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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 unmistakable howl of the AV-8B Harrier II has been a soundtrack to U.S. Marine Corps aviation for more than four decades. From the deserts of the Middle East and Afghanistan to the decks of amphibious assault ships at sea, the aircraft’s ability to take off from short runways, operate from austere forward bases, and land vertically made it one of the most distinctive combat aircraft ever to wear American markings. Before then, its predecessor, the first-generation AV-8A Harrier, had pioneered the ‘jump jet’ in U.S. service, after entering Marine Corps service in 1971.
Now, that illustrious era has come to an end.
A Marine plane captain from Marine Attack Squadron 223, Cherry Point, North Carolina, observes pre-flight checks of an AV-8B at Gowen Field, Boise, Idaho, in April 2021. U.S. Air National Guard photo by Senior Master Sgt. Joshua C. Allmaras
In a ceremony today, the Marine Corps said its official farewell to the AV-8B when its final operational Harrier II squadron, Marine Attack Squadron 223 (VMA-223), known as the “Bulldogs,” marked the retirement of the aircraft at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina.
The event closes a remarkable chapter in Marine aviation history. The Harrier’s departure marks more than the retirement of an aircraft; it represents the conclusion of a concept that shaped Marine air power for generations and helped define the Corps’ expeditionary character.
U.S. Marine Corps AV-8Bs with Marine Attack Squadron 223, Marine Aircraft Group 14, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, fly over the coast of North Carolina on May 15, 2026. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Perri Wood
The Harrier was more than just another attack jet. It was the embodiment of the Marine Corps’ longstanding determination to bring airpower wherever Marines fought, regardless of whether a conventional airfield existed.
The Harrier’s story began long before the AV-8 entered U.S. military service. Derived from the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier jump jet, the aircraft was built around a revolutionary concept: vertical and short takeoff and landing, or V/STOL. Using swiveling engine nozzles, the aircraft could launch from improvised sites, roads, damaged airfields, and the decks of even relatively small ships. During the Cold War, when planners feared that traditional runways would be among the first targets destroyed in a major conflict, the concept had obvious appeal, but it was only the Harrier that saw real success as a V/STOL combat jet.
The Marine Corps embraced the idea early on. While the first-generation AV-8A proved the concept, the AV-8B Harrier II transformed it into a truly capable battlefield strike aircraft. The AV-8B featured a larger composite wing, improved performance, greater payload capacity, and significantly enhanced avionics. Later upgrades introduced night-attack capabilities and radar-equipped AV-8B Plus variants, keeping the aircraft relevant well into the 21st century. In recent years, all the Marine single-seaters still in service were ‘radar birds’ equipped with the AN/APG-65 radar that was ported over second-hand from F/A-18A/B Hornets and which conferred a significant air-to-air capability.
Marines work on the radar in the nose of an AV-8B on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6). U.S Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Ty C. Connors/ Released
What made the Harrier exceptional was not simply its ability to hover. Its real value lay in its flexibility. Marine commanders could position Harriers close to frontline forces, reducing response times and increasing the effectiveness of close air support missions. The aircraft became a natural fit for Marine Expeditionary Units operating from amphibious assault ships, where its unique capabilities allowed fixed-wing tactical aviation to accompany Marines far from traditional airfields or aircraft carriers.
An AV-8B assigned to Marine Attack Squadron 311 lands aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA-5) as it steams through the South China Sea in June 2008. U.S. Navy photo/Petty Officer 2nd Class Scott Webb
The Harrier quickly earned its combat credentials.
During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Marine Harriers flew thousands of sorties in support of coalition ground forces. The aircraft demonstrated its ability to sustain a high operational tempo while flying in demanding conditions. In the decades that followed, Harriers participated in virtually every major Marine Corps combat operation, including missions over the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and against ISIS.
Two Marine Corps AV-8Bs are given final preflight checks as their pilots prepare for takeoff from the amphibious assault ship USS Nassau (LHA-4) during Operation Desert Shield. U.S. Department of Defense
The post-9/11 period of relentless operations arguably became the Harrier’s defining period. The AV-8B was a natural fit for counterinsurgency warfare. Equipped with advanced targeting pods and precision-guided munitions, Marine Harriers became a common sight over Iraq and Afghanistan, where their ability to remain close to ground forces made them particularly valuable.
Yet, even as the Harrier continued proving its worth in combat, its future was becoming increasingly uncertain.
Lt. Col. Thomas D. Gore, former commanding officer of Marine Attack Squadron 223, pilots an AV-8B over the Kajaki Dam in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Between November 2011 and May 2012, VMA-223 provided close air support for Marines and their Afghan and coalition partners conducting counterinsurgency operations in southwestern Afghanistan. U.S. Department of Defense
The aircraft’s age, maintenance demands, and limited growth potential eventually caught up with it. The jet was also notably demanding on its pilots, requiring a unique training syllabus to operate safely and efficiently.
Looking toward the demands of future potential conflicts against sophisticated adversaries, Marine aviation planners concluded that its next jump jet would require stealth, advanced sensors, networked warfare capabilities, and greater overall survivability than a fourth-generation attack aircraft could provide.
Like the Harrier, the F-35B possesses short takeoff and vertical landing capability. Unlike the Harrier, however, it combines that flexibility with stealth technology, sensor fusion, powerful electronic warfare systems, and the ability to operate as an intelligence-gathering node across the battlespace. For Marine aviation leaders, the F-35B offered a path to preserve the expeditionary advantages pioneered by the Harrier while dramatically expanding combat capability. You can read more about the changes the F-35B is bringing to Marine Corps tactical aviation here and here, as well as on-scene reporting of its operations from an improvised forward arming and refueling point, here.
An F-35B attached to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211 is directed to take off from the amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD-2), during flight deck operations on April 22, 2026. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Ivan A. GarciaAn F-35B about to be rearmed with inert AIM-120 missiles and Stormbreaker guided munitions on a stretch of road next to the Pacific coastline in California. James Deboer
Notably, however, the service is also procuring F-35C versions that can operate from big-deck aircraft carriers, as well as land bases.
One by one, Marine Harrier squadrons began converting to the F-35B. Aircraft were retired, maintainers retrained, and pilots transitioned to the new platform. The process accelerated as the Marine Corps pursued broader modernization efforts focused on preparing for future conflicts, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.
The transition fully away from the Harrier was outlined in the 2022 Marine Aviation Plan. U.S. Marine Corps
The signs of the Harrier’s approaching retirement became increasingly visible. In 2024, the final two Marine pilots completed AV-8B qualification training, becoming the last aviators ever designated as Harrier pilots by the Corps. Their graduation marked the beginning of the end for the ‘Flying Leatherneck’ Harrier community.
U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Eric Shiebe, an AV-8B Harrier pilot and executive officer, and Sgt. Tatiana Rios, a fixed-wing aircraft airframe mechanic, both with Marine Attack Squadron 223, participate in an incentive flight at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina, May 19, 2026. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Bryan Giraldo
The final operational chapter belonged to VMA-223, which carried the Harrier banner to the very end. Their deployment aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) represented the last operational deployment of Marine Corps Harriers.
As part of the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit and its Harriers were part of Operation Southern Spear, the U.S. strikes on boats suspected of carrying illicit narcotics in the Caribbean. The Iwo Jima ARG was also in the region for the U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, earlier this year.
When the squadron completed its mission and the final aircraft returned home, the countdown to retirement entered its final phase.
For the Marines who flew and maintained the aircraft, the retirement is bittersweet.
