy today.
A Sailor assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 5, describes the capabilities of the MK 18 Mod 2 Kingfish unmanned underwater vehicle and a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Rear Adm. Yatsutaka Ebata, commander, Escort Flotilla 2, and Rear Adm. Tom Shultz, commander, Task Force (CTF) 76. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class W. Chase Stephens) Petty Officer 1st Class Chase Stephens
Q: Do you talk to any of the current pilots/crews of the last squadron flying them? What do they say about the current status of the fleet? Are they involved in the mine clearing operation in the Strait?
A: So I talked with folks, there’s still some folks that are still active duty. Some of them have transitioned out of the 53 pilot-wise and have transitioned into the MH-60S community and so they are deploying those tactics and new systems.
I would say it is probably still a neglected community in their opinion. Everybody’s fighting for resources, but I think when you’re talking about the current situation with Iran in the straight, there’s always a time where mine countermeasures become a very hot topic, because people do forget about it.
Q: Are the MH-53Es still performing airborne counter-mine missions?
A: I’m not sure.
Q: What other missions does the MH-53 community perform? Can you talk about your experience with those and what they entail?
A: When you have that much capability, you move a lot of things. And so we did a lot of moving cargo. I could move an F-14 Tomcat engine with the afterburner completely attached. I could move it at 150 knots from shore to ship internally, so I didn’t have to sling it underneath the aircraft in a pod. I can have the engine assembled together and be able to move it. So we moved things that the C-2 Greyhound couldn’t.
The primary mission was mines, the secondary cargo and people. We would do people movement, if a better ride wasn’t available to move an admiral or someone for an important meeting, then we would do so. Obviously, you know, it’s a very dirty ride.
Aviation Warfare Systems Operator 2nd Class Gavin Chatham prepares to push cargo out of an MH-53 Sea Dragon helicopter from Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 14 (HM-14). (U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Michael Chen/Released) Petty Officer 2nd Class Adam Craft
Q: What admirals did you move?
A: I can’t remember the admirals, because they kind of all blend together, but we did move fun people. We did Tiger Woods for all the USO engagements. Blink 182. We did Tom Jones, Robin Williams, a number of NASCAR folks and other celebrities. We did a lot of that.
Q: What was Robin Williams like?
A: Funny. He was on from the time that we picked him up in Bahrain, and then giving him the brief. He liked talking with sailors and making jokes. Tom Jones was memorable because he’s got the hair right, and he didn’t want to wear a cranial or helmet on his head to mess up his hair before he did the show, and so that became a thing. But you know, the hair won out. The hair was not going to get covered by the helmet.
Robin Williams with MH-53E crew members, from left to right, LCDR Chuck Miller, Lt. Ray Jimenez and Lt. Kyle Leslie. (Steve Jones photo)
Q: What will the Navy miss when that last squadron is finally retired next year and there are no more Sea Dragons flying? Can the MH-60S handle the job?
A: With the Greyhounds going away, I think even with the CMV-22, which is a very capable aircraft, a very fast aircraft, but in terms of lift capacity internally, there’s something to that. If it’s outsized or weirdly shaped or is on wheels, the MH-53E is your catch-all aircraft. The Navy will miss that and the large numbers of people that we can move.
During the start Operation Iraqi Freedom, when I was in Sigonella we spent four days offloading the Marine Corps battalion landing team from the Iwo Jima on to Souda Bay for them to be flown into the northern part of Iraq. With those two helicopters and in one helicopter with Helicopter Detachment 4, we moved hundreds and hundreds of Marines from a ship to the shore for them to be staged in order to be moved into Iraq in a matter of days. I don’t think that same amount of capability in terms of volume of moving at that speed can be done with what’s available today. So I think they’re going to miss the kind of the ad hoc nature of having a big aircraft to move odd things. It’s good to be a generalist sometimes.
Sailors assigned to operations department aboard the aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) transfer passengers to an MH-53E Sea Dragon, attached to the “Blackhawks” of Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron (HM) 15. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Maxwell Orlosky) Petty Officer 2nd Class Maxwell Orlosky
Q: What about the mine countermeasures mission? Is there anything that the Navy will miss from the capabilities of the 53 from that standpoint?
A: I can’t speak on it with the new equipment, because I’ve never operated it, but I think what the Navy won’t miss is the price tag, and maybe the lack of full mission capability. We operated a lot of times in that partial mission capability, because of the complexity of the equipment and the machine, and then you have to get the equipment and the machine to work together, the machine being the helicopter. I don’t think the Navy will miss that part of it.
Q: Can the MH-60 do the job?
A: They can do the job, but they don’t conduct it the same way we did. They can’t pull big sleds like we did for underwater sonars because of power and tension. And you can’t send as many crew members in the back in order to make that mission successful. But the 60 is a very capable platform in order to conduct the mission the way they do it now.
Naval Aircrewman 1st Class Patrick Miller, assigned to the Dragon Whales of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 28, operates the common console, used for both Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) (pictured) and the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS), aboard a MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter. (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shannon E. Renfroe (Released) Chief Petty Officer Shannon Renfroe
Q: What’s the difference between what they do and what you did?
A: They’re deploying sensor arrays and underwater vehicles from the thing, so they have standoff distance. They’re capable of not putting the helicopter in the same proximity to danger. They can’t put a Mk 105 in the water, but they don’t need to, because they have other types of technology to do it.
An MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter, from the “Screamin’ Indians” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 6, lifts off the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Seaman Bryant Lang) An MH-60S from Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 6 lifts off the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Seaman Bryant Lang
Q: What was your most fear-inducing flight in the Sea Dragon?
A: For me, I was on the sea wall in Corpus Christi, Texas, about to do a towing training mission off the coast of Texas. In the 53 you have three engines, and then you have an auxiliary power unit – another gas turbine that’s above the cockpit.
The purpose of the auxiliary power unit is to run the hydraulics and various components and accessories when the engines and the rotor head aren’t turning. The idea is, once you get the engines going and the main rotor is turning, there is a shaft that goes from the main gear box into that auxiliary power unit, where all your generators and hydraulic systems are run. So we had the engines running, we were on the sea wall – we had a hanger, and then we had an apron, and right there was the Corpus Christi Bay.
(DoW courtesy photo)
I was taxiing out to take off from the helipad, and you’re over the water as soon as you take off from the sea wall. Well, that shaft sheared while I was taxiing up. I have to push the cyclic (the stick) forward in order to tip the rotor head forward to pull me along the ground. If you lose hydraulics in a 53 there is no amount of strength that you or the other copilot has to help to change the path of that helicopter.
When the shaft broke, it meant whatever condition that rotor head was in, it was not going to move, and that rotor head was in position for me to be able to take off, but I did not have enough power in order for me to lift off. Even if I lifted off, I probably would have just careened into the water.
So we were going in a situation where I heard it pop, and then all of a sudden the controls froze, and I told the co-pilot, Ty Jurica, that I was so concentrated at that point because I could not control the aircraft. I said ‘I don’t have control, I cannot move the controls.’ But Ty’s quick thinking noted that he could get the hydraulic power unit started again, which it takes time to spool up, but he was able to hit the start on the APU, and we managed to spool up to get hydraulics back, and as soon as the pressure came on at 3000 psi, I was able to move the controls again.
We stopped the aircraft where we were, and we shut it down at that particular time, but in a few seconds, maybe, we probably just would have taxiied off over the sea wall, and into a very bad situation.
(U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Samuel Bacon/Released)
Q: What was your best memory of a mission you flew, or a moment during one of your missions in your time in the Sea Dragons? Put us in your shoes of what that was like.
A: Oh man, my best day there? There were a lot of good days. A lot of times, we would fly in formation – two ships going out to whether it was an aircraft carrier or whatever – and we would take off before sunrise. When you’re flying in formation low over the water, and the sun is coming up over the Persian Gulf, those are those are great days. Because everything is working. You have two planes actually going to conduct the mission and not training. I don’t care who you are, it’s always a lot of fun.
You’re going relatively fast. I mean, we’re not Hornets or whatever, but we were low and fast at that time for us, and we thought we were pretty cool.
You couldn’t touch us on those days.
(U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Matt Hecht/Released)
Author’s note: we added three additional sets of questions and answers to this story. We asked Jones about how fast the Sea Dragons could fly, how helpful the big rearview mirrors were when pulling a sled and what it was like conducting aerial refueling in the giant helicopter.
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:
First Lt. Pamela Blanco-Coca, 319th Missile Squadron missile combat crew commander, and her deputy commander, 2nd Lt. John Anderson, simulate key turns of the Minuteman III Weapon System Feb. 9, 2016, in the E-01 Launch Control Center in the F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., Missile Complex. A properly conducted key turn sends a “launch vote” to any of a number of Minuteman III ICBMs in a missileer’s flight area, and two launch votes from two separate LCCs will enable a real-world launch when directed by the U.S. president. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Jason Wiese)
Prime Directives:
If you want to talk politics, do so respectfully and know that there’s always somebody that isn’t going to agree with you.
If you have political differences, hash it out respectfully, stick to the facts, and no childish name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. If you can’t handle yourself in that manner, then please, discuss virtually anything else.
No drive-by garbage political memes. No conspiracy theory rants. Links to crackpot sites will be axed, too. Trolling and shitposting will not be tolerated. No obsessive behavior about other users. Just don’t interact with folks you don’t like.
Do not be a sucker and feed trolls! That’s as much on you as on them. Use the mute button if you don’t like what you see.
So unless you have something of quality to say, know how to treat people with respect, understand that everyone isn’t going to subscribe to your exact same worldview, and have come to terms with the reality that there is no perfect solution when it comes to moderation of a community like this, it’s probably best to just move on.
Finally, as always, report offenders, please. This doesn’t mean reporting people who don’t share your political views, but we really need your help in this regard.
Yesterday, TWZ published an analysis of a thermal image purportedly showing a previously unseen advanced aircraft design, which appears to be a precursor to the U.S. Air Force’s forthcoming F-47 fighter from Boeing. The image, which went viral online and is from a video that has now been released, is said to have been captured near the U.S. military’s secretive Groom Lake test base, better known as Area 51. It turns out, as a number of our readers have pointed out, there may be some interesting similarities between this secret aircraft and a “Christmas tree” fighter design concept crafted decades ago by Darold Cummings, one of the top minds behind Northrop’s YF-23 Black Widow.
You can find our full initial assessment of what we may be seeing in the viral image, first posted online by the Project Fear YouTube channel earlier this week, here. What we saw initially, as shown below, appeared to feature what could be described as a “double arrowhead” profile to its forward fuselage. This is a very distinct design cue, but it could also be a result of the low quality of the image and the artifacts that come with consumer-grade thermal imagers, which was what the aircraft was recorded with.
A close-up look at what is visible in the viral thermal image. Capture via Project Fear
Project Fear has now released the full video it says it captured near Area 51, seen below, and it underscores the aforementioned points about image quality. So, it is possible the aircraft has a more traditional low-observable ‘shovel nose,’ instead. Nonetheless, the Christmas tree fighter is an interesting trip down lesser-known fighter development memory lane that is worth examining, in particular what such a unique nose configuration would provide an advanced fighter aircraft.
The full clip of the mysterious aircraft passing by starts at around 49:34 in the runtime of the video below if it does not automatically start playing at that point.
People are asking why it would be running a very bright light. Multiple reasons, could have had an emergency for all we know. But most likely, would be to keep its silhouette from being seen from certain aspects from the ground. Bright lights are established practice for… https://t.co/mxEvG2EUkz
“I was hired by Bob Sandusky in 1982 to be the Chief Configurator for the Northrop ATF [Advanced Tactical Fighter] program (YF-23). In early 1983 Bob said that Northrop had tried to develop a ‘4-spike’ (like the B-2) fighter, but it couldn’t be done, since a flying wing fighter was not possible,” Cummings wrote in his post on LinkedIn. “I told him I could design one, and he said to give it a try. The only way to accomplish this was with a series of highly swept (55 degree) surfaces over the entire length of the aircraft. The result was the DP-21, created in June of 1983.”
“4-spike” here essentially refers to the total number of radar cross-section hot-spots and where they are located, each pointing in a different direction in azimuth. The fewer ‘spikes’ a low-observable (stealthy) aircraft has, the easier it is to manage its radar signature, and to make it harder to detect and lock onto, but it’s also where those spikes are located that matter.
