NASA is moving to hire a contractor to assess whether or not a Boeing 737-73W can meet its needs for a new reduced-gravity testbed aircraft. The use of planes modified for this role is now new, and they are often called “Vomit Comets” because of the extreme maneuvers they perform to simulate zero-G environments and the physical side effects this often induces. However, there’s an unusual twist here with the specific plane that NASA is now eyeing: it currently belongs to the U.S. Air Force and is part of a “classified military program.” There is a strong possibility that the aircraft in question is a mysterious 737 that the service acquired in 2020, and that has been the subject of much speculation as to its purpose ever since.
NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center posted a contracting notice yesterday justifying a planned sole-source contract to Denmar Technical Services, Inc. in relation to “Reduced Gravity Modification” of the 737-73W aircraft. Earlier this year, signs had already emerged that NASA might be in line to get a heavily modified and highly secretive 737 from the Air Force, designated the NT-43A and commonly referred to by the callsign RAT55. However, yesterday’s notice does not appear to refer to the NT-43A, long used as an airborne signature measurement platform and described in the past as the world’s most secretive 737, which is based on a much older 200-series airframe. We will come back to this later on.
A stock picture of the NT-43A Radar Test Bed aircraft, also commonly known by the callsign RAT55. Phodocu
What NASA wants now
“NASA requires Denmar Technical Services, Inc. to conduct a feasibility assessment to determine the Boeing 737-73W’s suitability to perform the NASA reduced gravity mission; modify the aircraft cabin, if required, to support reduced gravity operations; perform overdue maintenance and inspections, perform airworthiness restoration tasks, and paint the aircraft exterior with NASA identifiers,” the contracting notice NASA released yesterday explains.
The notice adds that the aircraft, if modified, would be used, at least most immediately, “for the Reduced Gravity Test Bed Project in support of the agency [sic] need for performing validation testing on Space Suits in support of the Artemis program.”
Artemis is NASA’s current effort to return U.S. astronauts to the lunar surface. The Artemis II mission, conducted in April, involved the first fly-by of the Moon by a crewed spacecraft since the end of the Apollo program in the early 1970s. However, the spacecraft did not touch down on the surface. The goal now is for a crewed lunar landing to come in 2028. RAT55 was notably used to support the launch of the Artemis II mission and the subsequent recovery of the capsule after its return to Earth.
Back in January, NASA had put out a separate contracting notice calling for information about new options to provide “parabolic flight services” to simulate “reduced gravity environments, including microgravity” for testing and scientific research purposes. The Florida-based Zero-G corporation is currently the primary provider of these services to NASA, using a retrofitted Boeing 727-200 dubbed ‘G-Force One.’ You can read more about NASA’s general use of Vomit Comets in the context of that notice here.
The Boeing 737-73W under consideration to be turned into a Vomit Comet “is owned by the United States Air Force (USAF). Denmar Technical Services, Inc. has specialized knowledge of this Boeing 737-73W aircraft as they are currently contracted by the USAF to modify the aircraft under a classified military program,” the contracting notice NASA released yesterday adds. “NASA does not have a ‘need to know’ regarding the details of the current modifications being made under the USAF contract and therefore is unable to provide modification details to another contractor or provide another contractor with access to the aircraft. The USAF will transfer ownership of the aircraft to NASA upon completion of the closeout tasks.”
“Denmar Technical Services, Inc. is uniquely positioned to close out work under their existing obligations while performing the feasibility assessment, maintenance, and any modifications required under this action,” the notice continues. “Additionally, due to the constrained timeline for the NASA Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program’s space suit testing for Artemis, NASA requires the assessment and overdue maintenance to be performed immediately upon contract award and any subsequent aircraft modifications to be complete no later than October 1, 2026. The timeline can only be supported if this requirement is fulfilled concurrently with the USAF closeout tasks.”
Denmar is a small aviation firm headquartered in Reno, Nevada. At the time of writing, its website lists a wide array of specialized design, modification, flight testing, and other work among its portfolios. This includes “advanced customized mission system development” that “encompasses the design of unique airborne operator interfaces, specialized emitters and sensors, system integration, and post-mission analytics and processing.” The company also describes itself as the “Nation’s leading experts on IR [infrared] and RF [radiofrequency] survivability, signature modeling, [and] agile software development for analysis and real-world operational assessments.”
In line with all this, Denmar is understood to have been the prime contractor behind the extensive modifications to RAT55. In April, the Air Force confirmed to TWZ that the NT-43A was “being transitioned to start the next phase of its career,” as reflected by its involvement in the Artemis II mission, “after decades of flights supporting the Air Force in various roles.” The aircraft, which is understood to have long called the secretive and remote Tonopah Test Range Airport (TTR) in Nevada home, has been seen much more publicly since then.
Best views of RAT55 yet. Dorsal sensor pod (EO ball) seen in detail here. Also shot inside. I wonder if this is going to be ported in full to a contractor (it is currently operated by a contractor) https://t.co/XoE1zGFN78
However, as NASA’s recent contracting notice makes clear, the 737 it is now looking at as a potential Vomit Comet is a much newer 700-series model. TWZ has reached out to the Air Force and NASA for more information.
The curious case of N712JM
As mentioned, it is very possible, if not highly probable, that the 737 NASA is now considering turning into a Vomit Comet is one that the Air Force acquired in 2020, which TWZ explored in-depth at the time. That aircraft, which is a -73W model, is still officially on the U.S. civil register, with the registration code N712JM. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records show that the preceding owner of this aircraft was Denmar, which acquired it in 2019. The plane’s history before that is murky, with Boeing delivering it in 2013 to East West Bank via a trusteeship with Wells Fargo Bank, per the FAA’s records.
N712JM had drawn particular attention in 2020 not just because of its transfer to the Air Force, but also because it emerged at that time wearing a green protective coating and otherwise looking like it had just rolled off the production line. It also had some unusual external features that raised questions about its role, as we explored at the time.
N712JM as it was seen in 2020. Reader submission
In 2020, Jon Ostrower, long-time aviation journalist and editor-in-chief of The Air Current, told TWZ the following:
“This is definitely an airplane that never made it to a formal finish you’d expect from a commercial airplane. The green finish is a protective coating applied to fuselages during manufacturing to protect from scratches and other damage. It is dissolved during painting. You can also still see the manufacturing (line) number as well. That’s from its original trip down the assembly line. There’s also quite a bit of instrumentation visible with sensor wiring leading into the cabin through the passenger windows. This type of arrangement points to a flight test setup of some kind.”