The Harrier demanded respect. Its unique flight characteristics and vertical landing operations required exceptional skill from pilots. Maintainers often worked tirelessly to keep aging aircraft mission-ready. Yet those challenges helped create a close-knit community built around a platform unlike any other in American service.
An AV-8B and an F-35B during the change of command and redesignation ceremony for Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 214 at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, in March 2022. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Samuel Ruiz
In proving that fixed-wing tactical aviation can operate from challenging locales, the Marine Harrier continued a concept of operations that the service had pioneered in the Pacific in World War II. It gave Marine commanders unprecedented flexibility and reinforced the Corps’ expeditionary identity. Long before concepts such as distributed operations and expeditionary advanced bases became buzzwords, the Harrier proved that combat aircraft could operate from unconventional locations and support dispersed forces.
As the Harrier’s designated successor, it is fitting that the F-35B preserves the ability to operate from amphibious ships and austere locations while adding capabilities unimaginable when the AV-8B first entered service.
Still, there will never be another aircraft quite like the AV-8B, especially as far as charisma is concerned, and the type was a firm airshow favourite.
As the final Marine Corps Harriers make their last flights, they leave behind an enduring influence on Marine aviation doctrine and expeditionary warfare. While the United Kingdom gave up its Harrier IIs in a rushed retirement that you can read more about here, the AV-8B remains in frontline service in smaller numbers with Italy and Spain. It remains to be seen if a customer for former Marine Corps Harriers will come forward, but these aircraft remain capable and offer unique capabilities, something we have addressed in the past.
The Marine Corps jump jet era is over. But the impact of the Harrier, and the men and women who flew and maintained it, will continue to shape Marine aviation for years to come.
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has confirmed that it has no plans for a direct replacement for the U-28A Draco, which is primarily used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). The command had previously said it was exploring requirements that might lead to a successor to the U-28A, as well as its MC-12 surveillance planes. America’s special operations community now increasingly looks to be getting entirely out of the business of flying dedicated crewed ISR aircraft, which were a staple during the Global War on Terror era.
At least publicly, all of the remaining U-28s in service today are assigned to units under Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). The U-28 is a militarized version of the Pilatus PC-12 single-engine turboprop that carries a variety of sensors, including electro-optical and infrared cameras and a signals intelligence (SIGINT) suite. It can also be used, if required, as a light utility aircraft. AFSOC currently has around 30 U-28s in its inventory.
A member of the 27th Special Operations Wing performs preflight checks on a U-28 during Exercise Southern Star 25 in Chile. USAF
“USSOCOM will retire 8 U-28A intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft in FY [Fiscal Year] 2027 as part of its phased plan to divest all manned ISR platforms by 2029,” according to an annual force structure report the Pentagon released last month. “These retirements align with evolving mission requirements and reflect the scheduled drawdown of aircraft that have reached or exceeded their expected service life.”
Similar language has been included in past iterations of this report since 2024, but it appears to have gone largely unnoticed. Aviation Week was first to report on the contents of the newest version of the document last week. TWZ subsequently reached out to SOCOM for further clarification and more information about this decision.
“SOCOM previously announced a decision to divest the U-28 platform in 2020,” a spokesperson for the command told us today. “There are no plans to replace this ISR platform.”
TWZ has reached back out to confirm whether or not SOCOM currently expects crewed aircraft to be part of the special operations aerial ISR ecosystem at all after the U-28 leaves service at the end of the decade.
It is true that SOCOM’s plans to retire the U-28s, along with its MC-12 fleet, are well established at this point. The command completed divestment of the last of its MC-12s in 2025. This designation has been used to refer to a variety of ISR-configured variants of the Beechcraft King Air twin-engine turboprop. Special operations versions have also sometimes been referred to by the program name Javaman.
A special operations MC-12, in front, seen together with a U-28, behind. Air National Guard Andrew LaMoreaux
“The command is rapidly modernizing, to include ISR infrastructure,” Col. Justin Bronder, head of SOCOM’s Program Executive Office for Fixed Wing (PEO-FW), told TWZ and other outlets when asked about what could follow the U-28 and the MC-12 at a roundtable at the annual SOF Week conference in May 2024. “We’re working very closely with our counterparts in G2 [SOCOM’s top intelligence office], AFSOC, JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command], etc, to help both identify what the real requirements are” and “how to get after new capabilities” as “we divest and move on from some platforms that serve admirably where we were for the counter-VEO [violent extremist organization]/ Crisis Response fight in the Middle East for 20 years.”
“SOCOM has not taken steps to plan for, or add, critical ISR capabilities provided by soon-to-be divested aircraft,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, said in a report published in September 2024. “Also, SOCOM has not addressed risks associated with the loss of these capabilities if the new aircraft does not provide them.”
A U-28A at a mock Forward Area Refueling Point (FARP) during an exercise. USAF
However, GAO’s report did not explicitly say that SOCOM had no intention of filling those gaps, even in part, with a new crewed platform.
“SOCOM told us that their decisions about Armed Overwatch occurred separate from their decisions to divest of existing aircraft,” a GAO spokesperson told TWZ directly at that time when asked for more information. “We are separately conducting a classified assessment of SOCOM’s process for how it decided to divest of ISR aircraft.”
There were some signs at this year’s SOF Week conference that the forthcoming retirement of the U-28 could be more of a final coda for dedicated crewed ISR aircraft within the U.S. special operations community. A representative of PEO-FW told TWZ and others at the gathering that all of the secretive SOCOM Tactical Airborne Multi-Sensor Platform (STAMP) aircraft would be transferred somewhere within the Air Force. Whether or not it will make its way under AFSOC’s umbrella is not clear, though it seems likely. How long those aircraft will remain in service at all is also unclear. The STAMP fleet, which we were first to report on years ago, has included types based on the De Havilland Canada DHC-8, or Dash 8, and the Beechcraft King Air over the years.
A STAMP fleet Dash-8. US Army
“Just a reminder that OA-1K is not a replacement for U-28,” Col. Bronder also said again at this year’s SOF Week conference. “Certainly, it can do some ISR functions, but again, [it] meets a close air support strike requirement.”
How SOCOM expects to fully make up for ISR capacity gaps left by the retirement of its existing crewed ISR aircraft remains to be seen. The U.S. special operations community does already operate a variety of drones capable of performing surveillance and reconnaissance missions, including Air Force MQ-9 Reapers and U.S. Army MQ-1C Gray Eagles. Further uncrewed capabilities will certainly be part of the equation, especially to help mitigate the threats posed by ever-more capable enemy air defense systems in contested environments.
AFSOC has already been heavily investing in what it calls the Adaptive Airborne Enterprise (A2E). This is an overarching concept of operations centered on increasing deployability by reducing personnel and logistics footprints, as well as the collaborative employment of capabilities. The vision for A2E includes heavy use of air-launched drones, loitering munitions, and other systems that are increasingly lumped together under the umbrella of so-called “launched effects.” It also extends to collaboration with friendly crewed and uncrewed assets in the ground and maritime domains.
A graphic depicting an “operational vision” (OV) for the Adaptive Airborne Enterprise (A2E) involving collaboration between platforms and forces across permissive, contested, and denied areas. USAF
As an aside, it is also worth noting that the U.S. Army finished divesting dozens of turboprop crewed ISR aircraft in December 2025 as part of a broader modernization push. That service is now in the process of acquiring a far smaller number of ME-11B High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES) surveillance and reconnaissance planes based on the Bombardier Global 6500 business jet, which you can read more about here.