The blueprint of the DP-21 “Christmas tree” fighter concept. Darold Cummings
A four-spike design like the B-2 critically has nothing from the head-on aspect, as well as from the rear, which helps immensely with survivability. These are the most critical signature areas, especially the front as the aircraft is heading into hostile territory. Also, because these are located along the path of flight, these spikes can stay consistent on a threat radar as the aircraft moves directly toward or away from the sensor, and are not fleeting in nature like those from the side. So a four spike aircraft would be very attractive for a tactical fighter meant to persist in contested territory.
“I never considered this to be a serious contender for the ATF program, as the aircraft was unstable beyond 10 degrees angle of attack!” he also noted.
“Back in 1983, the ‘Christmas Tree’ DP-21 would have been difficult to fly. However, with modern flight control systems, this design could be controlled, even at high angle of attack,” Cummings told TWZ directly today after we reached out for more information. “Low observability is always better served with long edges on the design, so the small arrow-shaped foreplane is not ideal, but it still has low RCS characteristics, just not the optimum.”
“Wing shaping is always a trade-off for maximizing LO. Most of the trades have to do with the leading edge contour, which is a large contributor to signature,” he continued. “The canard has to be designed to be ‘ported’ during penetration, as this minimizes the signature. On the YF-23, the V-Tail was ‘ported’ in penetration for the same reason. This is certainly possible with modern flight control systems.”
“Ported” in this instance refers to keeping the control surface locked in the same geometric plane as the wing while cruising.
A top-down look at the YF-23 during a flight test. USAF
We also asked Cummings directly whether it was possible his DP-21 concept had an influence on what is seen in the viral thermal image, assuming it is authentic. And we asked for his take on what impacts Boeing’s experimental X-36 and Bird of Prey designs may have had on the F-47, as well.
“My DP-21 aircraft image has been available publicly for quite some time, so it is possible it had some influence, but that is only speculation on my part,” he told us. “I believe the X-36 and Bird of Prey have both influenced the F-47 design. I have always been impressed by the X-36, as it seemed to be ahead of its time.”
Boeing’s X-36 demonstrator. NASA/Carla Thomas Boeing’s Bird of Prey. USAF
“The Groom Lake images are truly intriguing,” he also noted. “It is a viable concept.”
“I think the main thing to remember is that NO ONE thought a 4-spike design (like the B-2) was possible, and my DP-21 was an example of how it was possible,” he added. “A 4-spike design for the F-47 would truly be impressive!”
“The image shows an exotic design by any interpretation. The aft-set lambda-type wings appear to have a camber and wingtip droop, as on the Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator. There are very large canard foreplanes — a feature that appears prominently on F-47 renderings and which we have written in detail about in the past. The broad nose, too, is something that has been included in depictions of the F-47, although we have really no idea to what degree these are based in reality. It’s worth noting that in this new thermal image, it has a distinctive double-arrowhead shape, tapering in again in front of the canards. Even the canards themselves may have more than one plane, with the outer tips being drooped, matching similar architecture as the wing. The fuselage then tapers down in the center before the wing roots begin.”
“The aircraft is very likely to be tailless, a feature common to most sixth-generation concepts seen so far. However, since it’s seen from below, we cannot be sure about this aspect of its configuration.”
“As for the powerplant, it is most likely a twin-engine design, like the F-47, a theory reinforced by the sawtooth-type trailing edge. There is no obvious suggestion of any exhaust plumes, which seems odd, but that could be the result of the sensor being used in combination with the aircraft’s power setting at the time of recording, as well as general thermal signature reduction capabilities that are part of the design.”
Beyond the nose end, there are still some very broad similarities in the shaping of the wing and main body of the aircraft seen in the footage and Cummings’ DP-21 concept.
As we noted yesterday, what is seen in the viral thermal image could be unrelated entirely to the F-47. The Navy has also been pursuing a carrier-based sixth-generation fighter, commonly referred to as F/A-XX, in recent years. There has been at least some crossover between F/A-XX and the Air Force’s NGAD effort. A rendering Boeing has shared of its proposed F/A-XX design looks very much in line with what has been shown of F-47 to date. Northrop Grumman is the other company currently competing to build the Navy’s sixth-generation carrier fighter, and has released its own renderings.
Boeing’s F/A-XX render. Boeing
We're bringing tomorrow’s horizon into focus, faster, stronger and ready when the warfighter needs it.#SAS2026pic.twitter.com/r0uORyR5kM
In addition, it should be said that official F-47 and F/A-XX renderings released to date will have been carefully manipulated to maximize security of the programs, both of which remain highly classified, and to provide disinformation to adversaries.
As an aside, Cummings also shared his take on a prospective navalized version of the F-47 in a separate post on LinkedIn last year. At that time he wrote:
“I received a DM asking if I had envisioned a Navy version of my recent F-47 fighter concept, such as the F-35A to F-35C approach. I recently completed my F-47 Navy version, which I call the F-47N. However, the approach I took was somewhat different: The F-35C used a larger wing for low speed lift, whereas I used my original F-47 wing planform, and added a canard for more low speed lift and control. The canard design (inspired by the X-36), coupled with the Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring (inspired by the X-44), provided a very reasonable first cut at a Navy version. In general, a canard layout has been treated as adding more radar signature to a fighter. However, on the YF-23 we found that if the all-moving surface (it was a V-tail on the YF-23) was kept “ported”, in this case aligned with the wing plane during cruise, the impact on LO was not a large impediment to signature reduction. The ability to keep the canard ported is achievable using thrust vectoring for trim in cruise and penetration modes.”
Cummings’ interpretation of the F-47 design at that time notably did not reflect his previous DP-21 concept. The X-44 design he mentioned is also known as the Multi-Axis No-Tail Aircraft (MANTA), and was derived from F-22. At least to our knowledge, the MANTA never came to be. The designation was recycled for an entirely unrelated flying wing-type drone, the existence of which was first reported by TWZ.
Darold Cummings’ drawing of his notional “F-47N.” Darold CummingsRenderings of the X-44A MANTA. Lockheed Martin/NASA
It’s also worth noting that the design in the newly emerged thermal video could be tied to one of many other programs, including uncrewed ones. Still, it is very much in line with what we would expect to see from a design related to the F-47 and it seems very likely this is the Boeing NGAD demonstrator, if the video is indeed authentic, which it appears to be.
It would be nice to say that we will have to wait and see whether this aircraft turns out to have a more traditional shovel-shaped nose, or even a mild Christmas tree-like design, but we may never see it again. Hopefully that is not the case, especially after the F-47 goes public, but the final design will have significant differences from its technology demonstrator forebears.
Special thanks to @ElectroFluidSys on X for bringing Darold Cummings’ posts on LinkedIn to our attention.
After reportedly losing dozens of MQ-9 Reaper drones while battling Iran, the Air Force on Friday confirmed to TWZ that it is planning to purchase an undisclosed number of unused ones from General Atomics, who made the aircraft. The company, however, said it has less than 10 of these drones to offer, and it remains unclear where else the Air Force can find more.
All of this continues to raise serious questions about the Air Force’s near-term ability to plug gaps left by the losses fighting against Iran and in other recent operations in and around the Middle East. The downed Reapers have a reported combined value of about $1 billion.
The Air Force has reportedly lost dozens of MQ-9 Reaper drones. (USAF)
Furthermore, despite the top Air Force officer recently praising Reaper as “perhaps the most valuable player” in the air war against Iran, the aircraft have been in the crosshairs of service officials. They have openly questioned the drone’s survivability and, by extension, general value in future operations. The Air Force has made several half-hearted efforts, without success, to find a successor. It is now in the early stages of a new attempt at acquiring an “MQ-9 Next.” You can read more about that effort in our story here.
An MQ-9 Reaper. (USAF)
It will be years, if ever, before “MQ-9 Next” comes online. Meanwhile, the search is on for existing replacements.
“The USAF intends to purchase several unused MQ-9A Block 5 from GA-ASI [General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.],” a spokesperson for the service told TWZ today. “A number of MQ-9A Block 5 aircraft were manufactured based on forecasted purchases for other customers but are no longer needed. The available aircraft are currently GA-ASI owned aircraft.”
“The USAF has received funds to begin the acquisition process,” they added.
A U.S. Air Force service member assigned to the 46th Expeditionary Attack Squadron, conducts pre-flight checks on an MQ-9 aircraft in preparation for an Operation Agile Spartan mission departing from Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait, August 21, 2023. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Isaac Garden) Tech. Sgt. Isaac Garden
The Air Force was responding to our questions about congressional testimony from a top officer highlighting the service’s plans to backfill the combat losses.
“We’re looking at options to buy back as many of the MQ-9As as we possibly can right now,” Air Force Lt. Gen. David Tabor, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, had told members of Congress at a hearing back on May 13. “So there’s a bit of a short-term effort to buy back things immediately, in this fiscal year.”
Tabor also said at that time that the Air Force’s total MQ-9A fleet had shrunk to 135 aircraft. Official budget documents say the Air Force had 165 Reapers in inventory as of the start of Fiscal Year 2026, which began on October 1 of last year. This had already marked a significant year-over-year decrease, down from 231 MQ-9As at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2025.
Despite Air Force needs, General Atomics told us the number of available Reapers is in short supply.
“Between parts in stock for new builds, and company-owned Reapers with some number of flight hours on them, there are less than 10 total ‘new’ MQ-9As available to any customers anywhere in the world,” General Atomics spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley told TWZ earlier this week. “There are some number of decommissioned Reapers out there, and some number of those could potentially be brought back into service.”
MQ-9A Reaper in flight. (General Atomics)
One place the Air Force won’t be able to find any Reapers is in storage.
The MQ-9A is out of production. General Atomics has moved on to the MQ-9B, and currently offers those drones in multiple configurations. Though an evolution of the original Reaper, the core B model design differs in significant ways from its predecessor. Any new Air Force purchases of drones in this broader family would have to be of the B model and worked into the existing production schedule.
How many MQ-9As the Air Force has lost in operations in and around the Middle East since January 2025 is unclear, but is understood to be substantial. As of May, “nearly 30 MQ-9 Reapers have been lost in the course” of Operation Epic Fury against Iran, Air & Space Forces Magazine reported, citing “people familiar with the matter.” This is on top of dozens of Reapers reportedly downed while conducting operations targeting Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen in the past year or so.
Air Force Chief: MQ-9 Reaper ‘Most Valuable Player’ of Iran War Despite Losseshttps://t.co/qZB4xRh2jA
— Air & Space Forces Magazine (@ASForcesMag) May 21, 2026
At the hearing last month, Tabor did not provide any official accounting of Reaper losses, but did acknowledge that “we are concerned about how they’ve attrited.”
In another effort to bolster the supply of operational Reapers, the Air Force told us that while it never regenerated MQ-1 Predator drones back into service, it was repurposing parts from these aircraft that the service stopped using in 2020. There were dozens on hand after they were retired.
An MQ-1 Predator flies above the flightline during launch and recovery training at Creech Air Force Base, Nev. Aircrew will fly the MQ-1 for the final time at Creech on March 9, 2018, before it is officially retired from the Air Force inventory. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Master Sgt. Cecilio Ricardo) Senior Master Sgt. Cecilio Ricardo
Questions about the status of the MQ-1 fleet arose last week after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) acknowledged the loss of an “MQ-1” drone to Iranian fire. This has led many to question whether American forces are flying the venerable Predator again as a result of the Reaper losses.
At the time, the Air Force declined to say if it lost any of theirs and referred us to CENTCOM, which declined comment. However, on Friday, the Air Force told us that in addition to the Predators being used for parts, 20 had been transferred to the Navy. We reached out to them for comment.
As we previously noted, it is also very possible, if not likely, that the uncrewed aircraft in question was an MQ-1C Gray Eagle, a related but different design still in active U.S. Army service. You can read more about this event in our original story here.
A U.S. Army MQ-1C seen being prepared for a mission somewhere in the Middle East on April 18, 2026. The official caption for this picture erroneously says the drone is an MQ-1 Predator. USAF/Master Sgt. James Cason
At the time of the incident, CENTCOM declined to tell us which variant of the MQ-1 was lost.
Regardless, the Air Force’s mad scramble to find additional Reapers highlights the value of having a high-flying, long-loitering drone that can gather intelligence and fire off munitions, no matter how slow it flies.
The Air Force will seek new ways to accomplish the missions of the A-10C attack jet, under an amendment added to the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization bill. While the Air Force has long campaigned for the Warthog’s retirement, the recent demand for the jet in conflicts in the Middle East has seen it earn a reprieve, with its standdown now scheduled for 2030.