In 2020, N712JM conducted many test flights in U.S. military ranges off the coast of Southern California, flying various flight profiles, some of them quite unusual. The aircraft flew those sorties from Santa Maria Airport in California, and used the callsign STING 38.
The 'mysterious' USAF Boeing 737-700 N712JM is just back to Santa Maria, Ca. after another 3+ hour flight as 'Sting 38'. https://t.co/3sxMyligwM
What the Air Force has been using N712JM for to date is unknown. Per FAA, the aircraft has been and continues to be registered to an address at Bolling Air Force Base (technically now part of Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling) in Washington, D.C., which looks to belong to the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO). The RCO has headed up multiple cutting-edge, high-priority programs over the years, including the development of the B-21 Raider stealth bomber and the X-37B reusable spaceplane. A 737-based platform could be configured to support an array of different research and development and test evaluation activities that would fall under the purview of RCO, as well as other stakeholders that this office might engage with.
A screen capture of the entry for N712JM in the FAA’s online database at the time of writing. FAA capture
There has also been some speculation over the years that N712JM might have transformed into an Air Force 737 with the serial number 21-0024, but this appears to still be unconfirmed. The 21-0024 serial has more recently become associated with other shadowy 737s tied to the U.S. military, which have civilian-style paint schemes and may also be on the U.S. civil register. One of them was notably spotted in 2025 at a U.S. forward operating location in El Salvador, sitting directly alongside an Air Force AC-130J Ghostrider gunship and a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol plane. This, in turn, raised questions about its involvement in the ongoing U.S. campaign of strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, as TWZ previously explored in detail.
21-0024, for reference. When I spotted it, FR24 was indeed calling it N712JM, though ADSBx had the BuNo and a different hex. https://t.co/3WwV3kxBC4
Interestingly, there have been several online flight tracking data ‘pings’ suggesting new activity related to N712JM at Colorado Springs Airport since at least February of this year. However, there do not appear to be any confirmed flights by the aircraft from there in that same timeframe. This airport notably sits adjacent to Peterson Space Force Base.
There is still a possibility that NASA could be looking at a different Air Force 737-73W for possible conversion into a Vomit Comet. As the contracting notice makes clear, the aircraft in question is currently in the classified realm. At the same time, this seems far less likely to be the case given everything that is known (and still unknown) about N712JM.
A separate question does exist now as to what effort the Air Force might be in the process of closing out that would allow it to transfer any classified 737 to NASA. TWZ has previously raised tangential questions about how the Air Force might fill the resulting gaps left by the highly-specialized RAT55 moving on to the next stage of its career. It is certainly interesting in its own right that NASA seems to be focused heavily at the moment on leveraging some of the most secretive 737s in existence today to support its much less sensitive needs.
More details may emerge if Denmar deems the “classified” Air Force 737 to be a suitable starting place to create a new Vomit Comet to support NASA’s reduced gravity training needs and the Artemis program.
Update: 3:45 PM EST –
In immediate response to our queries, NASA has directed us to an additional notice about the award of the sole-source contract, valued at $8.4 million, to Denmar Technical Services back on June 1.
“The contractor will modify a Boeing 737-700 aircraft to perform lunar-gravity parabolic flights to test NASA space equipment. Once modifications are complete, NASA Armstrong will own the aircraft and oversee aircraft operations out of NASA Johnson,” the notice says. “The aircraft will be used to validate astronaut lunar suits and associated crew systems required to support Artemis mission objectives. This can be done with the modified 737 aircraft in an operationally relevant, reduced-gravity environment prior to lunar mission execution.”
No mention is made here about the sourcing of the aircraft from the Air Force or its classified mission work, as outlined in the sole-source justification that was released yesterday.
Update: 6/11/2026 –
The U.S. Air Force has provided TWZ with a brief statement about the 737-73W aircraft in question.
“The Boeing 737-73W aircraft was originally procured to serve as a flying testbed,” a spokesperson for the service said. “The program ended and [the] USAF is transitioning the aircraft to NASA.”
A novel kind of drone-based air defense system has been shown for the first time by German weapon manufacturer Diehl Defence. The Cobra 600, which has not previously been seen in public, combines a jet-powered drone platform with a missile rail armed with one of the company’s IRIS-T missiles, a weapon already used in short-range air defense systems and air-to-air applications. The new system immediately recalls recent Russian developments, which add short-range air defense missiles to its versions of the Shahed-136 long-range one-way attack drone, known locally as the Geran.
A rendering of the Cobra 600 in four-engine configuration. Polaris Raumflugzeuge
Cobra 600 is being presented at the ILA Berlin airshow, taking place this week in the German capital. The Cobra 600 is also known as the Airborne Launching and Attack System (AirLAS), and the program was launched last year.
The concept behind the Cobra 600 is that of a ‘missile taxi,’ in which the drone platform carries the IRIS-T missile over a considerable distance. All the while, the drone is meshed with a ground-based air defense system. Typically, this would be one of Diehl’s IRIS-T SLM or IRIS-T SLS systems. Of these, the IRIS-T SLS employs the same missile as the air-to-air variant — and therefore the same missile as the Cobra 600. The physical interface between the drone and the missile is a standard pylon as used on the Eurofighter jet.
A ground-based IRIS-T SLS system. Diehl DefenseAn IRIS-T air defense missile. Diehl Defense
As for the drone platform, this is provided by another German firm, the Polaris Raumflugzeuge aerospace start-up. It has a similar kind of efficient delta planform as the Shahed-136, with a modified flying-wing-like design. On the wingtips are mounted endplate vertical stabilizers. As displayed, the drone is powered by a pair of JetCat-P1000-PRO micro turbojet engines, each of which provides a maximum thrust just shy of 250 pounds. However, the drone has intake ports for another two engines. It’s not clear if these are only intended to be fitted if heavier payloads are being carried, but it’s certainly a possibility. Concept artwork released by Polaris, as seen at the top of this story, shows a four-engine configuration, with the turbojets buried in the airframe and fed by much longer intakes, helping to shield them from detection.