For the U.S. special operations community, all of this comes amid something of a watershed moment for crewed fixed aircraft operations, in general. In recent years, there has been reorientation across America’s armed forces toward preparing for future major conflicts, especially one against China in the Pacific, after decades of focus on counter-terrorism missions. This, in turn, has prompted questions about the continued relevance of many platforms, including the new OA-1K, which is very much geared toward low-intensity conflicts.
Outlays in SOCOM’s budget request for the 2027 Fiscal Year only show plans to acquire 53 OA-1Ks. This is down from the plans to procure 62 Skyraider II aircraft that had been previously presented in the command’s proposed budget for the 2026 Fiscal Year.
Earlier this year, SOCOM told Air & Space Forces Magazine that this was a reflection of “the strategic reallocation of resources to support [SOCOM] evolving priorities.” However, the command also insisted that it still expects to eventually acquire 75 OA-1Ks as originally planned.
SOCOM has also stressed that American special operations forces will still be called upon to provide support to counter-terrorism missions and in other low-intensity conflicts for the foreseeable future despite the pivot toward preparedness for high-end fights. The command has said this continues to justify the acquisition of the OA-1K. How the Skyraider II, as well as other fixed-wing crewed special operations aircraft like the AC-130J gunship, might provide support on the edges of a future major conflict is also something SOCOM and AFSOC are actively exploring.
Whatever the future of crewed fixed-wing special operations aviation looks like, a direct replacement for the U-28 is off the table, and crewed ISR aircraft may be increasingly absent from that equation entirely.
A French-made Mirage 2000-5F, streaking low over Ukraine in a newly emerged video, provides a relatively rare glimpse of the fighter in Ukrainian Air Force service. Compared with the more numerous F-16 fleet, Ukrainian Mirage operations are much less widely seen. Until now, accounts and imagery have shown the delta-wing fighters being used for air-to-air missions, primarily in the fight against Russian long-range attack drones and cruise missiles. The latest footage may suggest that they now have started to embark on air-to-ground sorties, too.
Some of the first footage of a French-supplied Mirage 2000-5F in Ukrainian service conducting a strike mission on the eastern frontline.
Seen here screaming just a few dozen feet over the ground before tossing its load of bombs (likely French AASMs) at a Russian target. pic.twitter.com/EEHgNxIxUg
The footage, taken from a ground position possibly close to the front lines, shows a Mirage flying at a very low-level along a tree line, before pulling up into a steep climb. Potentially, the jet was engaged in an air defense patrol before pulling up to transit outside of the ground-based air defense threat ‘umbrella,’ but this exact maneuver is one we have frequently seen for air-to-ground weapons releases from other platforms.
While the moment of weapons release is not visible, the flight profile is consistent with toss bombing attacks. In particular, the French-made AASM-250 Hammer rocket-boosted munition, associated with the Mirage, has often been seen delivered by other platforms using this technique, which is exactly how the weapon was designed to be used, among other modes of delivery.
Footage reportedly showing Ukrainian MiG-29 fighter jet firing French-supplied AASM-250 Hammer guided bombs at a target in Belgorod Oblast of Russia.
Notice the very low altitude from which the munitions are being launched.
— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) June 27, 2024
A video of the moment of release of two French-supplied AASM-250 Hammer guided bombs from a Ukrainian MiG-29 fighter jet.
The pilot of this particular airframe, 27-year-old Captain Oleksandr Myhulia, perished while performing a combat mission on August 12, 2024.… pic.twitter.com/yNEbbaFUPt
— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) August 14, 2024
After all, toss bombing is a key way to help mitigate the risks to combat jets over the battlefield, specifically ground-based air defenses. Russia’s surface-to-air missile umbrella is well layered and penetrates far beyond the front lines.
“Obviously, the lower you are, and the further away from the surface-to-air missiles that can detect you because of the curvature of the Earth” affect how far the bomb can travel, U.S. Air Force Gen. James Hecker, head of U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE), as well as NATO’s Allied Air Command and U.S. Air Forces Africa (AFAFRICA), explained back in 2023. Hecker was speaking about Ukraine’s use of unpowered JDAM-ER glide bombs, but the same applies to Hammer. “There are tactics where you can go in low and do some things… and get back,” Hecker added.
Head-on view of a Ukrainian Mirage 2000 at a forward operating location. Ukrainian Air Force screencap
The toss/lofted technique does not reduce the accuracy of the Hammer or the U.S.-supplied JDAM-ER, which both come as standard with GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS) guidance packages that allow them to zero in on set coordinates even when employed indirectly.
Additionally, the Hammer can offer multi-mode guidance options with either imaging infrared or semi-active laser homing added in, which enables the engagement of moving targets and helps improve overall accuracy. This also offers alternative guidance options in GPS-degraded environments against some targets. So far, however, only the GPS/INS version has been positively identified in Ukrainian service.
A GPS/INS-guided AASM-250 Hammer rocket-assisted precision-guided bomb under the wing of a Ukrainian MiG-29 Fulcrum. via X
Hammers come in a variety of sizes, but Ukraine is understood to have received 250-kilogram (551-pound) class types, also sometimes referred to as AASM-250s.
Hammer’s solid-fuel rocket booster also gives the bomb unique benefits. The manufacturer, Safran, says the AASM-250 version can still hit targets at least up to nine miles away (15 kilometers) when released from low altitude. This can increase to around 43 miles (70 kilometers) when launched from higher altitude.
In its original form, the Mirage 2000-5F was not cleared to use the Hammer, reflecting the fighter’s primary air defense mission in French service. However, in March of last year, France confirmed that the Mirages being transferred to Ukraine would have Hammer compatibility. In the past, the Mirage has been tested in France with a six-Hammer load-out.
Today, France confirmed that Ukrainian Air Force Mirage 2000-5Fs will be outfitted with AASM extended-range guided bombs, giving Ukraine another capable strike platform.
Earlier this year, the Ukrainian Air Force published a video including brief interviews with a Mirage pilot, as well as two members of the ground crew. The unnamed Mirage 2000 fighter pilot came to the delta-wing jet after serving on the Soviet-era Su-27 Flanker.
“Now I pilot the Mirage 2000, and my impressions of this aircraft are extremely positive,” he explained. “I trained in the French Republic together with French fighter pilots for about six months. I learned to fly and employ weapons on the twin-seat Mirage 2000B. Later, we transitioned to the single-seat version, the very aircraft I am flying now.”
The Ukrainian Mirage 2000 pilot in his jet. Ukrainian Air Force screencap
Two Ukrainian Air Force fighter jet technicians, David and Dmytro, shared their experiences of day-to-day combat operations with the Mirage.
“Right now, we’re at a forward operating airfield, our third one this week,” David pointed out, indicating the missile-armed Mirage behind him. “The enemy constantly tries to destroy our aircraft and equipment. Our forward team keeps relocating from site to site.”
Ukraine’s F-16s also routinely operate from dispersed locations around the country, supported, among others, by a fleet of vehicles dedicated to helping maintain them, as you can read about here. Moreover, these kinds of operations, and the challenges of generating air combat power under the constant threat of Russian attack, are something that is being keenly felt in the U.S. military. After all, the Pentagon is planning to operate crewed and uncrewed aircraft from distributed forward locations in future high-end fights, such as one against China in the Pacific. These concepts of operations would also be relevant in the event of a major conflict elsewhere in Europe.
Dmytro added: “During our last combat mission, we came under fire [from Shahed-series long-range one-way attack drones] and missiles, but fortunately, we managed to evacuate the aircraft and save our lives.”
The pilot and technicians praised the Magic 2 infrared-guided air-to-air missile that appears to be the primary air-to-air armament of the Ukrainian Mirage.