Some of the numerous amendments to the bill come from Abe Hamadeh, the Republican representative for Arizona. He calls for the Secretary of the Air Force to keep supporting A-10 training, testing, experimentation, maintenance, and sustainment efforts through to the planned retirement date, as well as preserving lessons learned and operational expertise from A-10 missions to help shape future replacement systems. This would include keeping a formal training unit to teach pilots until the retirement. This is especially notable, since the unit in question, the 357th Fighter Squadron, graduated the last class of A-10 student pilots at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, back in April.
Four A-10Cs from the 357th Fighter Squadron deploy flares over a training range near Gila Bend, Arizona, May 1, 2026. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Samantha Melecio
Meanwhile, the Air Force officially concluded A-10 depot-level maintenance in February of this year, with the deactivation of the 571st Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and the A-10 Weapons School is due to be shuttered this year.
An A-10C is positioned near the hangar during the “Hawg Out” ceremony, February 12, 2026, at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The aircraft was the final A-10 to be maintained by the Ogden Air Logistics Complex’s 571st Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, which performed depot-level maintenance on the aircraft since 1998. U.S. Air Force photo by Cynthia Griggs
As part of this, the amendment also requests a report on the A-10’s “combat employment, recent operational relevance, lessons for future force design, and modernization options that could improve the return on continued sustainment of the program.”
Hamadeh lists a range of recent modernization efforts for the jet that “could improve the operational return on continued sustainment of the A-10 program.” These include electronic warfare capabilities, decoy or stand-in effects delivery, digital communications, sensor integration, precision weapons integration, survivability improvements, open-systems architecture, and human-machine teaming applications. The amendment also refers to the A-10’s recent “aerial refueling enhancements,” referring to the rapid introduction of a nose-mounted aerial refueling probe, which you can read more about here.
An A-10C uses its newly added probe to refuel from an HC-130J Combat King II aircraft in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, May 9, 2026. U.S. Air Force photo
At the same time, while preparing to retire the Warthog, the amendment calls for “a competitive experimentation plan for autonomous and non-traditional capabilities relevant to the A-10 mission set” — something that is far from new. According to the wording of the amended bill, this should “encourage autonomous replacement and modernization of the A-10, while also prioritizing participation of non-traditional defense firms.”
The amendment specifies that “autonomous, semi-autonomous, artificial intelligence-enabled, and adjunct aircraft capabilities” should all be investigated for carrying out future A-10-type mission sets.
The plan should include ways to ensure operational experiments are done “in a manner consistent with meaningful human command and control, by a qualified military aviator,” the amendment added. That should include mission-critical functions such as target engagement, weapons release, and decisions to abort a mission.
To help with the development of emerging technologies that could replace, or partly replace, the A-10, the amendment also proposes that a limited number of the jets should be used to support these studies.
Two 74th Fighter Squadron A-10Cs above Wake Island, in October 2022. These aircraft transited from Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, to Andersen AFB, Guam, to participate in a Dynamic Force Employment Operation. U.S. Air Force courtesy photo by Tech. Sgt. Eileen Adams
As part of accelerating this initiative, the study could involve nontraditional or venture-backed defense companies, commercial technology firms, or other companies that could rapidly develop the required hardware, software, autonomy, sensing, communication, or mission system capabilities.
This amendment raises the possibility that new technologies may ultimately provide an effective replacement for many A-10 mission sets, rather than a direct one-for-one crewed aircraft successor.
Drone-wise, the current lack of a follow-on to the MQ-9 Reaper, envisaged under a program dubbed MQ-Next, is a problem. The Air Force is now trying to replace the MQ-9 again, as you can read about here, but it remains unclear if the drone that emerges could stand in for a significant part of the A-10 mission. At the same time, the lack of a true uncrewed air combat vehicle (UCAV) program, one that would have emerged out of MQ-Next or otherwise, is also a hindrance in terms of a more survivable drone-based A-10 successor.
While not mentioned specifically, other options could include Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), AI-enabled uncrewed systems that can deliver weapons, conduct reconnaissance, perform electronic warfare, identify and track targets, and operate either independently or with crewed platforms. However, while CCAs could be part of the solution, the A-10 mission has traditionally been seen as better suited to UCAVs.
Advances in autonomy also promise future networks of expendable or attritable drones that can maintain persistent surveillance over the battlefield, rapidly share targeting information, and deliver precision effects while reducing risk to pilots. In such a model, the traditional A-10 mission would not be replaced by one aircraft but by a distributed system of sensors, shooters, and autonomous collaborators. Of course, this is of particular relevance in the kinds of contested environments where a low-flying attack aircraft would be increasingly vulnerable.
A U.S. Air Force XQ-58 Valkyrie drops an ALTIUS-600 drone from its internal bay during a test. U.S. Air Force
Once the A-10s are retired, the amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the potential transfer of the jets “to another military department” — presumably, within the U.S. military. While this is a topic that has sometimes come up among the enthusiast community, there is no realistic possibility of either the Marine Corps or the Army getting hand-me-down Warthogs. In the case of the Army, this service has long agreed not to operate fixed-wing crewed combat aircraft. For their part, the Marines have no capacity or funding to take on a whole different tactical platform, especially while winding down the F/A-18 Hornet fleet to standardize the F-35B/C as its tactical fixed-wing jet.
The idea of considering transferring retired A-10s to an ally or partner’s military has come up in the past, however, having been included in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As well as Jordan, which was named in the 2024 NDAA, Colombia and Ukraine are also known to have expressed interest in acquiring A-10s in the past.
More immediately, the amendment authorizes the reconstitution of an A-10 demonstration team. This would support “public outreach, recruiting, heritage, airshows, military ceremonies, and commemorative events, including those tied to the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States.”
An A-10C, part of the Demonstration Team from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. The A-10 was refueling on its way back to Arizona after the last official demo event, November 17, 2024, at the Pittsburgh Steelers game. U.S. Air National Guard photo by Tech. Sgt. Andrew Stover
Of course, it should be noted that all of these amendments don’t necessarily preclude the Air Force giving up the A-10. Provided the service can prove that it can retain the knowledge base, as well as plug any capability gaps, the path to letting the Warthog go would remain open.
As we have highlighted many times in the past, the A-10’s combination of capabilities remains difficult to replicate in a single aircraft. It was designed from the ground up for close air support, with significant battle damage tolerance, making it ideal for operating close to friendly forces, providing persistent, highly responsive fire support.
However, with the requirements of modern warfare shifting toward survivability in heavily defended airspace, the F-35A, as the A-10’s designated replacement, offers capabilities the older jet cannot match, including stealth, advanced sensor fusion, networked targeting, and the ability to strike from greater standoff distances. While the effort to replace the A-10 with the F-35 has been a controversial one, regardless of their respective merits, it’s clear that the Air Force needs combat mass, providing more ammunition for the Warthog’s proponents.
An F-35A streaks by as a 75th Fighter Squadron A-10C undergoes preflight checks before a Combat Hammer sortie at Eglin AFB, Florida. Combat Hammer is a weapons system evaluation program for air-to-ground munitions. U.S. Air Force photo/Samuel King Jr.
In the meantime, the Air Force has also moved away from the idea of having the F-35 as a direct successor to the A-10, reflected in the fact that one former Warthog unit, at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan, has been chosen to receive a squadron of F-15EX Eagle IIs. The balance of capabilities offered by the F-15EX means that it is now being eyed for other units, too, in line with an increased fleet size.
As for the current timeline for the A-10’s withdrawal, Craig McKee, of Phoenix, Arizona-based news channel ABC15, received an outline of the plan from Air Combat Command.
For Fiscal Year 2026, which runs through September 30, 2026, the 357th Fighter Squadron at Davis-Monthan inactivates, and the formal training pipeline ends. Meanwhile, at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, the A-10 Weapons School transitions to other types, and the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron stands down.
For Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028, Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, is scheduled to retain two active-duty A-10 squadrons, while Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, will keep one Air Force Reserve squadron. At this point, the total A-10 inventory is set to be 63 aircraft, with 42 in the active-duty inventory.
In Fiscal Year 2029, Moody Air Force Base is set to lose one squadron, while the total A-10 inventory drops to 42 aircraft.
A-10Cs from the 74th Fighter Squadron out of Moody Air Force Base, over the skies of southern Georgia, in 2014. The 74th FS is one of two active-duty, combat-ready squadrons at Moody. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jamal D. Sutter/Released
Finally, Fiscal Year 2030 is planned to see the full divestment of the A-10 fleet.
All of this is in line with Air Force demands for the A-10’s career to come to a close by the end of the decade, the culmination of a long push to retire the jets, primarily due to concerns over the aircraft’s survivability.
At the same time, the special capabilities of the Warthog are clearly still in high demand, including in the Middle East.
Previously, it seemed like the lawmakers’ efforts to retain the A-10 might have come to an end, especially when it lost two of its most vocal supporters. Namely, after the death of Arizona’s Senator John McCain, followed by Republican Representative Martha McSally losing her bid for the Arizona Senate.
Now, with the A-10’s performance in Epic Fury, as well as a brief extension to its service, it looks like a new fight to save the Warthog might be emerging.
Concerned about a cascading impact on America’s already strained nuclear shipbuilding industry, the House Armed Services Committee wants the Secretary of the Navy to prove that procurement of the proposed nuclear-powered Trump class battleships won’t exacerbate existing construction delays on aircraft carriers and submarines. This follows a congressional move last month to block the Navy from starting construction of the first of the new class of battleships until the service provides assurances that key weapon systems are “sufficiently mature.” You can read more about that in our original report here.
New worries about the status of U.S. nuclear shipbuilding were raised Thursday during the House Armed Services Committee’s Markup of the current draft of the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual defense policy bill. An amendment adding new directed report language related to the Trump class, which was approved by the Committee, mirrors issues TWZ has frequently addressed about procurement of nuclear-powered vessels.
A render of the future Trump class nuclear-powered guided-missile battleship. White House/USN
“The committee continues to support efforts to expand the U.S. maritime industrial base and accelerate U.S. shipbuilding production and recognizes the progress that has been made on these efforts through coordination between Congress, the Department of Defense, and industry,” the amendment, which had been put forward by Rep. Joe Courtney, a Connecticut Democrat, says. “However, the committee is concerned about the possibility of strain on U.S. nuclear shipyards and maritime industrial base posed by the aggressive schedule proposed for producing a nuclear-powered BBG(X) platform.”
The Trump class has also been referred to as BBG(X), the hull classification code for a guided missile (G) battleship (BB). The Navy has more recently used the term BBGN, reflecting the decision to utilize nuclear propulsion.
The main concern raised by Rep. Courtney is that there is a limit on where nuclear-powered warships can be built.
“The committee notes that the United States operates only two shipyards that are qualified to construct nuclear-powered vessels and that only one of these two shipyards, located in Newport News, Virginia, actively constructs surface vessels, including the Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier program,” Courtney noted. He was referring to Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries.
Newport News Shipbuilding. (HII)
“The committee is aware that the timelines for completion of the three Ford class aircraft carriers currently under construction have experienced significant delays due to a variety of reasons including supply chain and workforce challenges,” the amendment continues. “The committee is concerned that these factors, coupled with a lack of physical shipbuilding capacity, could be further exacerbated by a new nuclear-powered surface vessel program and without careful planning could jeopardize Ford class delivery.”
Beyond concerns about building the ships, the committee is troubled by the Trump class battleship’s impact on the U.S. naval reactor base, which is also limited to a single supplier.
That company, BWXT Technologies, is providing reactors for the Ford class carriers, as well as Virginia and Columbia class nuclear submarines under construction. It was recently awarded $1.4 billion in contracts by the U.S. Naval Propulsion Program.
A nuclear steam generator. (BWXT)
“Procurement of naval nuclear reactors typically occurs 2-to-3 years ahead of procurement of a respective vessel and reactor production timelines typically range from 6-to-8 years,” Courtney posited in his amendment. He is “concerned that the accelerated procurement timeline for the BBG(X) program will result in a negative impact on this supply chain.”
The first formal announcement that the Trump class ships would be nuclear-powered came when the Navy unveiled its new shipbuilding plan last month. The Navy hasn’t had a nuclear-powered surface combatant since the 1990s.
A trio of nuclear-powered Navy surface warships sail together in 1964. From left to right, the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, the cruiser USS Long Beach, and the frigate USS Bainbridge. (USN)
The service’s stated plan is to acquire 15 Trump class ships between Fiscal Year 2028 and 2055. Orders are to be placed essentially one every other year. However, two are slated to come back-to-back in Fiscal Years 2030 and 2031.
The most recent publicly available official estimate for the price tag on these boats is about $17 billion each. That eclipses what the service expects to spend on each of the next three Ford class carriers, the projected unit costs of which range from roughly $13 to $15 billion.