The two JetCat-P1000-PRO micro turbojet engines on the Cobra 600. Thomas Newdick
Polaris Raumflugzeuge has already built a variety of drones in the same configuration, and the company eventually aims to scale this up to produce a spaceplane.
The MIRA II, an experimental drone powered by four turbojets and designed to test an aerospike rocket engine. The landing gear configuration may well point to that used on the Cobra 600. Polaris Raumflugzeuge
Drawing on its design heritage, the Cobra 600 drone has retractable wheeled tricycle landing gear, meaning that it can be reused in some scenarios. The drone therefore takes off and lands from runways, although it is also able to operate from suitable shorter airstrips, such as stretches of highway. It’s also intended to be cheap enough that commanders will also be willing to risk losing it in combat, or after it runs out of fuel.
The concept of operations has the Cobra 600 serving as an adjunct to a ground-based air defense system, extending its range considerably.
With the missile fitted, the Cobra 600 has a range of around 250 miles. This compares to around 25 miles for the ground-launched missile used in the IRIS-T SLM, or approximately eight miles for the missile used in the IRIS-T SLS.
An IRIS-T SLM system deployed. The radar vehicle is seen in the background. Diehl Defense
As such, the Cobra 600 has the potential to turn the ground-based IRIS-T into something a little closer to a long-range surface-to-air missile, in terms of the distance it can cover. Of course, this is only true in terms of absolute range, with the speed and maneuverability of the drone being far inferior to a long-range missile. Unless the target is nearby, or the Cobra 600 has been pre-positioned based on known target vectors, the reaction time it offers is strictly limited. The missile itself is also able to tackle a more limited range of potential targets than a dedicated long-range surface-to-air missile, some of which offer an anti-ballistic missile capability, for example.
On the other hand, the Cobra 600 offers the distinct advantage of being able to loiter in a given area, waiting for threats to emerge, or to perform combat air patrols to screen certain sectors. It is best viewed as a forward-positioned additional launcher for the ground-based IRIS-T, and is also entirely reliant upon that system (or a similar one) for its effectiveness. At the same time, leveraging existing ground-based air defense systems as a force multiplier is a clear advantage. Another possible operational scenario would involve setting the Cobra 600s up as interceptors on a runway, sitting ready for launch on a runway to defend against lower-end threats.
A close-up of the IRIS-T on the Cobra 600 drone. Thomas Newdick
In its current form, the Cobra 600 has no onboard sensors to detect targets other than the imaging infrared seeker head that’s integral to the standard IRIS-T missile.
In an operational scenario, a target for the Cobra 600 would be detected and identified by the ground-based air defense system to which it is ‘tethered.’ Connected via datalink, the ground-based system would vector the drone to the appropriate location. Using its own seeker, the IRIS-T would lock onto the target and be commanded to launch by the operator of the ground-based system. Of course, this presupposes that the datalink is not compromised by hostile interference or due to line-of-sight limitations, although SATCOM capability, like Starlink, would help keep redundant control over the drone beyond line-of-sight.
At this point, the mode of engagement is not dissimilar to the ground-based IRIS-T SLS, which features a lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) capability. This means it can fire missiles without first establishing the weapon’s lock on the target. After receiving target information in the form of three-dimensional coordinates, the missile uses inertial guidance during the initial stage of flight. Upon reaching the designated engagement altitude, its imaging infrared seeker activates and begins searching the predicted target area.
Another conceivable option would be to add some kind of sensor, such as an infrared camera, to the Cobra 600 drone platform, meaning that a ‘person in the loop’ could establish that the missile had locked onto the correct target.
A further option could be to ‘uncage’ the missile seeker and let it search across its field of view only when the Cobra 600 is in a designated ‘kill box,’ within which it would have authority to engage any target it acquires, reactively, and autonomously. Issues such as this clearly need to be addressed, based on combat requirements and ethical concerns.
As well as operating the Cobra 600 in conjunction with the IRIS-T SLM/SLS, it could also be integrated with other ground-based air defenses. According to Polaris, it could also be embedded with aircraft or in a maritime environment.
A rendering of the Cobra 600 in a maritime environment. Polaris Raumflugzeuge
The Cobra 600 has already completed its first flight tests, with a dummy IRIS-T missile fitted. Currently, the development effort is mainly funded by the company, but there has also been investment from at least one interested nation.
With the IRIS-T SLM/SLS combat-proven in Ukraine, experiences from this conflict have almost certainly helped inform the development of the Cobra 600.
The war in Ukraine also provides an interesting parallel to the Cobra 600, in Russia’s missile-armed adaptations of its Shahed/Geran drones.
According to Ukrainian accounts, as well as the rail-mounted missile on the top, these drones are equipped with a camera and a radio-frequency modem.
Russian forces are mounting Igla MANPADS on Shahed drones to target Ukrainian helicopters that intercept them. The drones carry a camera and radio modem, and the missile is launched remotely by an operator in Russian territory. pic.twitter.com/T5TKPHyhVu
However, the concept of operations for the missile-armed Russian drones is very different. While it gives the drones a means to engage Ukrainian fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, it works more as a deterrent than as a genuinely useful tactical application. As we have noted in the past, the difficulty in obtaining a high degree of situational awareness and the limited agility of the drone raises questions about the effectiveness of these solutions. On the other hand, Russia has been working on a man-in-the-loop (MITL) control capability for the Shahed/Geran, which could potentially be used to operate the missile.
Considerably larger than the Shahed-136 design, the Cobra 600 will provide a higher performance delta overall. It is also jet-powered, and, with up to four engines, this would give more impressive response times and maneuverability than the Russian system.
The fast pace of development of the Cobra 600 reflects a growing need for ground-based air defenses more generally, after decades of neglect. There is also a need for less-expensive, less-exquisite solutions in this area, something that the Cobra 600 also addresses, with a price point that is significantly lower than a long-range surface-to-air missile (although with the various disadvantages outlined above). At the same time, the Cobra 600 may well end up being used against even lower-cost drones, for which the IRIS-T is still a very expensive solution.
The Cobra 600 reflects a broader shift in air defense thinking driven by the lessons of recent conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East, where persistent drone threats, as well as cruise missiles, have exposed the limitations of traditional ground-based air defense architectures.