Ukrainian Mirage 2000 armed with a Magic 2 missile. Ukrainian Air Force screencap
“It has performed exceptionally well,” one technician said, before claiming that it has a kill probability of “practically 100 percent.”
The pilot further added that the kill probability against enemy drones and cruise missiles stands at 98 percent. No mention was made of the Mirage’s twin onboard 30mm cannons, although these are shown in detail in the video.
A 30mm DEFA 553 cannon on a Ukrainian Mirage 2000. Ukrainian Air Force screencap
As regards air-to-air kills, the particular Mirage seen in the video from earlier this year is marked with six silhouettes denoting Russian Kh-101 air-launched cruise missiles.
However, as the ground crew points out, another six still needed to be added to the same jet.
Six Kh-101 kill markings on a Ukrainian Mirage 2000. Ukrainian Air Force screencap
The prosaic reason behind this: “We don’t always have stencils with us at forward airfields… Sometimes we simply don’t have the time to apply all the markings.”
The reason the Mirage is less frequently seen in Ukrainian hands is chiefly due to numbers.
It’s unclear exactly how many Mirages have now been pledged to Ukraine by France. At first, France offered six, but last October, French President Emmanuel Macron said he would offer more. At least one has so far been lost in Ukrainian service.
On the subject of improving the combat potential of the Ukrainian Air Force, the pilot made a call for continued development, including “more modern aircraft [and] more modern weapons to counter the horde threatening us.” The appearance of the Hammer would provide evidence that this aspiration is being, to some extent, met.
Pre-flight checks on a Ukrainian Mirage 2000 at a forward operating location. The RDY marking behind the radome indicates the RDY radar, a mechanically scanned pulse-Doppler type with look-down/shoot-down capability, found on the Mirage 2000-5F version. Ukrainian Air Force screencap
As regards the particular deficiencies of the Mirage, the pilot said: “In my opinion, and in the opinion of my fellow pilots, this aircraft lacks longer-range air-to-air weapons.” He called for a weapon that represents “something in the middle ground between efficiency and cost so that we can engage the massive number of enemy aerial threats we face.”
It’s unclear if the pilot in question was including the more modern and capable MICA air-to-air missile within this assessment.
The first imagery of Ukrainian Mirages showed the jets exclusively armed with a pair of Magic 2 missiles, broadly analogous to the AIM-9L Sidewinder, rather than the MICA that the aircraft can also carry. At the start of this year, however, the MICA also began to appear on the fighters.
Unusual for a modern Western beyond-visual-range AAM, the MICA can be fitted with either an active radar seeker or an infrared seeker head. When using the latter option, the seeker can act as a ‘poor man’s’ infrared search and track system and provide target detection indication in the pilot’s head-up display (HUD).
The MICA uses a thrust-vectoring motor for improved agility and has a reported maximum range of around 37 miles, far superior to the roughly nine-mile range of the Magic 2.
Despite the arrival of Western-supplied equipment, Ukraine continues to rely heavily on its Soviet-era fighters. The entirety of its combat fleet — Mirages and F-16s included — is in the latter stages of its service life and needs to be replaced before too long. With that in mind, Kyiv is planning to bolster its air force with more modern equipment.
“If I had the opportunity to transition to another aircraft superior to the Mirage, I would probably choose the Rafale,” the pilot continued. “It’s from the same country, and retraining for the Rafale would be much faster than transitioning to aircraft from other nations. The Rafale can also carry the Meteor, a missile with very long reach.”
Thanks to its ramjet motor, the Meteor’s all-important ‘no-escape zone’ is much larger than for comparable weapons. This means the enemy’s chance of evading the missile at the endgame of the engagement, using high-energy maneuvering, is considerably reduced. Another advantage of being able to throttle the motor is that the Meteor’s autopilot can calculate the most efficient route to the target for very long-range shots. Ukraine now looks set to receive the Meteor to arm its first Gripen C/D fighters, now scheduled to arrive next year.
Last November, Ukraine signed a letter of intent to buy up to 100 Rafale F4 multirole fighters from France over the next 10 years. The agreement came less than a month after Sweden and Ukraine unveiled a plan to export as many as 150 Gripen E fighters to Kyiv — last week, it was confirmed that Kyiv plans to buy an initial batch of 20 of the new-generation Gripens.
While the Rafale and Gripen E/F would be the most advanced combat aircraft in Ukraine’s inventory, there remain glaring questions about whether the acquisition of one of these aircraft types, let alone two, is actually feasible, especially in such numbers, as we discussed at the time.
Today marks a significant moment, truly historic for both our nations – France and Ukraine. Together with Emmanuel Macron, we signed a Declaration of Intent on Cooperation in the Acquisition of Defense Equipment for Ukraine. This document enables Ukraine to procure military… pic.twitter.com/0qzG41IsnP
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) November 17, 2025
At the same time, the Mirage pilot would be happy to get his hands on any kind of modern Western-made equipment.
“If I were offered something like the F-35, Rafale, or Gripen, I would gladly, without hesitation, transition to that platform.”
The possibility of Ukraine using Mirage 2000-5F fighters in an air-to-ground strike role would mark an important expansion of their combat role. If the aircraft are now contributing to both defensive and offensive operations, they will be further enhancing Ukraine’s steadily growing Western-origin air capabilities.
“The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Armament Directorate, Attack Division (AFLCMC/EBD) is conducting market research for an industry analysis of capabilities,” according to a contracting notice posted online yesterday. “AFLCMC/EBD is seeking to award a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support all aspects of research & development, production, testing, and delivery of the Next Generation Penetrator (NGP), GBU-76/B weapon system.”
A partially assembled GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the weapon the GBU-76/B Next Generation Penetrator is set to eventually supplant. USAF
“All interested vendors shall submit a response demonstrating their capability to support the design, production, testing, and bed down of components and specific activities related to the development, performance and sustainment of the GBU-76/B weapon system,” the notice adds. It also stresses that information is only being gathered currently for “planning purposes.”
The notice lists a wide range of “tasks that may be pertinent to this effort.” This includes fuze development and production, the development and testing of the explosive filler, the design and integration of an “Alternate Navigation System” to help guide the bomb to its target, and integration of all components into complete bombs. The full list is reproduced below.
USAF
As TWZ regularly notes, fuzing is a critical element of the design of deep-penetrating munitions. These weapons are designed to be employed against targets that are underground or otherwise present inherent challenges when it comes to establishing their exact location and layout. As such, advanced fuzes that ‘count’ floors to determine depth and/or sense the ‘voids’ of underground mission spaces help maximize the damage from a weapon like MOP or NGP. These fuzes also just need to be highly reliable in order to function after impacting very hard surfaces at high speeds and then drilling even further down into them.
The Air Force has also said in past NGP contracting notices that it “will consider novel, demonstrated, or fielded Guidance, Navigation & Control (GNC) technologies with viability for integration into a warhead guidance system design that can achieve repeatable, high accuracy performance in GPS aided, degraded, and/or denied environments.” The MOP uses a GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS) guidance package contained within its tail unit.
Being able to reliably hit a very specific impact point is also essential for bunker buster bombs, especially ones designed for very deep penetration. During Operation Midnight Hammer, Air Force B-2 bombers dropped six MOPs in rapid succession on each of two ventilation shafts – 12 bombs in total – at Iran’s Fordow nuclear site in order to drill down into the facility below.