A chart from the Navy’s latest annual shipbuilding plan laying out the planned schedule for ordering new Trump class battleships, referred to here as BBG(X)s, as well as other vessels. USN
With all this in mind, the committee now wants the Navy Secretary and the Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program to provide a report by March 1, 2027, on the “Navy’s strategy to design and construct BBG(X) without interfering with existing nuclear-powered shipbuilding plans,” including the scheduled construction of third, fourth, and fifth Ford class carriers, the future USS Enterprise (CVN-80), USS Doris Miller (CVN-81), and USS William J. Clinton (CVN-82).
The committee wants the information about:
“the Navy’s strategy to reduce construction delays for CVN-80, CVN-81, and CVN-82;”
“the Navy’s projection for construction and delivery timelines for a nuclear-powered BBG(X) program, to include procurement of long-lead material such as naval nuclear reactors;”
“an assessment of the capacity of existing U.S. shipyards, certified for nuclear-powered vessel construction, to support construction of a nuclear-powered BBG(X) without delaying scheduled construction of projected and under-contract vessels within the Virginia class, Columbia class submarine, and Gerald R. Ford class carrier programs;”
“an assessment of the capacity of the U.S. naval nuclear reactor industrial base capacity to support the construction of a nuclear-powered BBG(X) without delaying scheduled construction of projected and under-contract submarines and aircraft carriers” and
“a summary of the maritime industrial base vendors, particularly those with long-lead time items or that have single source suppliers and their capacity to support the construction of the BBG(X) without delaying construction of already scheduled shipbuilding efforts.”
The future Virginia class fast attack nuclear-powered submarine USS Oklahoma pressure hull is completed. (HII) Ashley Cowan
In addition to the issues raised by Courtney, Representative Christopher Deluzio, a Pennsylvania Democrat, expressed concern that the Navy is making “optimistic assumptions about technologies” in a separate amendment to the latest draft of the House NDAA. He specifically cited “operating with a nuclear weapon, ship design, costs, schedule, and production and lack clear concepts of operations or a commitment to incorporating commercial leading practices” when it comes to the Trump class program. Deluzio’s full amendment also touched on aspects of the Trump administration’s Golden Fleet naval modernization initiative.
Deluzio’s amendment directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a brief to the House Committee on Armed Services no later than January 1, 2027, on how they will assess:
“the business case for the BBG(X) program, including the planned cost, schedule, and performance parameters, as well as any assumptions that are inherent to the execution of the business case;”
“the novel systems and technologies required to build, operate, and sustain the BBG(X), including the costs and risks of these technologies and the Navy’s steps to mitigate these risks;”
“the extent to which and how the Navy envisions executing Distributed Maritime Operations with the BBG(X) as well as other Golden Fleet assets;”
“the extent to which the Navy plans to incorporate commercial leading practices into its acquisition approach for BBG(X) and other Golden Fleet assets” and
“the impact of BBG(X) and other Golden Fleet assets on acquisition and construction plans for existing Navy shipbuilding programs.”
The future USS Enterprise midbody under construction at Newport News Shipbuilding. (HII)
We reached out to Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao’s media office for comment and will update this story with any pertinent insights shared.
There are still a number of legislative hurdles the committee’s proposals have to jump. Regardless, the reality that the Navy will ever procure a Trump class battleship, at least as currently envisioned, is already highly questionable, an issue TWZ raised when the class was first announced. President Donald Trump, who sees his namesake battleship class as a key component of the Golden Fleet, will be out of office before major decisions about how to go forward will be made. These congressional actions could be seen as a way to slow-roll plans for the battleship to kill it without directly confronting Trump about the logic of building it in the first place.
US President Donald Trump announced the US Navy’s new Golden Fleet initiative, unveiling the new Trump class battleship, at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, on December 22, 2025. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP) ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS
The committee’s demand that the Navy prove these vessels won’t gum up the nuclear shipbuilding works is another reminder that there are rough waters ahead for the Trump class.
Modularity is a key area of interest as the U.S. Air Force formulates its latest set of requirements for a successor to the MQ-9 Reaper, according to Gen. John Lamontagne, the service’s Vice Chief of Staff. A modular design, both in terms of hardware and software, would help make the chosen platform more flexible and adaptable to different mission sets. Earlier this year, the Air Force did lay out other prospective requirements for a relevant-sounding MQ-9 replacement, including a design that is easier to produce, lower-cost, and that can be more freely sent into higher-risk environments, as we have previously reported.
Gen. Lamontagne talked about what he termed “MQ-9 Next” during a virtual talk hosted by the Air & Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies earlier today. His comments came in response to a question about the Reaper performance in the latest conflict with Iran, where the drones have played a critical role, but have also suffered major losses. The latter point is a key factor in this discussion that we will come back to later on. Last month, the Air Force had also confirmed it was in the early phases of putting together a new set of requirements for an MQ-9 replacement. This follows several abortive Air Force attempts in the past to devise a successor to the Reaper.
US Air Force MQ-9 Reaper. USAF
“As we look forward in [sic] having something that is more MQ-9-like – I would characterize it as ‘MQ-9 Next’ – I think what we’d like to have is something that’s perhaps got more range, perhaps a lot more modularity,” Lamontagne explained. “We could hang ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] sensors, we could hang weapons, we could hang fuel – something that we could line-in/ line-out, very modular.”
The Air Force’s number two officer made clear that his view of modularity in this extends from the hardware side to “very simple software that we own, and we could change, so it’s almost like an iPhone.”
“We have it for several years, and we could change it, and put whatever kind of apps on it, and change the speed of warfare, change the speed of need,” he continued. “We own it, we control it, and we can also change it very quickly.”
Greater control over intellectual property, and software in particular, has emerged as a major guiding principle for the U.S. military, in general, in recent years. This makes it easier to avoid the pitfalls of being locked into a single vendor. Being able to have companies compete for follow-on contracts creates opportunities to lower costs and diversifies supply chains. This diversification in the supplier base, in turn, can be beneficial when it comes to scaling up production of key subcomponents and complete systems.
A row of MQ-9 Reapers. USAF/Staff Sgt. Ariel O’Shea
All of this feeds back into the modularity equation, with the ability to readily integrate new capability and functionality helping keep doors wide open to new possibilities down the road. This is all on top of the more immediate flexibility that modular systems and architectures offer.
For MQ-9 Next, this could translate to more adaptability when it comes to “hey, do we need more ISR? Do we need more strike? Or a combination thereof?” Gen. Lamontagne said.
The general also described the current MQ-9 replacement requirements as “probably less defined” compared to where the service is right now on future Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones. “We’re just going through some early work, our Air Force Futures team, to figure out exactly how we want to tackle that going forward [on MQ-9 Next].”
Lamontagne’s remarks today are in line with testimony from Lt. Gen. Christopher Niemi, the acting head of Air Force Futures, at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. At that time, Niemi talked about an MQ-9 replacement that would be “more flexible” by leveraging open architectures, easier and cheaper to produce “in mass numbers,” and usable “in a more attritable way.”
Attritable is generally taken to mean a system that is sufficiently low-cost to be sent out on higher-risk missions where it could be lost, but also capable enough to be relevant for those same missions. It is a term that has been increasingly in disuse by the Air Force in recent years.
An official US military graphic intended to help conceptualize where “attritable” falls into the spectrum of cost and capability, and the value of having capabilities in that category. Defense Systems Information Analysis Center
In April, the Air Force had also used the term in a contracting notice seeking information about prospective designs for a new ISR drone. Though the MQ-9 was not explicitly mentioned in that notice, the specific details do align with the remarks from Niemi and now Lamontagne about new plans for a Reaper replacement, as you can read more about here.
As we previously wrote:
“The latest statements from the service describe a drone with increased flexibility achieved through open architecture, rather than building bespoke batches of drones for particular requirements. Previous statements from the service outlined an aspiration to have its new drone capable of accommodating rapidly reconfigurable payloads, something that open architecture would expedite.”
“Above all else, the MQ-9 successor will still have to operate in contested environments.”
…
“The Pentagon has long worked on the basis that a future conflict with a peer rival, and especially with China in the Pacific, would see it facing highly robust anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) scenarios. With that in mind, previous Reaper replacement studies had suggested that low observability would need to be incorporated into the design.”
“The latest thinking seems to reject that, or at least reorient the program toward a lower-cost platform of the kind that the Air Force would be able to field in mass, as well as to absorb the anticipated attrition in a high-end conflict. This does not preclude this airframe from featuring low-observable elements. In fact, it most likely will. But those would be more aggressively balanced against cost.”
A rendering of a stealthy concept Northrop Grumman previously put forward as a possible MQ-9 replacement, underscoring how the thinking in this regard has changed over the years. Northrop Grumman
There remains a question of when the MQ-9 Next requirement might actually be finalized, as well as what the acquisition strategy (and timeline) might be for the drones. As already mentioned, the Air Force has tried multiple times to develop a Reaper replacement without success. As we highlighted in our past report:
“Since MQ-Next, the U.S. drone landscape has changed considerably in terms of manufacturers. A few years ago, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics would have been seen as the front-runners for the MQ-9 replacement. Now, there are more contenders, often with a founding focus on rapidly scaling up production at low cost. Still, these firms have much to prove, especially considering the risk in replacing an aircraft as important as the MQ-9. At the same time, in the more advanced drone space, the legacy defense “prime” contractors are also making major progress in leveraging new technologies to reduce production costs and migrating away from exquisite, very expensive drones as their default offerings.”
All of this is made more pressing by the worrisome impacts from losses of dozens of MQ-9s just in the past year or so as a result of operations targeting Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen and, more recently, the conflict directly with Iran. The Air Force itself described this attrition as concerning, but there increasingly looks to be limited options for securing any immediate replacements. The Reaper, more formally known as the MQ-9A, is out of production. The company that developed the drone, General Atomics, has moved on to the MQ-9B, an evolved design with significant differences from its predecessor. Any new Air Force purchases of drones in this broader family would have to be of the B model and worked into the existing production schedule.
USAF
General Atomics, the maker of the MQ-9 and a pioneer in the uncrewed marketplace, seems to have pushed back on some of the ideas the USAF now wants in a Reaper replacement.
“Some say we need cheaper, disposable aircraft, so that we can use them and throw them away, or lose them and not feel bad about it. No one is talking about actual capability, ready today,” C. Mark Brinkley, a spokesperson for the company, recently told TWZ. “No one is talking about all of the hard lessons, already learned, about icing and weather and weapons integration. No one is talking about the multiple survivability upgrades available for the existing platforms and the lack of investment in those.”
“These make-believe weapons that don’t exist have the luxury of being anything you imagine them to be,” Brinkely added. “Unscratched lottery tickets, promising all of the win and none of the lose [sic].”
USAF
In the meantime, operational demands for MQ-9s remain high, and Lamontagne lauded their contributions in the latest conflict with Iran during his talk today. He also said that he sees Reaper’s performance as validating his service’s broader plans for new uncrewed platforms, including CCAs, as well as MQ-9 Next.
“I think it affirms the path that we’re on with Collaborative Combat Aircraft,” he said. “Collaborative Combat Aircraft, different [from MQ-9], much more autonomous,” but “still controlled by a man or a woman, and a fighter that is going to direct them to do what they need to do.”
A “very loyal wingman” and “not quite as intensive from a manpower perspective – true both in the air and on the ground,” he continued. “So, I think it very much affirms that’s the right path. And we’re going down that road, and we’re spending really good money on CCAs, and we’re excited about what kind of capability that’s going to deliver.”
“I think we’ve learned a lot of lessons, both with CCAs and MQ-9 Next, to take us into the future.”
When it comes to MQ-9 Next, the requirements are still very much evolving. It remains to be seen when and if this attempt at a Reaper replacement will come to fruition, unlike the various preceding attempts.
The U.S. Marine Corps is aiming to put in an order for new anti-drone 5.56x45mm ammunition for its M4 carbines and M27 rifles by the end of the year. Produced by a company called Drone Round, the L Variant cartridge has a projectile that breaks into multiple segments to improve the probability of scoring a hit on a small, fast-moving aerial target. The idea is to give anyone with a rifle an immediate boost in their ability to defend against growing drone threats, especially first-person view (FPV) kamikaze types now proliferating around the globe after becoming a fixture in the war in Ukraine.
Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) announced its intention to buy an unspecified number of 5.56x45mm L Variant cartridges through a sole-source contract with Drone Round in a notice posted online yesterday. The projected date of the contract award is December 2026.