By combining the endurance and flexibility of a drone with the proven, off-the-shelf IRIS-T interceptor, the Cobra 600 offers a potentially cost-effective way to extend defensive coverage over greater distances and to put ‘shooters’ into contested areas that crewed systems would not be able to venture. While some questions remain about how the Cobra 600 would be integrated with existing operational doctrine, the concept highlights the growing demand for innovative, layered, and resilient air defenses as militaries seek to counter increasingly varied and numerous aerial threats.
To learn more about this campaign, we reached out to one of the soldiers leading this effort from the unit that created it. In an exclusive interview, an Unmanned Systems Department Officer for the First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine offered us unique insights into how the program began, how it’s going, where it is headed and how AI is helping to identify and hit targets deep behind the lines. It’s a capability we described in great detail — about how it was rapidly gestating and would arrive on the battlefield around now. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss operational details.
Some of the questions and answers have been edited for clarity.
Azov patrols the border areas around Mariupol.
Ukrainian territory must be free of Russian forces. The surest path to achieving this is pushing the "sanitization zone" for enemy logistics closer to Russia itself and occupied Crimea.
— First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine (@azov_media) May 25, 2026
Q: Walk me through the genesis of the mid-range strike campaign.
A: I will first of all start with answering the question of why. So the reason why we are currently conducting this campaign is to hunt enemy logistics capabilities, and currently we have a lot of quite cheap assets that can strike enemy targets at quite a deep range. So the overall meaning, the overall sense of this campaign is to strike enemy concentrations of cargo in the places where this concentration is the highest and the protection of those enemy logistical assets is at the lowest level.
So, if we’re talking about enemy logistics very close to the front line, to the line of contact, we are mostly talking about a person with a backpack. Then, if we are moving deeper into the enemy controlled area, further from the front line, then we’re talking about cars. Then even deeper we’re talking about trucks. Even deeper we’re talking about long haulers with trailers, so a higher concentration of cargo. Even deeper into the enemy controlled area, we’re talking about the railroads, the trains that are carrying supplies. So the deeper we go from the line of contact, the higher is the concentration of enemy cargo.
Russian rail logistics are now also the target of Midstrike drones, with lines to Crimea being particularly affected. pic.twitter.com/K1BFd0QVov
The other part of answering this question is basically about how the enemy protects their logistical assets. So the deeper we go from the line of contact, not only is the distance larger, but also the areas that the enemy needs to protect. So just simple mathematical calculations show us that the distance of 50 kilometers deep from the line of contact is usually the most concentrated area the enemy has to defend against our strike assets. But if we go to the depths of 300 kilometers, then the areas that the enemy should protect are much larger, and it’s basically impossible to saturate that area with all the necessary protection assets that the enemy needs to strike down our drones.
The point I would like to make is that we conduct those strike operations at deeper ranges with basically the same assets that we use for the tactical depths, for example, at the depths of 50 kilometers. That means we do not increase the cost of our assets. We just introduced some technical modifications, and we can use the same assets to strike in the deep area.
Q: What drones are you using to carry out these attacks and how are you increasing the ranges?
A: Basically, we’re using fixed-wing kamikaze drones with some modifications in terms of communication systems. We’ve installed Starlink systems on those drones, and we have also introduced a number of modifications in terms of the engine of the drones – in terms of the overall propelling unit. And this allowed us to increase the range of the assets that we used previously for the range up to 50 kilometers, with some modifications for longer distances.
Q: What kinds of drones are you using?
A: Just the simple fixed-wing chemical drones, such as Hornet systems, such as the Darts systems, and also some other assets that, for now, we prefer not to mention.
Q: Can you provide additional details about the modifications you have made to these drones and what is their maximum range?
A: Well, I would say that these are quite technical things, and I wouldn’t want to disclose those, because I would want to avoid the situation where the enemy is going to do the same modifications.
Q: Are you reaching as far as 100 kilometers?
A: From what we can say now, we can cover distances of up to 250 kilometers, but as you might understand, with time we will cover longer and longer distances.
Q: Can you describe how these attacks work? Do you operate these as first-person view drones through a video feed? Do they have a terminal seeker?
A: The process is really simple. So, for example, we select a section of the road, or the road as a whole and we distribute that road or the sections among our units. And I would like to mention that this is an all Ukrainian operation. It’s not a task for just one single unit, and basically each unit has its own area of responsibility and its own section of the road.
And then we just send drones there in hunting mode, and I cannot disclose how this works from the standpoint of intelligence, but the overall principle is that the intelligence just gives us the priorities for the targets. For example, they say that you need to target this type of vehicle with these types of cargo.
And in terms of the targeting, I remember that you were also asking the question about how the targets are selected. For this we use both the AI tools and also the operator himself, so we’re using both methods for that.
A Ukrainian “Hornet” mid-range strike UAV patrols the highway from Mariupol to Melitopol on the land bridge to Crimea. It is looking for trucks and especially fuel tankers. https://t.co/Mtcxq4L6rjpic.twitter.com/NMkVdbf8rs
Q: I want to get back to AI in a bit, but what area of operations do you cover?
A: Our area of interest and area of responsibility is related to all the roads that the enemy is using to bring in supplies to the area of operations of our corps, which is roughly in the area of the town of Dobropillia in eastern Ukraine, and for example, this may be the route from Rostov that goes to Mariupol and then goes to Donetsk, and this could be any other route that the enemy might use to bring military cargo to the area of operations of our corps.
First Corps Azov works in and around the area of Dobropillia in the Donetsk region of Eastern Ukraine. (Google Earth)
Q: What were some of the more successful mid-range drone strike missions you carried out?
A: That’s basically an easy principle. When I said that we are hunting the enemy’s logistics, I mean that this is a daily process. This is a continuous process, and this is not about one standalone mission, when we fly somewhere, when we hit a target and the mission is over.
Last night, Ukraine expanded its mid-range strike campaign to the Sea of Azov, hitting at least 5 vessels carrying Russian cargo.
At least two of the cargo vessels were hit at the occupied ports of Berdyansk and Mariupol, as Ukrainian forces seek to cut off Russian logistics. pic.twitter.com/NoXeAO7Ca6
Q: How are these mid-range strikes on Russian logistics affecting their ability to fight?