A graphic offering details about the employment of MOPs on Iran’s nuclear site at Fordow during Operation Midnight Hammer. US Military
Many details about the planned design of the NGP remain unknown, including its expected total weight. The Air Force has previously said that the bomb’s “warhead” is set to tip the scales at around 22,000 pounds, but the complete weapon could be heavier. The contracting notice from yesterday says prospective vendors need to show general understanding of “tasks associated with the lifecycle of Large Penetrator Warhead Systems weighing approximately 20,000 to 30,000 lbs.” The MOP is a 30,000-pound-class bomb that includes a BLU-127/B warhead with a nominal weight of approximately 27,125 pounds.
The GBU-76/B could incorporate other advanced or novel features. The Air Force has raised the possibility of a powered design offering extended reach in past discussions about MOP replacements. An add-on rocket booster could also help further improve the weapon’s penetration characteristics.
As an aside, the B-2 is the only aircraft currently certified to employ MOPs operationally, and each of the bombers can carry just two of the bombs at a time. Making the GBU-76/B lighter and/or smaller than MOP could be beneficial for future integration on the B-21 Raider. The Raider is smaller than the B-2, and is only expected to be able to carry a single MOP at a time. The smaller payload capacity of each B-21, in general, is also set to be offset by a far larger fleet size of at least 100 bombers, and likely more. Only 21 B-2s were ever built, and 19 of them remain in service today.
A B-2 bomber sits at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri ahead of Operation Midnight Hammer. USAF
In line with evolving plans to actually field the new bunker busters, the NGP contracting notice the Air Force put out yesterday also asks prospective vendors to outline their ability to provide other related support. This includes supplying mission planning and weaponeering software, training assets and procedures to go along with them, and just the means of getting the bombs from point A to point B and then into waiting aircraft. The Air Force already has specialized equipment to train ground personnel on the movement and loading of MOPs on B-2 bombers, including a full-size mock bomb bay.
An inert MOP seen loaded inside the full-scale B-2 bomb bay training asset. USAFAnother inert MOP seen on a specialized trolley used to move the 30,000-pound-class bomb around and load it onto the B-2. Missouri Air National Guard
When the Air Force expects to start fielding its first operational GBU-76/Bs is unclear. The Air Force’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request says that “Next Generation Penetrator Prototype Demonstration including Modeling and Simulation, Design, Product Development, and Test” is set to wrap up at the end of Fiscal Year 2028. It also says, unsurprisingly, that the goal of current prototyping efforts is to demonstrate an “Air to Ground penetrator with equivalent or better MOP performance.”
In September 2025, Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) announced it had received a contract for work on NGP to include the production and delivery of full-scale prototypes. ARA also said at that time that “Boeing will drive tail kit development and support all-up-round integration.” Boeing is the prime contractor behind the MOP.
The start of fielding of the GBU-76/B is also unlikely to lead to the immediate retirement of GBU-57/B, and the Air Force is continuing to work on improving that bomb’s capabilities in the interim. The service’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget proposal outlines plans for additional upgrades to the MOP’s tail kit and fuze. After Operation Midnight Hammer, the Pentagon also moved to help the Air Force replenish and potentially expand its stockpile of GBU-57/Bs. How many MOPs have been procured to date is unknown. Boeing has reportedly expanded its capacity to make the bombs in the past, but total production is still understood to be relatively limited.
The budget documents also note that MOP funding has been supporting the construction of a new test target, referred to as MS-34, further details about which are not provided. While significant weaponeering work can be done today in the virtual space, testing against real-world targets continues to be an important aspect of the development of munitions, in general. They are especially important for validating the capabilities of highly specialized weapons like the MOP and NGP. You can read more about this in the context of the development of MOP here.
The ability to defeat very deeply buried and otherwise hardened targets continues to be a top priority for the U.S. military, broadly speaking. Though successfully executed, Operation Midnight Hammer underscored challenges just in holding relevant targets in Iran at risk. There have been reports in the past that some Iranian nuclear facilities might be beyond the reach even of MOP.
This is also driving U.S. development of a new deep-penetrating nuclear bunker buster bomb, currently referred to as the Nuclear Deterrent System-Air-delivered (NDS-A). The Air Force’s stockpile of MOPs currently offers the only real conventional alternative to those weapons in many cases. A nuclear weapon would still be required to realistically destroy certain especially deeply buried facilities.
Fielding the NGP bunker buster, now designated GBU-76/B, in the coming years will give commanders a new conventional option for prosecuting strikes on hardened facilities very deep underground.
The U.S. military has confirmed the loss of an “MQ-1” drone to Iranian fire this weekend. This has led many to question whether American forces are flying the venerable Predator again, some eight years after the type’s official retirement. 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. Regardless, rebooting U.S. Predator operations might still be an attractive course of action, especially to help plug gaps left by dozens of MQ-9 Reaper losses to Iran and the Houthis in Yemen, but actually doing it may be harder than it seems.
American forces “conducted self-defense strikes on Iranian radar and command and control sites for drones in Goruk, Iran, and Qeshm Island this weekend,” according to a brief press release that U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) issued late yesterday. “The measured and deliberate strikes occurred on Saturday and Sunday in response to aggressive Iranian actions that included the shootdown of a U.S. MQ-1 drone that was operating over international waters. U.S. fighter aircraft swiftly responded by eliminating Iranian air defenses, a ground control station, and two one-way attack drones that posed clear threats to ships transiting regional waters.”
Thousands of U.S. service members at sea, in the skies, and from land are supporting the ongoing U.S. blockade against Iran. As of June 1, CENTCOM forces have redirected 121 commercial vessels and disabled 5 to ensure compliance. pic.twitter.com/BDtAjp0qOF
“No American service members were harmed,” yesterday’s release added. “CENTCOM will continue to protect U.S. assets and interests in response to unwarranted Iranian aggression during the ongoing ceasefire.”
What did Iran actually shoot down?
In response to a direct query from TWZ, CENTCOM declined to say whether the “MQ-1” mentioned in the release was a Predator or Gray Eagle. We also reached out to the U.S. Air Force to ask if it had lost a Predator over the weekend, and were directed to contact CENTCOM. We contacted the Army to ask if one of its Gray Eagles was shot down, as well, and were redirected to the Pentagon.
Army aviation units with MQ-1Cs are known to be deployed in the Middle East. In April, the Air Force notably released several pictures of Gray Eagles somewhere in the region, which misidentified them as Predators.
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
The AP initially reported that the drone Iran shot down was a Predator, but this appears to have been based on CENTCOM’s use of the MQ-1 designation in the press release and not confirmed. The outlet’s story originally said “the U.S. Air Force no longer flies the MQ-1 Predator, the U.S. Army still does,” which was inaccurate, and that passage no longer appears in the piece. While the Gray Eagle is derived from the Predator and has the related MQ-1C designation, it is a distinctly different design more tailored to the Army’s needs. This includes the ability to operate with a smaller logistical footprint and lower crew training requirements.
The U.S. military says it is targeting Iranian radar and drone control sites after Tehran shot down an American MQ-1 Predator drone over the weekend. Meanwhile, Kuwait says its air defenses opened fire to intercept incoming drone and missile fire. https://t.co/b6JyHHBCLa
A stock picture of a U.S. Army MQ-1C Gray Eagle. US Army
For its part, Iran has also described what it shot down simply as an “MQ-1,” and has released a video below that it says shows the engagement, as seen through an infrared camera. However, the footage is extremely low resolution, and it is impossible to tell what type of drone it might show. Iranian authorities (as well as the Houthis) routinely release similar, but generally higher-quality clips after claimed shootdowns.