“The 5.56mm Drone Round ‘L Variant’ is the only kinetic munition currently available in the commercial or defense marketplace that meets the Marine Corps’ strict minimum capability requirements for immediate c-sUAS [counter-small uncrewed aerial systems] defense,” according to an accompanying document justifying the need for a sole-source deal. “Specifically, this round is the only solution offering ‘drop-in’ compatibility that requires no physical modifications, specialized upper receivers, or distinct weapon platforms to be operable in current-issue Marine Corps 5.56mm weapons (e.g., M27, M4, and M4A1).”
“Furthermore, its deployment requires zero additional New Equipment Training or specialized occupational specialties, rendering it immediately effective upon issue,” the justification adds. “Failure to deliver this capability places an unnecessary risk to Marines and could lead to mission failure and loss of life.”
The results of a range test of L Variant rounds. Drone Round
Drone Round has been developing specialized anti-drone ammunition for small arms since at least 2025. At the time of writing, the company offers two 5.56x45mm versions, the aforementioned L Variant and a K Variant. The L and K versions have projectiles designed to split into five and eight segments, respectively.
With their different loadings, the L and K Variants are effective out to around 328 and 164 feet (100 and 50 Meters), both of which are relatively short ranges, according to Drone Round. No special modifications are required to use the ammunition in existing guns, and the company says the rounds are “full-auto and suppressor capable.”
Marines train with M27 rifles. USMC
L and K Variants in 7.62x51mm have also been developed, but are still in testing. Work is underway on 6.8x51mm versions, which could be fired from the U.S. Army’s new M7 rifles, M8 carbines, and M250 light machine guns. Other calibers could be on the horizon, as well.
Soldiers assigned to the US Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps load L Variant cartridges into magazines during testing. US Army/Pfc. Alexis Fischer
Marine Corps interest in ammunition of this kind, broadly, is also not new. “Enhanced ammunition for existing firearms (buckshot-like 5.56, 7.62, .50, .40mm)” was among a list of desired squad and platoon-level counter-drone capabilities included in a separate contracting notice MARCORSYSCOM put out back in 2024. This reflected the then-recent rollout of a larger service-wide counter-drone vision, the core of which is ensuring that virtually every Marine can play a role.
“For our ammunition portfolio, we need industry’s help in counter-UAS munitions for our existing weapon systems,” Marine Col. Paul Gilikin, the Program Manager for Combat Support Systems at MARCORSYSCOM, said during a talk at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space conference in April.
The basic idea of multi-projectile small arms ammunition to help improve hit probability is decades old. The U.S. Army notably explored this concept extensively in the 1950s and 1960s, but did not ultimately field any of the rounds it developed. Armed forces elsewhere around the globe have pursued similar projects over the years.
Different types of pellet-filled rounds have also been developed for various small arms, including rifles and handguns, in the past, with the Glaser Safety Slug seen in the video below being one of the better-known examples. However, small arms cartridges of this kind have typically been designed primarily for very close-range self-defense, survival, or even pest-control use.
Porting these concepts of multi-projectile small arms cartridges over to counter-drone is a growing trend at this point, too. In February, the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division (NSWC Crane) unveiled multiple Drone Killer Cartridge (DKC) designs it had internally developed in 5.56x45mm, 7.62x51mm, and .50 caliber flavors.
An array of different Drone Killer Cartridge designs developed by NSWC Crane. USN
“During a recent demonstration at Camp Atterbury in Edinburgh, Indiana, DKC achieved a 92% success rate against drone targets,” according to a Navy press release. What further progress has been made since then in the development of any of the DKC designs, or their fielding, is unknown.
High-Precision Complexes Holding has begun rolling out the first batches of its 'Многоточия' (Ellipse) triplex C-sUAS rounds. These are the СЦ 226 (STs 226) in 5.45×39, and the СЦ 228 (STs 228 in 7.62×39. Claims hit probability is improved by a factor of 2.5x at 300 m. pic.twitter.com/DUSFXHlb55
To reiterate, the key benefit that multi-projectile counter-drone cartridges offer is the boost in hit probability when engaging small and highly maneuverable drones. They can also be fired from existing guns without modification. This, in turn, presents a way to give anyone in a unit with an M4 or M27 an additional means of protecting against uncrewed aerial threats without adding to the bulk and weight that personnel already have to carry around.
The Marine Corps and other branches of the U.S. military have already been pursuing other add-on capabilities to improve the effectiveness of small arms against small drones, especially for individual rifles. In particular, variants of the SMASH family of computerized optical sight systems from Israeli firm Smart Shooter have been in growing use across America’s armed forces, and elsewhere globally, for years now. The Marines have at least tested another counter-drone rifle aiming system that uses a buttstock designed to automatically move the gun in line with the target. These are capabilities that could easily be paired with specialized ammunition. It might be possible to tweak software behind these systems to better work with multi-projectile loadings, too.
Range has been cited as one limiting factor, especially for shotguns. Specialized rifle rounds like Drone Round’s L Variant and the DKC types developed by NSWC Crane, which are fired at higher velocities than shotgun shells, are intended to help mitigate this, at least to a degree. However, as noted, Drone Round says that the effective range that it has demonstrated with its 5.56x45mm types to date is 328 feet (100 meters). As a point of comparison, the stated effective range of an M4 carbine firing standard single-projectile ammunition is around 1,640 feet (500 meters), according to the Army.
The closer a counter-drone engagement occurs, the less time there is to react, overall. There is the additional question then of whether standing and fighting is the best course of action.
“When shooting you are static, which makes it easier for the operator to aim the drone,” a contemporary Russian manual on counter-drone tactics notes, according to a report in April from Forbes. That being said, there might not be somewhere safer to move in many cases.
Russian correspondent hides from a Ukranian drone … it looks for him like in a scary movie. pic.twitter.com/XPPQGzDzn0
Ukrainian drone operators located a concentration of Russian hardware inside a large warehouse somewhere in the south of Ukraine, preparing for an assault.
The very skilled drone operators sent in several drones and eliminated several MBTs, IFVs, trucks and more. In the end, the… pic.twitter.com/jgcqibiJRD
Having to manage multiple ammunition types on the fly could also present challenges. What kind of effectiveness rounds like L Variant might offer against more traditional targets is unclear.
All this being said, counter-drone rifle rounds do continue to be fielded on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine, even if the full extent of their use is not entirely clear. The explicit fielding of shotguns as counter-drone weapons is another trend that is growing globally, including in the U.S. military.
Small arms are, of course, just one part of a layered ecosystem of defenses necessary to challenge the ever-growing threats posed by various tiers of drones. For the Marine Corps, specialized counter-drone 5.56x45mm ammunition is now in line to be part of that larger equation.
A video showing a test launch of an FP-7.X missile was published yesterday by its manufacturer, Fire Point, also responsible for the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile and a series of long-range one-way attack drones. Fire Point’s chief technology officer Iryna Terekh described the depicted test as a “fully controlled maneuvering flight” conducted “just the other day.” The pink-painted missile recalls the early Flamingoes, and now seems to have been adopted as something of a company trademark.
Держави програють війни на полі бою значно рідше, ніж вони програють їх у інститутах, лабораторіях та на виробництві за десять років до їх початку.
Коли країна роками недофінансовує інженерну освіту, скорочує дослідження, втрачає виробничі компетенції або звикає покладатися на… pic.twitter.com/Ti1Ayn4INf
The FP-7.X missile is planned as the stepping-stone toward the productionized Freyja missile, which is primarily intended to provide Ukraine with its first homegrown anti-ballistic missile defense system. While ballistic missile threats are being prioritized here, the system would be equally able to defend against a variety of crewed aircraft threats, as well as drones and cruise missiles.
“No matter how unrealistic and ambitious this goal may sound today, we are exerting all possible and impossible efforts to make it a reality as soon as possible, so that Ukraine can close its skies on its own,” Terekh wrote.
Back in April, Fire Point’s co-founder and chief designer Denys Shtilierman toldReuters that the company was aiming to develop an anti-ballistic missile with a unit cost of less than $1 million.
A rendering of the FP-7 surface-to-surface ballistic missile on which the FP-7.X missile is based. Fire Point
“If we can decrease it to less than $1 million, it will be … a game changer in air defense solutions,” Shtilierman said. “We plan to intercept the first ballistic missile at the end of 2027,” he added, apparently referring to the aim to field the Freyja system by that date.
This compares to a unit price of approximately $5.3 million for each example of the most modern and highly capable PAC-3 MSE variant, which is one of the types provided to Ukraine. This figure comes from the Army’s latest proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. This is up from a historical average of around $4 million for each one of these missiles. These munitions also take years of lead time to produce, meaning that managing limited stocks is a big challenge.
Fire Point has developed the FP-7.X missile on the basis of the previous FP-7 surface-to-surface ballistic missile, a weapon with a range of around 124 miles, and a warhead of approximately 331 pounds. Deriving an anti-ballistic missile from a ballistic missile is an unusual move, but Fire Point will hope that the commonality should accelerate the process.
As it stands, Ukraine’s anti-ballistic missile capabilities are strictly limited. It relies heavily upon the Patriot, batteries and components of which have been provided by Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States.
When the Patriot began to arrive in 2023, it provided Ukraine with an enhanced long-range, high-altitude engagement capability that was previously only offered, to a lesser degree, by Ukraine’s S-300s, with their depleting stocks of missiles. Importantly, the Patriot also brought an anti-ballistic missile capability, something that was previously only provided by the small number of Ukrainian S-300V1 systems, and even those don’t come anywhere close to the Patriot in this regard.
And another S-300V engagement, released as part of the same video.
From what I have seen, these are the third and fourth Ukrainian S-300V engagement videos released since the start of the war. pic.twitter.com/wPHnYbCQKP
Providing somewhat similar capabilities to the Patriot is the SAMP/T, a joint Franco-Italian SAM system, which has also been supplied to Ukraine, but only in limited numbers. Overall, the SAMP/T is limited simply by the fact that it is produced in relatively small numbers.
As for the Patriot, this has claimed notable successes and high-profile victims in Ukrainian hands. However, as Russia has adapted its ballistic missiles, specifically adding enhanced maneuvering capabilities, the effectiveness of the U.S.-made system has been reduced.
A screen capture of a Ukrainian Air Force video shows images of three Russian helicopters and two Russian fighters painted on the side of a Patriot air defense battery. Defense Industry of Ukraine image
According to Shtilierman, the Patriot system often requires two or three air defence missiles, each costing several million dollars, to bring down a ballistic projectile. This is a mismatch that Fire Point also hopes to address with the Freyja.
It is notable that the U.S. Army is currently also pressing defense contractors to come up with proposals for a new interceptor for the Patriot system with a unit cost under $1 million, as you can read more about here. Whether by design or coincidence, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, the Army’s Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Fires (PAE Fires), included a rendering of the FP-7.X in a recent LinkedIn post, as seen below, to illustrate a notional low-cost interceptor.
The latest development comes as Ukraine’s political and military leaders continue to warn about critical shortcomings in the country’s air defense capabilities. As well as expending the missiles it already has, the United States has reportedly suspended further Patriot deliveries to Ukraine because of concerns over the state of its own stockpile.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly urged U.S. President Donald Trump and members of Congress to provide additional missiles for its Patriot systems, warning that Ukraine faces a severe air defense shortfall.
We were receiving PAC-3 missiles from our partners in certain quantities, but later that monthly volume was cut several times over. It wasn’t due to a lack of funding, but because of the war in the Middle East. This affected different types of weapons. Whatever we could, we… pic.twitter.com/qwPFydwAzC
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 3, 2026
Yesterday, Zelensky said that Ukrainian officials have one week to finalize outstanding legal, financial, and technical issues related to the purchase of additional Patriot systems.
Zelensky said that a political agreement to buy the systems has already been reached, but the process has stalled.
Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Olha Stefanishyna, added that Kyiv is prepared to finance additional Patriot systems and interceptor missiles if Washington agrees to deliver them.
Ukrainian personnel remove camouflage netting from a Patriot launcher, which is loaded with missile canisters associated with older interceptors like the PAC-2-series. Ukrainian Air Force
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrsky also recently pointed to Ukraine’s lack of sufficient modern air defense systems and interceptor missiles.
Clearly, continued Russian missile and drone strikes are putting a heavy strain on Ukraine’s air defenses.
Plugging the gaps with the Freyja system would make a lot of sense, providing a locally developed and manufactured solution to the problem, provided that the technical hurdles can be overcome.
Even so, the deadline of the end of 2027 is very ambitious for such a project.
With that in mind, Ukraine is also looking to foreign support for the Freyja program.