A: This is causing shortages of fuel for the enemy. This was already commented on by our media, and also the media resources of the enemy, and now we understand that this is true, not only for Crimea, where there is a severe shortage of fuel now, but also this is true about the other Russian-controlled territories. And basically, when we are striking enemy logistical supplies of fuel, this affects the overall situation, because what is fuel? Fuel is basically the blood of war, which is necessary to fuel the generators that the enemy is using for the FPV operations. The fuel is used for the vehicles that basically bring in those FPVs to the combat zone.
I’d like to add an additional explanation of how this works. If we destroy a car that brings fuel to the line of contact, then we’re talking about destroying like two canisters, so that’s approximately 40 liters of fuel. But if we strike a fuel tank and a tank vehicle, which is bringing fuel to the overall area, so then we can talk about several tons of materials.
Gas stations across Russian-occupied Crimea are facing worsening fuel shortages, with long queues, rationing, and voucher-based distribution reported by residents. Some locals say fuel has become so scarce that it is treated as a luxury, while Moscow insists there is no cause for… pic.twitter.com/0LSYWEqiDH
— Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (@RFERL) June 5, 2026
Q: Is this setting the stage for a Ukrainian advance in the east or Zaporizhia?
A: I would say that blocking the logistical supplies to the Zaporizhia Oblast and also to Crimea is a byproduct of our attacks aimed at cutting enemy logistics to our area of operations. Because we’re targeting the roads that go through Mariupol, also to Crimea, to supply the Zaporizhia region, and as well our area of operations. But as for the most strategic aspect of this question of whether this might influence some counter-offensive capabilities of the Ukrainian Defense Forces, I think that is not the question within my scope of responsibility, because I’m an officer responsible for the UAS component of the corps, and I think that this is more of a question that should be directed to the general staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Ukraine continues to launch an important number of mid-range strike, targeting Russian logistics in occupied territories
Since early may, more than 270 trucks have been hit, together with multiple fuel depots and trains.
Q: Tell me how you came to use the U.S.-made Hornet drones.
A: I would say that this is also a question that should be directed at one level up from my level. We get those drones, we deploy those drones, but the questions of how we get them and what are the specifics of their supply, this is not a question that I can answer.
A U.S.-made Hornet drone. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Thomas Dixon) Spc. Thomas Dixon
Q: When did you start getting them?
A: We have been receiving these drones for almost a year.
Q: When you got the Hornet drones, were you given any instructions on what missions to accomplish with them or what targets to pursue?
A: I think that the principle thing to explain here is that the Hornet drone is a tactical level UAV system. It can be used at the maximum range of 50 kilometers – the maximum range of the basic configuration of this drone. The drones we are currently using are the modification of the Hornet drone, but the basic configuration of this drone is only a tactical-level UAV. This is why our mid-strike operations, which have started only recently, are using modified drones.
I think that it is important to add that these modifications are conducted by the units themselves.
The First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine maintains control over enemy logistics near Donetsk.
Strike UAV pilots are targeting Russian logistics deep in the operational rear. Drone units maintain constant surveillance and fire control over all supply routes around… pic.twitter.com/i4TYOWJBg4
— First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine (@azov_media) April 16, 2026
Q: When did you begin to make the modifications and was the mid-range strike concept something that Azov developed?
A: Yeah, I would say that basically that was Azov development. So the first tests of these new modifications started in early winter. After approximately a month of testing, we started combat deployment of those drones approximately in January or February of this year. And we use those new modifications to ensure our middle strike operations. In terms of the tactics, I would also like to say that Azov developed new tactics of the deployment of middle strike drones, because the previous tactics they were mostly concentrated on the use of very expensive assets, which are available in limited numbers, so the targeting cycle was different, which is why we needed to develop new tactics and change this targeting cycle.
Q: What systems were you using before that were so expensive?
A: Well I’m not really talking about some specific assets here. I’m mostly talking about the overall tactics and the targeting cycle. So, the tactics of middle strikes were developed for expensive assets that the Corps didn’t have at the moment. So, this is basically why we started developing our own assets that could ensure that we have those middle strike capabilities, and we can also engage targets at the operational level.
Magyar claims a reduction from 3,800 cargo journeys to 1,100 cargo journey (71.05%) along the E-58 Mariupol -Berdiansk – Melitopol – Simferopol highway in the past two weeks
— Ukraine Control Map (@UAControlMap) June 9, 2026
Q: When you added Starlink, did you have to seek permission from SpaceX to use their system for these weapons?
A: The first thing that I would like to say is that we do not use only Starlink. It is just one of the possible communication systems and communication solutions that we’re using. And the second thing that I would like to add is that all the international issues, international cooperation questions, are the issues that should be dealt with at the level of our ministries and at the level of our central government, so once again, this is not a question that I can answer.
Una parte vital de la efectividad de los drones Hornet con los que Ucrania está atacando las rutas logísticas rusas entre 80 y 120km del frente es la recopilacion de datos para que el algoritmo aprenda. Por eso algunos modelos llevan grandes terminales Starlink. https://t.co/yGePjoPo2Kpic.twitter.com/iWu2bLrwq5
Q: Can you tell me what other communications systems you use?
A: No, this information is still secret, because none of those assets have been taken by the enemy, so the enemy doesn’t know yet that we’re using those. But I think that in some time we will be able to go public with those assets and tell more about what we use, apart from Starlink.
Q: Are you using Starlink and the other systems on the Darts drones as well, or just Hornet?
A: Yes, we are using Darts for those middle strike attacks. So, basically, the overall tactics of those mid-strike attacks with small UAV systems, it can use any fixed wing kamikaze drones with modifications which is why we are using Hornets, we are using Darts and also the other types of drones.
While the Ukrainian “Hornet” strike UAV is receiving a lot of attention recently, the “Darts” UAV remains a workhorse for mid-range strike. It, too, has AI terminal targeting and control capabilities to defeat Russian jamming. https://t.co/cNcQytap1Dpic.twitter.com/C8nYJ20Uer
A: Unfortunately, no. The enemy has not yet got hold of those assets, and if one of them will be shot down, or if one of them will be captured by the enemy, then I think that we will be able to go public with those assets.
Q: Can you talk more about how you are using AI for the Hornets and Darts?