Iran’s IRGC Aerospace Force Downs US MQ-1 Drone Over Territorial Waters
Iran’s IRGC Aerospace Force released the video of detection and elimination of a US MQ-1 drone on early Sunday, after it entered Iranian territorial waters with hostile intent. https://t.co/h8cEPiBKde
— Tasnim News Agency (@Tasnimnews_EN) June 1, 2026
Officially, the Air Force stopped operating the MQ-1 Predator in 2018. As of September 2024, there were 15 MQ-1Bs in storage at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, according to data the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) previously released. TWZ has also reached out to the Air Force for an updated inventory of Predators in storage, and to ask whether or not any retired examples have been returned to service.
A stock picture of an MQ-1 Predator in U.S. Air Force service. USAF
In addition, TWZ has asked General Atomics, the company behind the Predator and the Gray Eagle, as well as the MQ-9 Reaper, for comment.
Factoring in MQ-9 Reaper losses
Despite not yet having an official confirmation one way or the other, it still seems more likely that what Iran shot down was a Gray Eagle, not a Predator. Still, there remains the potential for the U.S. to have resumed Predator operations, possibly on a contractor-owned and/or operated basis, or that it may be considering doing so in the near future. There is one factor in particular that could be a key driver here now, and that is MQ-9 losses.
A stock picture of a U.S. Air Force MQ-9 Reaper. USAF
At a recent hearing, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach had called the Reaper “perhaps the most valuable player” in the latest conflict with Iran. In early March, we commented on how it appeared MQ-9 strikes were by far the most numerous attacks featured in CENTCOM’s ‘highlight’ reels during the conflict.
MQ-9 Reapers appear do be doing a LOT of the heavy lifting against mobile ground targets and vessels in Epic Fury.
However, in May, Air & Space Forces Magazine reported that “nearly 30 MQ-9 Reapers have been lost in the course of those operations,” citing “people familiar with the matter.” On April 9, CBS News said that tally had already risen to “up to 24” Reapers since the fighting began in February, citing unnamed U.S. officials.
This is all on top of the loss of dozens more MQ-9s to Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen in recent years. The Houthis separately claimed to have shot down another U.S. Reaper just this past weekend.
pic.twitter.com/9R4F0eBdHQ Fresh video evidence is circulating of a US MQ-9 Reaper drone being intercepted and brought down over Yemen’s Marib Governorate. Houthi sources claim responsibility. This is developing rapidly today.
Air Force Lt. Gen. David Tabor, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, told members of Congress at a hearing on May 13 that the service’s MQ-9 fleet had dwindled to 135 aircraft. This is down from the 165 Reapers the service said were in inventory as of the start of Fiscal Year 2026, according to official budget documents. The size of the fleet had already shrunk from 231 at the start of Fiscal Year 2025.
“We are concerned about how they’ve attrited,” Tabor said at that time, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. “We’re looking at options to buy back as many of the MQ-9As as we possibly can right now, so there’s a bit of a short-term effort to buy back things immediately, in this fiscal year.”
“We are not divesting the MQ-9,” Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink also said separately on May 20, per the same report from Air & Space Forces Magazine. “We have had some losses in that aircraft, and we’re working to fill those losses, but in parallel, we are looking at what is the follow-on to the MQ-9 aircraft.”
It is also worth noting here that the U.S. Marine Corps has acquired its own much smaller fleet of Reapers in recent years, and plans to operate the type for the foreseeable future. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also operates Reapers, and has flown Predators, at least in the past.
An MQ-9 Reaper in U.S. Marine Corps service. USMC
Last month, Air & Space Forces Magazine reported that General Atomics had “less than 10 new or company-owned MQ-9As to offer to the Air Force,” but that “there are a number of decommissioned Reapers that could be brought back online and refurbished by the company,” citing company spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley.
The Reaper, also more formally known as the MQ-9A, is otherwise out of production. 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 family would have to be of the new version.
TWZ has also reached out to the Air Force with questions about Reapers in storage and any efforts to return them to service.
Could Reaper losses prompt a Predator comeback?
The scale of MQ-9 losses, as well as the continued heavy use of those drones, brings us back to the possibility of returning Predators to service, even if this has not happened as of yet. Before their official retirement in 2018, questions had been increasingly raised about the risks of flying Predators in anything but permissive airspace.
An MQ-9 seen carrying a self-protection pod under its central fuselage during a test. General Atomics
More recently, the Air Force has shown a willingness to accept significant MQ-9 losses. Furthermore, many of the missions that Reapers are tasked with today could still be performed, at least to a degree, by Predators with an equivalent level of risk.
The piston-engined Predator is a smaller, shorter-ranged, lighter payload, and lower-performance design overall compared to the turboprop Reaper. At the same time, this would also be mitigated by the geography of the current operating environment in the Middle East vis-a-vis Iran, where the distances between available bases and likely operating areas wouldn’t be too far. This would be especially true for sorties in airspace over and around the Strait of Hormuz. As CENTCOM said, the “MQ-1” shootdown this weekend occurred somewhere over “international waters.”
The U.S. military previously used Predators exactly this way to monitor Iranian activities in and around the Persian Gulf from bases in the region. An Iranian Su-25 Frogfoot ground attack jet notably shot at an MQ-1 flying over that body of water back in 2012. That is just one example of Iranian harassment of U.S. drone operations in that timeframe, which got to be so bad that F-22 Raptors had to be called in to ward off Tehran’s tactical jet crews.
Beyond their continued ability to conduct surveillance and reconnaissance missions, Predators can carry a pair of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The Hellfire continues to be a very relevant weapon, including for use against small Iranian boats, including ones capable of firing anti-ship cruise missiles or laying mines. Predators could fire them at missile and drone launchers, road-mobile air defense systems, and other Iranian assets on land, too.
A picture of a Hellfire-armed MQ-1 Predator from circa the late 2000s. USAF
Though the MQ-9 can carry a wider selection of precision-guided munitions, Hellfire has remained a key element of that drone’s arsenal, too, including in recent operations against Iran.
The video below includes a clip of an Iranian Ghadir class diesel-electric midget submarine being struck by what has been confirmed to be an AGM-114 Hellfire missile, likely fired by an MQ-9.
U.S. forces are degrading the Iranian regime's ability to project power at sea and harass international shipping. For years, Iranian forces have threatened freedom of navigation in waters essential to American, regional and global security and prosperity. pic.twitter.com/gIBN02mowh
Reapers can carry much more ordnance per sortie than the Predator, but the latter could still provide a useful boost in interdiction capacity even with a smaller payload. There is an argument to be made that interdiction would actually be a better role than surveillance and reconnaissance for any remaining Predators. The older drones could be treated as being more expendable than their Reaper cousins, and more readily sent to hunt targets in higher-risk environments as a result.
There is a question of what kinds of upgrades might be necessary in order to return Predators to active duty, such as new datalinks to connect to more modern networks and ground stations. We also do not know what new training might be required to operate them within the context of currently available infrastructure in the Middle East, or anywhere else.
It’s also worth noting that other branches of the U.S. military beyond the Air Force could support a return of Predators to operational service, as well. The Army was actually originally the main operator of the MQ-1, as you can read more about here.
Back in the late 2010s around the Predator’s retirement, the Air Force confirmed to TWZ that there were active discussions about transferring retired MQ-1s to the Navy, either for use by that service or the U.S. Marine Corps. There is no clear indication the Navy or the Marines operated Predators in the end. At around the same time, the Navy was helping lay the groundwork for what ultimately became the Marines’ MQ-9 fleet.
An early variant of the Predator drone flies near the U.S. Navy’s Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson during a test in 1995. U.S. military
That being said, as TWZ wrote at the time, the Air Force’s engagement with the Navy underscored how the Predator still offered relevant capability in a variety of operational contexts. We also noted that the steady miniaturization of sensors and other systems could open up new possibilities for the older MQ-1s.