Earlier this year, Fire Point confirmed it was in talks to get European and Middle Eastern companies onboard the program. With various nations struggling to meet their air defense needs amid the demands of the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, investing here could also bring dividends.
Parts of long-range drones stored in a workshop of the Fire Point company at an undisclosed location in Ukraine on January 29, 2026. Photo by Serhii Okunev / AFP SERHII OKUNEV
Shtilierman told Reuters in April that he was awaiting government approval for an investment in Fire Point by a Middle Eastern conglomerate, which would provide a major boost to Freyja and other programs, including longer-reaching ballistic missiles.
In terms of European companies, Shtilierman mentioned his interest in collaborating on radar, missile target-seeking, and communications systems. He named Hensoldt, Saab, and Thales as potential suppliers of radar solutions, an area where Fire Point lacks expertise.
Fire Point has also previously described the Freyja interceptor being fitted with an infrared imaging seeker for the terminal phase, as well as a semi-active radar homing seeker from Diehl Defence of Germany.
Few details are available about the launch system, other than reports of a lightweight, mobile launcher of domestic origin.
Globally, there is a clear demand for alternatives to the increasingly hard-to-source Patriot, especially for anti-ballistic missile defense.
A video shows a PAC-2 in a test against a Lance ballistic missile:
Ukraine’s combination of battlefield experience, rapid innovation, and low-cost defense technologies could put it in a good position to fill the gap. Even if the Freyja ends up with a significantly lower kill rate per missile than the Patriot, if it is far cheaper, that would be less of a problem.
At the same time, it remains unclear if Fire Point is able to fulfill the promises it has made in terms of output. In the past, the company has said it aims to build at least seven of its Flamingo cruise missiles per day, for a total of 2,555 built annually. To reach this target, the firm might need to call upon foreign partnerships to help expand its production capacity. The same would likely be the case for Freyja. By way of comparison, in 2024, Lockheed Martin produced more than 500 PAC-3 MSEs, with a plan to increase this to 600 in 2025.
A video of the Flamingo cruise missile in action:
One unknown factor in this is the possibility that Ukraine and/or NATO allies in Europe might obtain additional licenses for local production of Patriot missiles. Zelensky wants Patriot production in Ukraine and has said he has been discussing it with the United States. Still, while these might address the production capacity issues for the weapons, it would still be a more expensive solution than what Fire Point is proposing and it would take years to realize any output.
For now, the FP-7.X appears to be an early-stage technology demonstrator, and turning it into the operational Freyja interceptor by 2027 will require overcoming massive technical and logistical hurdles — as well as holding off Russian air attacks in the meantime.
However, the program reflects a broader trend in Ukraine’s wartime defense sector: rapidly developing indigenous capabilities to fill critical gaps left by limited and/or unreliable foreign supplies. If Fire Point can translate its ambitions into a viable anti-ballistic missile system, Ukraine could gain not only a more sustainable means of defending its skies, but also a potentially attractive export alternative in a global market increasingly hungry for affordable air defense solutions.
A thermal image purportedly shows a previously unseen aircraft design, said to have been captured when it was flying at night over the secretive Groom Lake facility, better known as Area 51. While the quality of the image is poor due to the sensor type that was supposedly used, from what we can see, the shape seems to be a relatively close match for what we know so far about the F-47 sixth-generation stealth fighter for the U.S. Air Force. This would point to it being the technology demonstrator ‘X-plane’ that served as a precursor to the contract being awarded to Boeing, although that is in no way a definitive assessment.
The image in question was first shared online by the Project Fear YouTube channel on June 3. The still image was promoted as a teaser for the full video that will be released tomorrow. It was published with the caption “A craft the public has never seen before.”
At this point, we need to be aware that there is no confirmation that the image is genuine, official or otherwise. We have reached out to the Air Force to try and establish its veracity, but they declined to comment.
However, the authenticity of the image and the forthcoming video was confirmed to TWZ by Anders Otteson, responsible for the Uncanny Expeditions YouTube channel, which explores classified locations at a distance around Nevada and California.
Otteson explained that he was approached by Project Fear, who was looking for advice in making a video outside Groom Lake.
“I’m generally happy to help other channels out, so I gave them a rundown on the gear I recommend buying, what specs are important, etc,” Otteson told us. “The thermal camera I suggested getting was the InfiRay HCH50R, and I can confirm that’s what this was shot with as I own one myself. I was out with them for their early filming and gave them a tour of some spots that I’ve had success spotting in the past. The following week is when they captured this aircraft.”
Otteson says the video was shot in the hills to the south of Rachel and that the aircraft was very low. He was not present during the sighting, which took place around two months ago, but Project Fear contacted him afterwards and shared the footage.
“I was obviously pretty excited when I saw it,” Otteson added.
While this may be the case, if the aircraft captured is real, the USAF likely shares the opposite sentiment.
Otteson also took to the r/area51 subreddit, where he further clarified his role and reiterated that the footage is, in his opinion, genuine.
“To be clear, my only involvement in this channel was an advisory role. I told them what equipment to buy and gave them general recommendations. I did go out with them but was not there at the time this clip was captured, though I was sent it immediately afterwards. I posted about this because I noticed some people calling it fake due to coming from a “paranormal” channel and wanted to clear that up. It is indeed real…” he wrote.
Otteson is certainly familiar with sightings of this kind. Earlier this year, he claimed to have captured thermal imagery of a ‘flying Dorito’-shaped aircraft that was also operating in the restricted airspace around Groom. The general triangular planform captured has a long history of rumored classified development going back to the dawn of stealth technology.
Newly released infrared footage dated January 14, filmed by videographer and explorer Anders Otteson, who runs a channel called Uncanny Expeditions on YouTube, shows an unidentified triangular-shaped aircraft flying over Area 51 and the Nevada Test and Training Range. pic.twitter.com/kQMmvI2tur
Among the many online discussions about this new image, it’s impossible not to make the connection with the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which Boeing won with its F-47 sixth-generation stealth fighter. That aircraft is now in early production for the U.S. Air Force.
An official rendering of the Air Force’s sixth-generation fighter, the F-47. U.S. Air Force graphic
The image shows an exotic design by any interpretation. The aft-set lambda-type wings appear to have a camber and wingtip droop, as on the Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator. There are very large canard foreplanes — a feature that appears prominently on F-47 renderings and which we have written in detail about in the past. The broad nose, too, is something that has been included in depictions of the F-47, although we have really no idea to what degree these are based in reality. It’s worth noting that in this new thermal image, it has a distinctive double-arrowhead shape, tapering in again in front of the canards. Even the canards themselves may have more than one plane, with the outer tips being drooped, matching similar architecture as the wing. The fuselage then tapers down in the center before the wing roots begin.
The Boeing Bird of Prey. U.S. Air Force
The aircraft is very likely to be tailless, a feature common to most sixth-generation concepts seen so far. However, since it’s seen from below, we cannot be sure about this aspect of its configuration.
As for the powerplant, it is most likely a twin-engine design, like the F-47, a theory reinforced by the sawtooth-type trailing edge. There is no obvious suggestion of any exhaust plumes, which seems odd, but that could be the result of the sensor being used in combination with the aircraft’s power setting at the time of recording, as well as general thermal signature reduction capabilities that are part of the design.
Certainly, the official renderings of the F-47 have a superficial likeness to the X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft, designed to be representative of a low-observable high-performance fighter.
An overhead view of the X-36. NASA
As Bill Sweetman, former editor-in-chief of Aviation Week and long-term observer of stealth programs, pointed out, the F-47 renderings also recalled some of the work of the late Alan Wiechman, who joined McDonnell Douglas from the Lockheed Skunk Works in the mid-1980s. He was responsible for the X-36 and the Bird of Prey. Sweetman also noted that, according to Wiechman’s obituary, he had ‘most recently’ been an adviser on stealth to the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office.
So while everyone waits for the video of the A51 mystery plane, what did I write in March of last year?
"There are aspects of the artwork that call to mind the work of the late Alan Wiechman, who joined McDonnell Douglas… in the mid-1980s and headed the company’s stealth work… pic.twitter.com/9xJZK7CAOw
Returning to the F-47, as far as we know, it has not flown yet, with the first example being under construction in St. Louis. Its first flight is expected in 2028.
On the other hand, as noted earlier, demonstrators associated with the NGAD program have taken to the air.
In 2020, it was first disclosed that at least one demonstrator design had already been flying for some years on behalf of NGAD.
Frank Kendall, when he was Secretary of the Air Force, also spoke openly about “X-planes,” in the plural, when describing the evolution of what became NGAD.
DARPA and the Air Force meanwhile confirmed that two X-planes were built for the Aerospace Innovation Initiative, and that they first flew in 2019 and 2022, respectively. Kendall further added that these were entirely experimental demonstrator aircraft and not reflective of a production prototype for a “tactical design.” They were built sometime after 2017, he said.
Frank Kendall, when he was Secretary of the Air Force. U.S. Air Force Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. USAF
While we know that Boeing and Lockheed both built demonstrators, it’s possible that as many as three NGAD demonstrators were completed. This would reflect the fact that, at one point, three prime contractors or teams were involved, the other candidate being Northrop Grumman, which dropped out around 2023.
Now that the F-47 is in the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase, we have speculated that the Boeing demonstrator and probably even the Lockheed Martin one are still doing test efforts, with the Boeing aircraft logically being used for risk reduction work while the EMD work continues.
Then there is the other NGAD effort being pursued separately by the U.S. Navy. The Navy program is also based around a crewed sixth-generation combat jet, known as F/A-XX. We know there is at least some crossover between the Air Force and Navy programs. The Navy has been especially tight-lipped about its F/A-XX program, and the aircraft seen could be a test asset related to it. In fact, it could be a direct descendant of the design that gave birth to the F-47, as Boeing’s renderings of their supposed entrant into the competition resemble the F-47. Again, we must state that renderings will be carefully manipulated prior to release to maximize security of the program and provide disinformation to adversaries. Still, the common through-lines are clearly there for the Boeing type.
Boeing’s F/A-XX render. Boeing
It’s also worth noting that the aircraft spotted on the thermal device does not match the aircraft seen in a satellite image at Area 51 during the time when the test effort for NGAD was underway. This could have been the Lockheed demonstrator or something else entirely.
Another possibility is that the aircraft in the thermal image is not a crewed next-generation fighter at all, but rather an advanced uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV). The U.S. military has invested heavily in stealthy drone programs in recent years, including highly classified systems designed for reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and loyal-wingman operations alongside crewed aircraft. Given the limited quality and single perspective of the thermal image, plenty of features could be misleading. It is therefore possible that the object is an experimental Collaborative Combat Aircraft or other uncrewed technology demonstrator rather than a prototype of a future sixth-generation fighter. However, while drones come in all configurations, the complexity of this aircraft design and its similarities to what we know about the F-47 make it being an unrelated uncrewed platform less likely. Area 51 also has many programs running at any given time, the vast majority of which we will never know about, so there have been and are many exotic designs that visit the airspace above the base for various reasons.
We can also say for sure that the aircraft in the new Area 51 image is fundamentally very different to the tailless new-generation combat aircraft designs that China is currently testing, the J-36 and the J-XDS, both of which you can read more about here.
A composite showing some of the images of the J-36 that have previously emerged. Chinese Internet via XA pair of previously emerged images of the J-XDS. Chinese internet via X
It should also be noted that, provided the imagery is legitimate, its appearance at this point could well be a byproduct of an uptick in flight-test activity at Groom and elsewhere. This is something we had expected since the new era of great power competition began, and seems to be really metastasizing. With so many new technologies and systems in development, including entirely new categories of air combat aircraft, a whole new premium and level of activity is being placed on the base, as well as at non-classified facilities, like Edwards AFB.
At the same time, public insights into the activities at the already notoriously opaque base are becoming harder. In a recent land grab, the observation point at Tikaboo Peak — previously, the closest existing viewpoint into Area 51 — has been closed off in another huge land grab by the USAF.
So, as it sits, it isn’t clear exactly what we are seeing, if indeed it is a real aircraft, but there are strong indications that this is our first glimpse of the winning NGAD entrant and a preview of what the F-47 will look like when it finally thunders out of the shadows.
A new type of submarine that appears to lack a traditional sail has emerged in China. The same shipyard launched a smaller ‘sailless’ submarine — a technology demonstrator — eight years ago. More recently, a top Chinese shipbuilding conglomerate put forward a concept for an uncrewed underwater vehicle (UUV) with a broadly comparable hullform. Designs of this kind can offer benefits in terms of speed, maneuverability, and reduced acoustic signature, but also have major drawbacks.