A: The AI is used for the so-called last-mile system. I’m talking about the terminal guidance here, and also the AI can also be used to identify the targets, especially when the drone is flying in the autonomous mode. It can recognize the type of the target and it can automatically engage the target. So all of these processes can happen without the involvement of the operator. This allows us to launch several drones at the same time, and this also allows us to ensure a higher level of coordination for those attacks.
I think that one of the examples of these attacks was captured by one of our videos that you might have seen when one fixed-wing drone is observing the target and the other drone is actually hitting it.
Q: Is there a man in the loop or a man on the loop during the terminal phase of the attack or is it fully autonomous?
A: Since we are trying to control the whole process, usually it is the person who takes the final decision and actually makes this decision to strike the target, because we do not want to over rely on the artificial intelligence. If necessary, this whole process can also happen without human involvement, but as I have already mentioned, our policy is that the decision should be made exclusively by the operator.
Q: So this is man in the loop?
A: Yes, so technically men can be out of this loop, but in our case we involve humans in this system, so that’s man in the loop.
Visual look of Hornet UI. Not much new, can mark soldiers individually. Seems aiming is done by either by lock a target (red) or manually aiming by continusly clicking (green) https://t.co/d2LGtV2aON
Q: Have the Russians developed countermeasures for this effort?
A: Since the overall intent was to go to the massive deployment of those drones against the enemy logistics at once, as for now, the enemy has not yet had enough time to adapt to these tactics of ours. And now they’re desperately trying to find some countermeasures to find some ways to react to this.
Images showing unusually painted Russian trucks have appeared on social media channels in recent days with a paint scheme designed to throw off Ukraine’s AI-assisted mid-range strike drones. (Via X) via X
They are putting on anti-drone nets deep into their controlled territory. They are placing people armed with shotguns every 50 meters of their critical roads, but basically, as for now, there is no Russian tactic that would be effective in protecting their logistics. I do not say that they will not come up with this tactic in a month or so, but as for now, they do not have an effective countermeasure for that.
The only thing that I would like to add is that we approximately know the direction in which the enemy is moving to ensure counter measures to this tactic of ours, and we already have countermeasures for their countermeasures.
The current Ukrainian superiority in mid-range drone warfare is a brilliant advantage that comes with an expiration date.
Failing to prepare for the day Russia matches this capability guarantees a catastrophic collapse of front line logistics for Ukraine.
Q: Is the AI enhancement helping to mitigate Russian jamming and electronic warfare measures?
A: Well, I would like to say that EW is not the only way to counter UAVs. So, in addition to EW assets, there are other counter drone methods. Nets can be used. Air observation posts can be used. The drones can be shot down with enemy interceptor drones, and also there are hundreds and hundreds of people armed with shotguns who can also try to shoot the drones down. So the EW systems are just a small part of this overall system of drone countermeasures, and it is a general misconception that all anti-drone efforts are from the EW system. I would say that EW accounts for approximately 10% of overall counter drone efforts.
The main idea of the use of the AI systems is not only to help operators to counter enemy drone countermeasures, but the AI also helps the operator with navigation, with orientation, with the identification of the targets. So this is a complex system that helps the operator with many tasks.
Here: strike by the Ukrainian-American "Hornet" drone on occupier positions. Two Russians confirmed as "gruz 200" (KIA). Interestingly, the Russians call this drone "Martian-2" because its capabilities seem "out of this world" to them.
Q: What are the lessons that the U.S. can learn from your mid-range drone strike campaign, given the importance of logistics everywhere.
A: Well, I would say that the main lesson that the U.S. can learn from our experience is that drones in their basic configuration, right out of the box, is not something that can work, and this is not something that can bring you the best results at once. This is why every unit should have their own drone laboratory that can reconfigure those drones and modify them, and I’m not only talking about reconfiguring tactical level drones to turn them into middle strike capacities. I’m talking about all warfare in general.
U.S. soldier Sgt. Kevin Tran, assigned to 173rd Airborne Brigade, sets up a one-way attack Hornet drone during a demonstration in the 7th Army Training Command’s Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany, March 25, 2026. The demonstration provided leaders with insight into how AI-enabled one-way attack systems operate alongside Army fires formations. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Thomas Dixon) Spc. Thomas Dixon
Assets become obsolete very quickly and in three months everything can change, starting from the navigation systems and ending with the control systems. For example, today the GPS signal works, in a month it doesn’t work anymore. Today we use this set of frequency ranges, and in a month all those frequency ranges are jammed by the enemy. So I’m saying this for you to understand that for example, if the U.S. government purchases Hornet drones for their units, then the units are going to have good tactical level drones. But if you want to squeeze all of the possible benefits from those drones, then you will need to modify the structure of your units and include the departments, include the sections that will deal with the modification and reconfiguration of those drones to ensure the most efficient results that can be achieved.
From what I see now, the U.S. is mostly just giving the unit some assets, but they are not thinking about re-configuring or repurposing those drones.
Q: Is there anything I haven’t asked you that you would like to address?
A: I think that we have covered all the topics. The only thing that I would like to add is that I would like your audience to see that Ukraine introduces new innovations that can basically change the battlefield, and this is why trying to forecast the outcome of the war based on the number of tanks or aircraft or bombs that would be incorrect, so the victory will belong to the side capable of adapting faster and not to the side that has more resources.
Airbus has pulled the wraps off the U760 Ravenstorm, a combat drone designed to operate alongside fighter aircraft in air-to-air combat, strike missions, and electronic warfare roles. The new uncrewed aircraft is part of a revamped drone portfolio from the company, which also includes a Europeanized version of the stealthy XQ-58A Valkyrie, a medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) platform, various tactical solutions, counter-drone systems, as well as the U145 uncrewed helicopter that you can read more about here.
The timing of the announcement — and the unveiling of the Ravenstorm, in particular — is especially notable given the recent collapse of the Franco-German-led plan to build a crewed New Generation Fighter (NGF) aircraft, as part of the broader, pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) initiative. You can read more about this development here.
Concept artwork of the NGF, the crewed combat jet once intended to operate alongside various classes of drones. Dassault Aviation
On the eve of the ILA Berlin airshow, starting in the German capital tomorrow, Airbus showcased what it describes as “Europe’s most versatile drone portfolio.” The various products have been newly assigned a “U” prefix for uncrewed systems. This reflects the company’s policy of prefixing with an “A” for crewed fixed-wing aircraft, and an “H” for crewed helicopters.