If it is true that there were only 15 MQ-1Bs left in storage as of 2024, there is a separate question of what happened to the many dozens of other Predators the Air Force had in inventory when the type was retired. TWZ had previously raised the additional possibility that Predators could be employed as targets for live-fire training, as well as research and development and test and evaluation activities, or even converted into one way attack munitions.
What we do know is that MQ-9 remains in very high demand in the Middle East, now further driven by operations against Iran that continue to grind on. We also know that the Air Force has sustained what it has itself described as a concerning level of Reaper losses in recent years. It is unclear how many MQ-9s are out there for the service to ‘buy back’ or when its latest plans for a successor to the Reaper might bear fruit.
Even if the U.S. military has not currently put any Predator drones back on active duty, returning even a relatively small fleet of them to service might still be worth considering as a way to meet operational needs and ease pressure on the hard-hit MQ-9 fleet.
Turkey’s new electronic warfare jet appears to be moving closer to operational status, with by far the clearest imagery yet of the aircraft emerging in an anniversary video for the Turkish Air Force. The platform is loosely similar to Western standoff electronic attack platforms such as the U.S. Air Force’s EA-37B Compass Call and once again underscores the widening spectrum of defense aerospace products, crewed and uncrewed, as well as weapons and sensors, that Turkey is now producing.
A very brief clip of the HAVA SOJ (Airborne Standoff Jammer) appears in a video published today on the official X account of the Turkish Ministry of Defense. The video was prepared to mark the 115th anniversary of the foundation of the Turkish Air Force and features various other types, either operated by the service or under development. The footage is embedded below, with the HAVA SOJ appearing at around the 1:39 mark.
115 yıldır Türk milletinin gökyüzündeki sarsılmaz gücü, Gök Vatan’ın yılmaz bekçisiyiz!
Şanlı tarihi, üstün fedakârlığı ve kahraman personeliyle milletimizin gururu olan Hava Kuvvetleri Komutanlığımızın kuruluşunun 115’inci yıl dönümünü kutluyor; görev başındaki tüm… pic.twitter.com/ktxuhgy2jk
— T.C. Millî Savunma Bakanlığı (@tcsavunma) June 1, 2026
The new image shows the HAVA SOJ with its external fairings and antennas, but still unpainted. The aircraft is trailing a cable from the top of its vertical stabilizer, which is likely a trailing cone that is often used for early flight tests of new aircraft configurations. An air-data probe, a temporary fixture associated with test work, is fitted to the nose.
A first, very poor quality image of the HAVA SOJ on March 1 of this year, when the aircraft was making a test flight out of the Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) facility in Ankara.
Simultaneously conducted land and air platform based radar and jammer projects
Air SOJ MIT Intelligence Aircraft IHA-SOJ (ASOJ-234U) Kara-SOJ 1 (Koral-1) Kara-SOJ 2 (Koral-2) AEW-C (ALP-200A) IHA AEW-C (Baykar-S band early warning radar) https://t.co/pfcATqqKWqpic.twitter.com/rv1sqF5Lt6
Previously, two examples of the aircraft had been noted flying on February 20, with their test sorties appearing on publicly available flight-tracking websites.
Türk Hava Kuvvetlerine ait iki adet yerli HAVA SOJ uçağı Ankara'da uçuş gerçekleştirdi. pic.twitter.com/kYJIlfrhGL
Around the late 2000s, Turkey and Aselsan began scheming a homegrown replacement for the Turkish Air Force’s existing standoff jamming capability, based on the Transall C-160 turboprop transport, as seen in the photo embedded below.
With the program taking longer than anticipated, thought was given to fielding an interim aerial standoff jammer, under a program known as Golge (shadow). This would have provided an urgent operational capability with two Global Express-based systems and would have integrated equipment from local and international companies. Negotiations made no progress and the Golge program was terminated in 2017.
The first Canadian-made Bombardier Global 6000 airframes for the HAVA SOJ program were delivered to TAI facilities back in 2019. Ultimately, four conversions are planned. Interestingly, some early graphics associated with the program had depicted the system installed on a Gulfstream platform.
The Global 6000 airframes are receiving mission payloads from Aselsan, which are integrated by TAI. Several official images of the aircraft had appeared before the integration system had taken place, but, since then, the aircraft has been notably camera-shy.
One of the Global 6000 airframes before receiving its mission equipment. SSB
The Turkish Defense Industry Agency (SSB), a government body that manages defense industry in Turkey, and which runs this program, describes the role of the HAVA SOJ as follows:
“Standoff Jamming (SOJ) platforms are high-value assets that suppress adversary air defense radars, disrupt command and control cycles, and interfere with communications by conducting deception and noise jamming from long ranges without entering hostile airspace. By doing so, they create corridors through which friendly air forces can penetrate enemy airspace. The effective employment of these platforms has become an undeniable reality of modern warfare, acting as a force multiplier and generating powerful asymmetric effects.”
As well as jamming systems, the HAVA SOJ will also have a surveillance capability, with electronic support measures (ESM) equipment, and there are also accounts of an onboard radar.
Most of this equipment is housed within large sensor fairings around the fuselage.
An early Aselsan graphic shows the extensive array of receiver sensors, jammers, and communications equipment around the aircraft. Aselsan
As to the specifics of the equipment, few details have been released, but it is known to be based on Aselsan’s Koral/Kara SOJ land-based electronic support/attack suite that is mounted on two heavy-duty vehicles. All of the systems for the jets are being developed in-country.
We know that the primary stated mission for the HAVA SOJ is electronic attack, in the form of both deception and jamming. For this purpose, the aircraft is likely fitted with powerful active electronically scanned array (AESA) antennas, like those used in the land-based Koral/Kara SOJ. These could be used to send out highly focused beams of electromagnetic energy to jam the radars and other radio frequency sensors and emitters in the air, on land, and at sea. This is a capability we have talked about before in relation to the U.S. Air Force’s EA-37B electronic warfare jet. Additionally, these same AESA antennas could be used to trigger cyber attacks, a capability you can read more about here.
A U.S. Air Force EA-37B Compass Call. U.S. Air Force
Another parallel is found in Australia’s MC-55A Peregrine airborne intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare (AISREW) jet, based on the Gulfstream G550 business jet airframe. As we have discussed in the past, the Peregrine is likely a multi-role platform, providing both intelligence collection and electronic attack functions.
Australia’s first MC-55A Peregrine at RAAF Base Edinburgh, South Australia, earlier this year. @airman941
In practice, the HAVA SOJ would use its ESM equipment to detect and track enemy radio-frequency emissions. After detecting and geolocating the hostile emitter, its frequency value would be determined. Then, the electronic attack element would be activated, sending out its own emissions to electronically attack that emitter, whether it be via jamming or spoofing. Using its AESAs, with its fast-scanning capability, the jet would be able to make pinpoint attacks, not just barrage jamming, and also execute these attacks against multiple emitters of different types and at various ranges simultaneously.
This kind of capability has a clear application against air defense systems and command and control nodes, as the SSB points to. However, it is also able to degrade, deny, and disrupt some kinds of adversary communications, causing havoc in the enemy’s data-sharing architecture and command-and-control system, and reducing adversary commanders’ ability to make effective decisions and share them. And, in peacetime, the aircraft would be able to conduct surveillance intelligence work, helping to build up an electronic order of battle (EOB) on opposing forces, which would be of high value to NATO.