TWZ has obtained imagery of the submarine in question at JN (Jiangnan) Shipyard in Shanghai on June 1, as seen at the top of this story and below, from Vantor (previously Maxar Technologies). The boat, the name and/or designation of which are currently unknown, first appeared there sometime at the end of May, according to Naval News. That outlet was first to report on this development.
From the imagery, the submarine does not have a traditional sail. However, the exact shaping of what is present is also not entirely clear from the view that is currently available. As noted, JN Shipyard is known to have built at least one other ‘sailless’ submarine in the past, which we will come back to later on.
Writing for Naval News, undersea warfare analyst H.I. Sutton has assessed the design to be roughly 394 feet (120 meters) long and to be between 33 and 36 feet (10 and 11 meters) wide. What its intended missions might be are unknown, but this is certainly larger than common diesel-electric submarines (SSK) and even longer than most nuclear fast attack submarines. For comparison, variants of China’s Type 093 nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), some of the most modern submarines in People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) service today, are approximately 356 to 360 feet (108 to 110 meters long) and 36 feet wide. The official stated length and width of the U.S. Navy’s Virginia class SSNs, across all existing subvariants, are 377 feet (114.8 meters) and 34 feet (10.36 meters), respectively.
An X-shaped stern is a feature now further associated with a next-generation Chinese attack submarine design commonly, but still unofficially, referred to as the Type 095. Naval News also reported today on the recent launch of what may be another Type 095, which has a traditional sail, at the Bohai Shipyard in Huludao, hundreds of miles to the north of Shanghai. This may have caused some confusion online, with some mistaking a boat at Bohai for a ‘sailless’ type.
Just translated via @type36512: CSSC Bohai Shipbuilding: Launch of a New Submarine
Satellite imagery captured on May 29. I believe this image depicts the new 120m-class, sail-less submarine discussed in the accompanying article. However – due to limitations in image resolution – https://t.co/sHF9Y8gkGe
Even if we scale 09V's hull diameter with this mystery submarine (for illustration purposes), it is a fair bit shorter, meaning it probably isn't a 09V, but it also doesn't correspond to what a 10m diameter, 120m length submarine would look like…
The newly emerged submarine at JN Shipyard may also have a shrouded propulsor, which could be a pumpjet type. Pumpjets offer further benefits for quieter operation, especially at higher submerged speeds.
The absence of a traditional sail is still the most notable aspect of the new submarine at JN Shipyard. Omitting a large structure sticking out of the top of the hull helps significantly with streamlining the overall design. Eliminating that drag can allow greater optimization for speed and maneuverability while submerged. It can also help make the submarine quieter and, by extension, harder to detect, even while transiting through an area at higher speeds. This can be especially useful when racing out to threats, even those far away.
Not having a traditional sail could impose certain design constraints. Traditionally, naval submarines have used their sails to mount periscopes and other sensor masts, as well as extendable communication antennas and snorkels to help cycle air without fully resurfacing. That is space that can be used for other purposes, including launchers for countermeasures and general storage.
A generic example of the array of masts that extend up from the sails of modern naval submarines. Hensoldt
Above all else, while running on the surface, the sail is key for general navigation and situational awareness. It can also provide an elevated position for local force protection or supporting vertical replenishment (VERTREP) operations. If sufficiently hardened, it can even break through feet of ice during operations in and around the polar regions.
The sail of the US Navy’s Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Santa Fe seen broken through the ice during an exercise in the Arctic Circle in March 2026. USN/Petty Officer 1st Class Jacob Bergh
The lack of a sail might reflect a focus on seabed operations far from the surface where mast deployment and other considerations might be less pressing. At the same time, the design’s features could just as easily be centered on improving performance, including the ability to make transits as quickly as possible during blue water operations. It could also offer benefits for shallow-water operations, though we have noted that, overall, it is very large compared to SSKs.
As mentioned, a smaller ‘sailless’ submarine had already emerged at JN Shipyard in 2018. H.I. Sutton previously estimated that design to be around 150 feet (45 meters) long and 15 feet (four to four-and-a-half meters) wide. That submarine also had a non-X-shaped rudder arrangement and what appeared to be an unshrouded propeller. The exact reasons for building that boat and how it has been utilized over the years remain unknown, but it would have at least provided a testbed and technology demonstration platform to explore this design concept, and potentially other capabilities. Whether it was designed for crewed or uncrewed operation, or to be optionally crewed, is not clear, either. The same is true of this new submarine, though it seems unlikely it is uncrewed.
A top-down look at the first low-profile submarine to emerge from JN Shipyard. Chinese Internet
At the Zhuhai Airshow in 2024, the state-run China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) did show a model of an unprecedentedly large, diesel-electric UUV. Its overall design was highly reminiscent, at least in broad strokes, of JN Shipyard’s original ‘sailless’ submarine, as TWZ noted at the time. JN Shipyard is one of many subsidiaries of CSSC.
CSSC said at the time that the drone submarine could be configured to perform a wide array of missions, including launching attacks on enemy vessels, laying mines, supporting special operations forces, and serving as a mothership for smaller uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUV). You can read more about all of this here.
The model of the low-profile UUV design CSSC showed at the Zhuhai Airshow in 2024. Chinese internet
Other shipyards and navies around the world have explored low-profile submarine designs in the past, but designs have generally been consigned to the world of paper concepts and limited experimentation. The U.S. Navy, for instance, previously tested a Large Scale Vehicle Range (LSVR) subscale demonstrator submarine with a novel sail structure. The Navy’s Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD) conducted that work in a lake in Bayview, Idaho.
Large Scale Vehicle Range (LSVR) subscale demonstrator submarine seen sailing in Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho. Public DomainA model of a low-profile ballistic missile submarine concept called Arktur shown in Russia in 2022. @MuxelAero
In 2021, the Navy also notably put out a contracting notice calling for concepts for inflatable sail structures, which could combine the benefits of traditional sails and low-profile designs. What degree of work the service may have conducted since then on this Inflatable Deployable Sail System (IDSS) is unclear, but it underscores how important a sail is for general operations on the surface.
The PLAN’s submarine force otherwise continues to grow in terms of capability and capacity, with an increasing number of more modern types. U.S. officials have openly said in the past that the quality of newer Chinese submarines has been getting closer in parity to American designs. All of this is further underscored by the recent appearance of the other new submarine at Bohai. In addition to new nuclear-power designs, China is also understood to be developing at least one design with a hybrid nuclear/conventional propulsion system, referred to as the Type 041 or Zhou class. The first known example of the Type 041 came to light after it looked to have sunk in a shipyard in 2024.
Greater use of nuclear propulsion promises to extend the reach of Chinese submarines in the Pacific and beyond, and is clearly part of the PLAN’s larger vision for naval power projection going forward.
“The PLA Navy is executing a significant strategic shift from diesel-electric to all-nuclear construction, representing a fundamental departure from historical construction patterns,” U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Mike Brookes, head of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote in prepared remarks ahead of a hearing before members of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in March.
Brookes also highlighted how the hybrid Type 041, specifically, could offer “greater endurance, potentially filling regional patrol and presence missions more economically than full-size SSNs [attack submarines] and SSGN [guided missile submarines].”
More remains to be learned about the newly emerged submarine at JN Shipyard, but it could point to new low-profile designs without traditional sails, possibly to act as the PLAN’s underwater high-speed interceptor, being part of China’s larger future submarine future.
Today, the U.S. Marine Corps celebrated the end of more than half a century of Harrier ‘jump jet’ operations with a sundown ceremony at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North Carolina. For more than 20 percent of the history of the republic, the British-originated jump jet helped to defend America. The story of how the U.S. military first got involved in the program is a little-known but fascinating one. Michael Pryce, who has worked on various aircraft projects, from the Harrier to the Tempest, explains, and, in the process, connects the dots between the AV-8 and its replacement with the Marine Corps, the F-35B Lightning II.
Read our coverage of the Marine Harrier sundown here.
A British-made U.S. Marine Corps AV-8A of Marine Attack Squadron 231 drops a Mk 20 Rockeye cluster bomb during training, in 1979. U.S. Navy
Right from the start, the Harrier had been of immense interest to Britain’s ‘cousins’ across the pond. In the 1950s, the threat of nuclear war led to the creation of jump jets, and NASA, plus the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Army soon found that developing rockets seemed easy in comparison to this new class of combat aircraft.
Despite valiant efforts, no American jump jet could be made to work.
A video shows the Ryan X-13 Vertijet during tests. It was one of many Cold War-era jump jet projects that ended in failure:
All three services got involved in trials of the Hawker Siddeley P.1127 Kestrel, the first iteration of what would become the Harrier, initially in a joint British-American-West German trials squadron. Then, six of the Kestrels were taken to America to continue testing there, and they were renamed as XV-6As once on U.S. soil. Unlike other jump jet projects, the P.1127 utilized four adjustable exhaust nozzles beneath the wing, which rotated to provide thrust for vertical, backward, or hovering flight as well as conventional forward movement.
The XV-6A Kestrel demonstrated operations from grass, semi-prepared surfaces, and ship decks, offering great operational flexibility. U.S. Air Force photo
The thing that impressed the Americans was the sheer simplicity of the British jump jet. With just one engine, and ‘not an electron’ needed in its flight controls, the Kestrel soon transformed into the Harrier, and in 1968 the U.S. Marine Corps decided they would acquire them. Despite not having flown any of the Kestrel trials, they knew they wanted to bring the jump jet into the front line as soon as possible.
The British makers of the Harrier, Hawker Siddeley, first found out about the U.S. Marines’ interest when two men in uniform walked into the Hawker Siddeley hospitality chalet at the 1968 Farnborough Airshow and said they wished to fly the jet. Within two weeks, they had. It was the start of the Marines’ love affair with the Harrier, but it was not America’s first encounter with the British jet.
A Royal Air Force Harrier jet involved in a mock bombing run at the Farnborough Airshow in 1968. Photo by PA Images via Getty Images
Over 10 years before, another American had walked into Hawker’s fancy tent at another Farnborough airshow and asked to see their design for what would become the Harrier. Col. Willis “Bill” F. Chapman of the U.S. Air Force was an American in Paris, there to find European weapons that America could fund. Jump jets were all the rage, and the Hawker P.1127 seemed to him to be the most promising.
Six pre-production Hawker Siddeley Harrier GR1s pictured at the manufacturer’s test facility at Dunsfold aerodrome, Surrey, in 1968. The first Royal Air Force squadron to be equipped with the Harrier GR1, No. 1 Squadron, started to convert to the aircraft at RAF Wittering in April 1969. Crown CopyrightCol. Willis F. Chapman was commander of the 340th Bomb Group in 1944. Joseph Heller based the Catch-22 character of Colonel Cathcart on him, stretching artistic licence. Chapman thought Heller was a poor bombardier. Patricia C. Meder
As leader of the 340th Bomb Group in Italy in World War II, Chapman had seen dozens of his B-25 bombers wiped out, first by a volcanic eruption and then by a Luftwaffe attack. He knew nuclear missiles could do much worse. Soon, he had funded the Pegasus engine, the heart of the Harrier, and struck up a strong friendship with the Hawker design team led by Ralph Hooper, driving their design forward, from the drawing board into the sky.
Ralph Hooper, right, after flying in the two-seat Harrier he designed in the 1970s. BAE Systems
In 1968, one of the U.S. Marines who walked in at Farnborough would play an equally vital role in getting the Harrier into Marine service. Col. Tom Miller had flown in Korea and Vietnam, and scored a speed record in a McDonnell F4H Phantom for good measure. Deeply impressed by the Harrier, he went into battle on ‘The Hill’ to secure it for the Corps, then on to lead it into service as the commander of the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing at Cherry Point — the same unit that retired the Harrier today, 55 years later.
John H. Glenn, Jr., Gen. David M. Shoup, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and then Lt. Col. Thomas H. Miller Jr., at Marine Corps Headquarters in 1960. (Marine Corps Archives)
The rest of the history of the Harrier is well known. From the initial, British-built AV-8A to the jointly-developed, with mostly American technology, second-generation AV-8B Harrier II, the Harrier found more use, and created more jobs, in America than in Britain. The American connection was the making of the British jump jet, and helped cement relations between the two countries’ pilots, engineers and ground crews over decades.