“Whatever uncrewed or ‘drone’ capability our customers need to strengthen sovereign air power, we deliver,” said Mike Schoellhorn, CEO of Airbus Defence and Space, in a company press release. “Our portfolio ranges from rapid-response drone interceptors and various tactical drones, autonomous cargo helicopters to uncrewed fighter aircraft UCCAs (uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft) operating co-operatively with crewed fighter jets.”
A graphic showing the new Airbus drone portfolio includes a Eurofighter (at far left) controlling examples of the U740 Valkyrie and U760 Ravenstorm. Airbus
“On the other side of the spectrum we have the Eurodrone, our very high payload and very long endurance ISTAR (intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance) platform,” Schoellhorn continued. “Airbus provides the entire envelope of uncrewed capabilities required for modern multi-domain warfare. All our systems come with open architectures and a European mission system compatible with the wider European and international defence ecosystem.”
The most significant new arrival in the “U”-product line is the Ravenstorm combat drone, or U760.
A 1:1 model of the Ravenstorm will be on display at ILA. The drone is approximately 43 feet long and has a wingspan of 33 feet. In terms of rough size and general appearance, the drone strongly recalls General Atomics’ YFQ-42A ‘fighter drone’ prototype, now flying under the first phase of the U.S. Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program. Like the U.S. drone, the Ravenstorm features a swept, mid-wing configuration optimized for stealth and maneuverability. It also has the same twin-tail configuration. Like the YFQ-42, the Ravenstorm has a dorsal inlet, although this is closer to that which appeared on the EADS Barracuda demonstrator that flew for the first time 20 years ago. The drone is clearly optimized with low-observable (stealthy) characteristics, although the inlet is notably large and lacks the trapezoidal shape found on the YFQ-42.
Ground crew working on the Barracuda technology demonstrator. Airbus
At the same time, it should be noted that, when it comes to combat drones in general, many of them take on a relatively familiar form driven by similar requirements.
Airbus describes the Ravenstorm as “the next evolution” in its “roadmap towards a scalable family of uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft.” It is not clear how many related designs might be planned, and in what kinds of sizes they may come, but the company has highlighted the kinds of missions they will be expected to fly. These include air-to-surface strikes using precision-guided munitions, air-to-air defense with long and medium-range air-to-air missiles, and electronic warfare for suppressing enemy air defenses. Further offensive counter-air missions will involve UCCAs providing non-kinetic jamming.
Ravenstorm will be available in the early 2030s, according to the manufacturer, which is, interestingly, offering the new design alongside a version of the XQ-58. In Airbus parlance, the Valkyrie is designated U740 and combines the Kratos-designed airframe with Airbus’ proprietary Multiplatform Autonomous Reconfigurable and Secure (MARS) Mission System.
A U.S. Air Force XQ-58A deploying an ALTIUS-600 UAV from a Common Launch Tube. U.S. Air Force
For the U740, Airbus provides a notably precise planned date of service entry: 2029, with the German Air Force. This would appear to reflect a specific Luftwaffe requirement for a drone in this class, although it remains unclear if the Valkyrie has been formally selected by the German military. Airbus furthermore expects the U740 to be used in operational experimentation teamed with the Luftwaffe’s Eurofighter combat jet, including demonstrating initial air-to-ground capabilities.
The U740 Valkyrie on its launcher. Airbus
Returning to MARS, this is Airbus’ sovereign mission system, consisting of an AI-supported software core to enable platform autonomy. The system is scalable so that it can be used across the entire Airbus drone portfolio. It is also planned for use on the U950 Eurodrone — the new designation for the Eurodrone MALE platform. This twin-turboprop drone is now in development for missions including ISTAR, early warning, and anti-submarine warfare, and is planned to make its first flight in 2029.
A rendering of the Eurodrone MALE conducting a maritime mission. Airbus
As for Airbus’s two-track approach to UCCAs — U740 Valkyrie and U760 Ravenstorm — the thinking behind the two offerings, also of broadly similar sizes, likely reflects different cost points. The Valkyrie was designed from the ground up as a lower-cost aircraft and is runway-independent in its original form (since then, Kratos has announced a version with wheeled landing gear and there also exists the ability to launch the Valkyrie from a wheeled launch trolley, if required). Meanwhile, the Ravenstorm appears to be a more capable and costly platform, making it a closer match to Increment 1, the first phase of the U.S. Air Force’s CCA program.
The Anduril YFQ-44, produced for Increment 1, the first phase of the U.S. Air Force’s CCA program. U.S. Air Force
It could be that the company has already identified specific national or service requirements (such as the Valkyrie for the Luftwaffe) that it aims to capitalize on. There could also be a plan to use the Valkyrie more for operational experimentation of the UCCA concept before focusing more on the fully sovereign Ravenstorm, including potentially scaling it up or incorporating other significant airframe changes — like higher performance, larger payload, improved low-observable characteristics.
Also unclear is the status of Airbus’s stealthy Wingman, a CCA-like concept that was unveiled at the last ILA Berlin airshow in 2024. This was also presented in the form of a 1:1 model, with a length of 51 feet and a wingspan of 39 feet. The drone was planned to be powered by the same Eurojet EJ200 turbofan as the Eurofighter, providing a proven powerplant and useful commonality.
The Airbus Wingman concept aircraft, which Airbus leadership said should provide a unit cost that’s equivalent to one-third that of a modern crewed fighter. Thomas Newdick
At the time, Airbus noted that the German Air Force had “expressed a clear need” for a drone that would be able to operate in conjunction with crewed fighters before the arrival in service of the NGF, which was then slated for some time in the 2040s.
Whether the Wingman has now been abandoned entirely is unclear, but the Luftwaffe still has a requirement for an uncrewed companion that can work alongside its forthcoming Eurofighter EK electronic warfare jets. This is a role for which Airbus is earmarking the Ravenstorm, in particular, although it should be noted that the U.S. Marine Corps is also focusing heavily on the electronic warfare mission for the Valkyrie drone.