Interestingly, the wingtip pods on the HAVA SOJ look a lot like those found on the EA-18G Growler, as part of its AN/ALQ-218 Tactical Jamming System Receiver system, which includes radar warning receiver (RWR), electronic support measures (ESM), and electronic intelligence (ELINT) functionality.
An EA-18G, with the AN/ALQ-218 Tactical Jamming System Receiver pods on the wingtips. U.S. Navy
While designed to work from outside hostile airspace, there have been increasing questions about the ability of specialized aircraft like these to survive against more capable air defenses, with the threat of long-range anti-air missile systems only set to grow.
With regard to the long ‘canoe’ fairing under the fuselage, these are similar to that which appears on the U.S. Army’s ME-11B HADES and the Royal Air Force’s now-retired Sentinel R1s, both also based on the Bombardier Global Express. In these applications, the ‘canoe’ houses a synthetic aperture radar/ground moving target indicator (SAR/GMTI) radar. SAR imagery consists of highly detailed ground maps, while GMTI functionality can spot and track moving vehicles on the ground, regardless of cloud cover, smoke, dust, or other obscurants. If a similar radar was installed in the HAVA SOJ, it would confer a powerful intelligence-gathering capability, but we cannot say for sure. It is also possible that AESA arrays on the jet that are primarily used to support the electronic attack mission can also perform some SAR/GMTI and other radar functions. It’s also worth noting this aircraft actually has two ventral fairings, which could feature separate arrays.
A Royal Air Force Sentinel R1 before its retirement. Crown Copyright
Finally, the aircraft features two large dorsal SATCOM enclosures on its spine. This would allow for the data this aircraft collects to be distributed anywhere in near-real time. In addition, the aircraft will clearly feature an impressive communications suite for supporting line-of-sight communications and data sharing as well, which will be critical for working as a force multiplier for the Turkish Air Force.
When Aselsan was awarded the contract for its part of the HAVA SOJ program in 2018, it was planned that the first would be delivered to the Turkish Air Force in 2023. That deadline has clearly been missed, hardly uncommon for a program of this technological complexity.
A head-on view of a Global 6000 before receiving its HAVA SOJ mission equipment. SSB
Bearing in mind Turkey’s success in finding customers for its defence products, the HAVA SOJ could also attract substantial foreign interest, with Pakistan having been identified as a possible opportunity in the past.
Aselsan has also entered a joint venture with Taqnia in Saudi Arabia, with the aim of promoting a version of the HAVA SOJ known as Kasih.
For export customers, the mission suite installed in the HAVA SOJ, like other Turkish military equipment, would not be subject to the restrictions imposed by the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) guidelines, which can limit the transfer of defense and military technologies and services — especially the more sensitive ones — to certain countries. Even among NATO operators in Europe, the HAVA SOJ will likely provide an unmatched set of capabilities. With air defenses becoming more capable, even among lower-end foes, the need for high-end electronic attack capabilities is only growing.
While many questions remain about the exact capabilities of the HAVA SOJ, the aircraft’s increasingly frequent appearances suggest the long-delayed program is entering a more mature phase. As Turkey continues to invest heavily in indigenous technologies, the HAVA SOJ is set to become one of the more significant force multipliers in the Turkish Air Force’s inventory, providing a valuable standoff capability, including against modern integrated air defense networks.
Danish follicle rebels go head to head in competition for best short-in-the-front, long-in-the-back cut
Business in the front, party in the back. A packed Danish crowd has celebrated the much-maligned but enduring mullet hairstyle, defined by very short hair at the front and longer hair at the back.
Denmark’s raucous 2026 Mullet Championship, presented on an outdoor stage in central Copenhagen, attracted 12 well-coiffed competitors and more than 1,000 spectators.
Mezz’ora prima dell’atterraggio a Marrakech, un bambino di 13 mesi è andato in arresto respiratorio a bordo di un volo Ryanair partito da Bergamo. A salvargli la vita, rianimandolo nello stretto corridoio del velivolo, sono stati due infermieri italiani fuori servizio, costretti a intervenire con il massaggio cardiaco e la respirazione bocca a bocca a causa delle gravi carenze riscontrate nel kit medico di emergenza dell’aereo, risultato incompleto e inadatto a un’emergenza pediatrica.
L’emergenza ad alta quota e l’intervento salvavita
I protagonisti della vicenda, riportata dal Giornale di Vicenza, sono Riccardo Marchetto e Ilaria Valentini, marito e moglie, entrambi infermieri di pronto soccorso in servizio presso il Suem 118 dell’Ulss 8 di Vicenza. La coppia si trovava a bordo dell’aereo in viaggio per le vacanze quando, a circa trenta minuti dall’arrivo in Marocco, si è trovata a dover fronteggiare un quadro clinico critico. “Il bimbo era cianotico, ipotonico e in arresto respiratorio, probabilmente a causa di un’ostruzione delle vie aeree dovuta a delle convulsioni febbrili”, raccontano i due sanitari. Dopo aver eseguito le manovre di disostruzione delle vie aeree, gli infermieri hanno dovuto iniziare immediatamente le procedure di rianimazione, trovandosi però di fronte a un ostacolo inaspettato al momento di utilizzare la strumentazione di bordo.
L’inadeguatezza della strumentazione
L’intervento è stato condotto fisicamente “alla vecchia maniera” per la totale impossibilità di affidarsi ai presidi forniti dall’equipaggio. Gli infermieri sono netti nello spiegare le ragioni della loro scelta obbligata: “Non abbiamo potuto fare altrimenti perché il kit medico di bordo era inadeguato“. I due professionisti hanno elencato nel dettaglio una serie di mancanze che avrebbero potuto rivelarsi fatali: “I palloni autoespandibili erano privi delle relative maschere facciali. Una delle due bombole dell’ossigeno era scarica e l’unica maschera disponibile non andava bene per i bambini. Il defibrillatore automatico, poi, era configurato esclusivamente per gli adulti e non si poteva impostare la modalità pediatrica”.
Il sollecito a Ryanair per la sicurezza dei passeggeri
Il tempestivo intervento manuale ha permesso di salvare il bambino, che subito dopo l’atterraggio in Marocco è stato affidato in sicurezza alle cure del personale di un’ambulanza. Immediatamente dopo i fatti, Marchetto e Valentini hanno inoltrato una segnalazione formale a Ryanair. Nella comunicazione hanno evidenziato che il materiale sanitario di emergenza deve essere non solo presente a bordo, “ma anche completo, verificato e pienamente utilizzabile”. Un aspetto vitale, hanno precisato, in particolar modo negli scenari di urgenza pediatrica “nei quali la qualità della ventilazione rappresenta un elemento fondamentale”. Nonostante il lieto fine, la compagnia aerea irlandese non ha ancora risposto ai due infermieri vicentini, nemmeno per inviare un formale ringraziamento. Un silenzio che non ferma la battaglia dei due sanitari, interessati unicamente all’adozione di protocolli più rigidi: “L’unica cosa di cui vogliamo assicurarci è che i controlli sui presidi sanitari di bordo siano molto più accurati, e che una situazione del genere non si ripeta più, perché l’esito potrebbe non essere lo stesso”.
by David Fleming | Off-Guardian In the final weeks of his time as UK Prime Minister in 2007, Tony Blair made an oddly casual but revealing remark about the climate crisis. “Don’t worry about the climate — technology will fix it.” At the time, it seemed like a vague gesture. A reassuring message from a departing leader trying to bridge realism and optimism. Eighteen years later, we now know what he meant. On April 29, 2025, the Tony Blair Institute published a new climate strategy paper titled The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change. At […]
Login