In the 1980s, there were attempts to make a new, supersonic successor, with the speed of the Marines’ F/A-18A Hornet and the vertical flight ability of the Harrier. Once again, the Americans turned to British designers. In 1981, Hooper and a team of engineers from the Harrier factory at Kingston-upon-Thames went to work at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis, Missouri, to design the ultimate jump jet. Over drawing boards and at tailgate parties after ball games, they evolved a great beast of a jet, the P.1218, with two crew, two engines and the latest tech, to succeed the U.S. Navy’s F-14A Tomcat fleet interceptor and A-6E Intruder all-weather strike aircraft. Despite arriving at a joint design, money was limited, and the work was re-focused on research with NASA — the start of what in time would become the Joint Strike Fighter program.
Images of the British Aerospace P.1218 concept are very hard to come by, but the joint work with McDonnell Douglas fed into the broadly similar Model 279-4 design, seen here. McDonnell Douglas/Boeing
Although the U.S Navy buys jets for the Marines, the big twin-engined design was of less interest to the Corps than another of Hooper’s designs, a smaller, single-engine jet that weighed the same as the Hornet. This supersonic jump jet was seriously studied in the United Kingdom, with tests and design work over many years. The U.S. Marines were involved too, officers visiting the Kingston factory to talk about its prospects. When Britain delayed jump jet plans in favor of what became the Eurofighter Typhoon, it meant Hooper’s single-engined P.1216 design, with its wild-looking twin-boom configuration, seemed to miss its chance with the Marines. The British designer retired too, but he did not let that stop him.
A British Aerospace P.1216 in pseudo-U.S. Navy VFA-14 “Tophatters” markings escorts Soviet Backfire bombers, alongside a British version of the twin-boom supersonic jump jet. BAE Systems
Keen to see a supersonic jump jet in Marine service, he turned to Miller once again. As the accompanying letter in this article shows, in 1992 he gave Miller the technical plans of the new jump jet, and Miller showed it around at Marine HQ at a vital time — just as 10 years of research was turning into the serious acquisition program for the Joint Strike Fighter.
via author
The emerging requirements specified a weight the same as the Hornet — the same, too, as Hooper’s P.1216. Speed, range and weapons load were close too. While avionics and stealth had advanced beyond the British jet’s capabilities, the knowledge that the man who made the Harrier thought a practical jump jet of Hornet size would work helped get the ball rolling on the third generation of jump jets. Miller’s support ensured the Corps got behind it, leading to the Lockheed Martin F-35B now taking over Cherry Point.
An F-35B with Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron (VMFAT) 501 prepares for takeoff at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry, North Carolina. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Christopher Hernandez
Making a fighting jump jet that works is extremely challenging. The Harrier had its problems — without rigid training, accident rates echoed those of its 1950s origins. The F-35B has had to overcome its own hurdles too.
In the early 2000s, Hooper was called in to help fix those. The transatlantic story of the Harrier may have ended today, but the people who found ways to cut bureaucratic corners by trusting each other, and who cracked the technical code of making the Harrier work, continue to support the next generation of F-35Bs.
Hawker Siddeley Aviation Executive Director and Chief Engineer Ralph Hooper talks U.K. Aerospace Minister Michael Heseltine through the features of a mock-up of the HS.1182 cockpit — the future Hawk trainer. Photo by PA Images via Getty Images
The ‘Harrier Mafia’ worked their own way, but always in line with the motto of the Marine Corps. “Semper Fi” was a value shared by British pilots who flew American Harriers in combat operations on exchange as much as by the men and women who made, and supported, 55 years of Harrier operations at Cherry Point.
Jump Jet: The Secret History of the Harrier by Michael Pryce is published on August 27 and is available for pre-order.
The prestigious Russian Navy base at Kronstadt, near St. Petersburg, came under Ukrainian drone attack overnight, in what may well be the first strike of its kind against the Baltic Fleet. Ukrainian drones targeted the naval base, including the Project 20380 Steregushchiy class corvette Boikiy, highlighting the fact that Russian warships are vulnerable even when hundreds of miles from Ukraine’s borders.
According to the official account of the Ukrainian 414th Separate Unmanned Strike Aviation System Brigade on X, the corvette was set ablaze while in the Veleshchynskyi dry dock in Kronstadt, where it is said to have entered scheduled maintenance in February of this year. The same account posted a video showing the attack. While we are used to kamikaze drone video feeds cutting out just before detonation, the fact that multiple drones were involved means we can see the burning vessel from several angles.
KRONSTADT (St. Petersburg), June 3. Birds of the @1usc_army, @usf_army hunted down and set ablaze the corvette Boikiy, a guided missile weapons carrier.
06:35, 03.06.26. Veleshchynskyi Dry Dock, Kronstadt (St. Petersburg) – the cradle of the russian Navy.
— 414 Magyar's Birds (@414magyarbirds) June 3, 2026
Reportedly, the drones that hit the corvette were from the 1st Separate Center of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces. Considering the long distance to the target, it is interesting to note that video from the seekers was available. This indicates that either a local operator on the ground was involved in targeting and recording the feed, or otherwise a satcom link was used to do the same. While it is conceivable that the drones used autonomous guidance, they would still have needed someone nearby or connected via satcom to record the seeker’s view. Another possibility is that shorter-range drones were used for the attack, something that Ukraine has done before for attacks deep in Russia, although this seems less likely here.
A drone’s eye view of the Russian corvette Boikiy ablaze in the Veleshchynskyi dry dock in Kronstadt. Ukrainian Ministry of Defense screencap
Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces stated that the Boikiy was involved in escorting ships associated with Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, the collection of older tankers operating under foreign flags that Moscow relies on to export oil despite Western sanctions. According to Ukrainian officials, Russia has increasingly tasked Baltic Fleet vessels with escort, monitoring, and security missions for these tankers as they transit the Baltic Sea carrying sanctioned Russian oil to markets prepared to bypass Western restrictions.
The Steregushchiy class ships are among Russia’s more modern corvettes. With a standard displacement of 1,800 tons, a length of 343 feet, and a flight deck for a helicopter, the corvettes are closer to frigates, according to some classification systems. Their primary armament consists of two quadruple launchers for Uran anti-ship missiles, a 12-cell Redut vertical launch system for various air defense missiles, and two quadruple tubes for Paket-NK anti-torpedo/anti-submarine torpedoes.
The British offshore patrol vessels HMS Mersey and HMS Severn shadow the Russian corvette Boikiy in the English Channel in 2017.
The attack on the naval base was part of a wider Ukrainian drone barrage directed against other military and energy sites in and around St. Petersburg early on Wednesday. Footage of the attacks showed drones, reportedly FP-1/2 types, low over the Gulf of Finland and in the skies above the city.
A video published online shows a Ukrainian FP-1 drone flying just a few meters above the water in the Gulf of Finland during the morning attack on Saint Petersburg. pic.twitter.com/ZTtGb71zdT
The attacks occurred just hours before international guests gathered for the city’s flagship economic forum. “The Petersburg forum is opening with a nice plume of black smoke in the background after Ukrainian strikes,” posted Serhiy Sternenko, an adviser to the Ukrainian defence minister.
Several long-range drones also crashed into oil storage facilities in St. Petersburg after Russian air defenses reportedly tried unsuccessfully to shoot them down. Loud explosions were heard, and black smoke could be seen rising from the blazing oil terminal, one of the largest on Russia’s Baltic Sea coast.
In this footage you can even see two Ukrainian drones flying in formation over the oil terminal in Saint Petersburg, Russia, with one dive-bombing into the oil terminal. pic.twitter.com/eMUdpwsDiz
The entire city of Saint Petersburg, Russia, received a front row seat for the destruction of the local oil terminal. This includes also the attendees of St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), which will start today. pic.twitter.com/HxDsF6kQ6p
Russian authorities confirmed that the attacks had taken place, with St. Petersburg’s governor, Alexander Beglov, saying that the Kirovsky and Krasnoselsky districts had been targeted.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, writing on social media, said that drones had hit “important facilities on Russian territory,” including the St. Petersburg oil terminal, the Kronstadt base, and a weapons factory in the Tambov region.
“I thank our warriors for their precision. Ukraine’s plan for long-range sanctions is being implemented exactly as needed to bring peace closer,” Zelensky said.
Our long-range sanctions carried out by the warriors of the Security Service of Ukraine, the Unmanned Systems Forces, the Special Operations Forces, the Defense Intelligence of Ukraine, and the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine have yielded good results. Important facilities… pic.twitter.com/esxYMexU8d
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 3, 2026
The significance of the strikes is manifold.
First off, the drone strikes have a highly symbolic value, and will be especially embarrassing for the Kremlin, since they come immediately in advance of the three-day annual summit being held in St. Petersburg, and billed as Russia’s answer to Davos.
The Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum of 2026 (SPIEF 2026) in Russia has started with a very fiery keynote speech by the Ukrainian surprise guests. pic.twitter.com/VVIuGcQCO7
— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) June 3, 2026
Guests arrived for today’s opening ceremony under a pall of thick smoke, and Russian President Vladimir Putin is due to make a keynote speech at the event on Friday. There was further disruption for arriving guests as St. Petersburg’s airport was temporarily closed.
Secondly, the drone strikes underscore Ukraine’s ability to strike targets deep within Russia, using a growing array of long-range one-way attack drones and cruise missiles. The targets are around 680 miles from the nearest Ukrainian border.
The approximate location of Kronstadt and St. Petersburg in relation to Ukraine. Google Earth
Finally, by targeting Kronstadt, the attacks also signify the opening up of a new front in the drone war, namely against the Baltic Fleet while it is in port.
A fire has reportedly broken out aboard the Russian warship Boykiy in Kronstadt near St. Petersburg following Ukraine’s latest drone attack.
The corvette repeatedly escorted vessels from Russia’s shadow oil fleet through the English Channel in recent years. pic.twitter.com/Zhsn3nVsVp
Located on Kotlin Island in the Gulf of Finland, about 18 miles west of St. Petersburg, Kronstadt is one of the principal bases associated with the Baltic Fleet. Today, it primarily hosts corvettes and patrol vessels, naval support ships, training units, as well as repair and maintenance facilities. Since any naval threat approaching St. Petersburg from the Gulf of Finland must pass near Kronstadt, the base effectively acts as the maritime gateway to Russia’s second-largest city.
The approximate location of Kronstadt, at the gateway to St. Petersburg, and at the far east end of the Baltic. Google Earth
There have been very few confirmed Ukrainian attacks of any kind on the Baltic Fleet compared with the extensive campaign waged against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.
In April 2024, there was a fire on a Russian warship at Baltiysk in Kaliningrad. The fire damaged communications and electronic systems aboard the Buyan class corvette Serpukhov. A Ukrainian military intelligence official subsequently claimed that this was the result of a covert joint operation conducted by his GUR agency and a pro-Kyiv Russian military group.
For the first time in the war, an attack took place in the Baltic Sea, the Russian Serpukhov missile ship was burned in Kaliningrad. The Buyan-M class Serpukhov corvette belonging to the Russian navy was burned by Ukrainian sabotage teams. The ship was severely damaged. pic.twitter.com/Isl9sVWF1R
So far, of course, Ukraine’s naval campaign has focused overwhelmingly on the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Many successful attacks have been recorded against Black Sea Fleet vessels and facilities, forcing the general evacuation of Russian naval assets from occupied Crimea and to bases in Russia proper.
In recent months, Ukraine has waged an aerial campaign to disrupt Russia’s economy. Long-range drones have hit ports and oil storage facilities, military factories, and airbases. There has also been an uptick in attacks against tankers and trucks moving between occupied southern Ukraine and Crimea, leading to fuel shortages across the peninsula.
Meanwhile, the scale of Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukraine remains undiminished. On Monday, a barrage of Russian strikes killed 23 people across Ukraine and injured many more. This led Zelenskyy to renew his plea for the U.S. government to provide Kyiv with more Patriot missiles. Today, he said that “an agreement at the highest political level on the purchase of Patriot systems […] is awaiting implementation at the financial, legal, and technical levels.”
I held a meeting on additional ways to supply air defense to Ukraine – both systems and interceptors. We have an agreement at the highest political level on the purchase of Patriot systems, and this agreement is awaiting implementation at the financial, legal, and technical…
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 3, 2026
Whether or not the overnight strike caused significant damage, its strategic message was unmistakable. By reaching Kronstadt, one of Russia’s most historic naval bases, Ukraine demonstrated that even the Baltic Fleet is no longer beyond its reach. The attack highlights Kyiv’s growing long-range capabilities and signals that Russia’s efforts to protect both its regular fleet and its shadow oil-export network may face increasing pressure, even far from the front lines.
Login
شهروندان عزیز اسرائیل، یک سال پیش ما یک… pic.twitter.com/sk7sRwHNta