A rendering of a Eurofighter EK for the German Air Force. Airbus
All of these Airbus efforts are being informed by experience testing the Barracuda, work on which began in 2003, initially as a ‘black program.’ After six test campaigns, the Barracuda was retired.
The company will also be leveraging prior work from the Airbus Low Observable UAV Testbed (LOUT) program. A stealthy demonstrator, LOUT was not flown but was run by the company in strict secrecy until finally it was publicly disclosed in 2019, as you can read about here.
A four-ton LOUT model used for aerodynamic and anechoic chamber testing. Airbus
Undoubtedly, the significance of Airbus’s new-look drone roster, and above all the appearance of the U760 Ravenstorm alongside the U740 Valkyrie, is greater now that the FCAS program’s crewed New Generation Fighter is seemingly defunct.
It was always anticipated that the NGF would be operated as part of a wider ecosystem that also included CCA-like drones — what Airbus now refers to as UCCAs. Indeed, there were already efforts in place to start integrating combat drones with crewed fourth-generation-plus fighters like the Eurofighter and Rafale. Now that FCAS, or at least the NGF component of it, has been thwarted, Ravenstorm and Valkyrie offer a glimpse of where Europe’s combat aviation ambitions may be headed instead.
Collaborative combat aircraft like these emerged as a higher-mass, force-multiplying capability for current and future crewed fighters. In the interim, at least, the demise of the NGF means that these kinds of combat drones could be in even greater demand within Europe, where there is already a pressing need for larger tactical air combat fleets, while resources are limited. At the same time, CCA-like drones promise to make existing fourth- and fifth-generation fighters even more potent, further driving demand both in Europe and elsewhere.
U.S. President Donald Trump says the Iranians shot down the AH-64 Apache that crashed near the Strait of Hormuz overnight and vowed to retaliate. As we noted earlier today, the crew was safely rescued by a drone boat, an unprecedented action, which you can read more about here.
“I have just been informed by our Great Military that last night the Iranians shot down one of our highly sophisticated Apache Helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump stated on Truth Social. “There were two pilots involved, both are safe and uninjured. Nevertheless, the United States must, of necessity, respond to this attack.”
Trump says that Iranian forces shot down the Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopter that went down over Hormuz yesterday.
Trump did not elaborate on how the Apache was shot down.
It’s worth noting that Iran’s small boats are known to be man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) threats and also small FPV drones and loitering munitions, which Iran also possesses, have become a real threat to helicopters.
A U.S. official told Axiosan investigation “determined that an Iranian drone hit the helicopter, causing it to crash. The U.S. official said the investigation had not determined whether that was intentional.”
Trump did not say exactly how the U.S. will respond, but given past history of tensions in the region, an attack on Iranian facilities that could have been involved in the shoot-down would not be surprising. We have seen similar responses when Iran has fired at ships in the past.
Whether this will finally break the shaky ceasefire is an open question. Last week, Trump told reporters that he would consider resuming the war if Iran caused U.S. troop deaths.
“Yeah, if they killed U.S. troops, I think I would do that very quickly,” he said.
We have reached out to the White House and U.S. Central Command for additional details. CENTCOM declined comment.
UPDATE: 1:57 PM EDT –
Iranian official media has yet to explicitly confirm or deny involvement in the downing of the Apache. In a post on X addressing Trump’s claim, the FarsNews Agency offered a veiled threat from Mohammad Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament.
“We prefer the language of diplomacy, but we speak other languages far more fluently,” Ghalibaf said on his own X account, repeated here by Fars. “Break your commitments, and we’ll switch to what we speak best. You ride the horse you saddled.”
قالیباف: ما زبان دیپلماسی را ترجیح میدهیم، اما زبانهای دیگر را بسیار روانتر صحبت میکنیم
IRIB just repeated CNN’s report that the helicopter gunship was taken down by a Shahed drone.
CNN claims: Iran shot down US Apache helicopter with a Shahed drone
— IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) (@iribnews_irib) June 9, 2026
Press TV, meanwhile, took a rather cheeky approach.
“US President Donald Trump says Iran shot down ‘one of our highly sophisticated Apache helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz,'” the outlet stated on X. “So much for the Iranian military having been ‘obliterated!'”
US President Donald Trump says Iran shot down "one of our highly sophisticated Apache helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz."
So much for the Iranian military having been "obliterated"!
In a call with The Wall Street Journal, Trump tried to downplay the Apache downing, saying that it “wasn’t a big deal” and stressing that “the pilot is fine.”
Earlier today, Trump sought to play down the incident. In a phone call with the WSJ, Trump said that it “wasn’t a big deal,” stressing that “the pilot is fine.” He said he had the details on the incident and that “it was much different than you think.” https://t.co/arzskUbdSt
Exiting a classified congressional briefing, CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper offered a short answer to reporter questions about how the U.S. will respond to Iran downing the Apache.
“We’ll see,” he said, according to NOTUS reporter Joe Gould in a post on X.
Reporters asked Centcom’s Adm. Brad Cooper, exiting a classified congressional briefing, what the “response” would be to the downed U.S. helicopter.
In a post on X, CENTCOM announced its “forces began launching self-defense strikes against Iran at 5 p.m. ET today at the Commander in Chief’s direction, in response to yesterday’s downing of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter. The mission is a proportional response to unjustified Iranian aggression.”
We have reached out to the command for more details.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces began launching self-defense strikes against Iran at 5 p.m. ET today at the Commander in Chief’s direction, in response to yesterday’s downing of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter. The mission is a proportional response to unjustified Iranian…
CENTCOM’s post follows reports from the official Iranian Mehr news agency about the sounds of explosions.
In a post on Telegram, the official Iranian Mehr news outlet is reporting that there have been “sounds of explosions heard in the Sirik port area.
According to Mehr, “the exact nature of these sounds is not yet clear, and none of the official military or law enforcement agencies have commented on the cause of these sounds so far.”
“Investigations to obtain accurate information about the nature of these explosions are ongoing,” Mehr added.
Explosions reported in Sirik, an Iranian port city on the Strait of Hormuz- Iranian state media pic.twitter.com/HOJ4vAk1cT
ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl was on the phone with Trump as CENTCOM announced the retaliatory strikes against Iran.
“I think it’s very important to respond,” Karl said Trump told him. “They shot down a helicopter, and we are responding as we speak…I believe the response should be very strong, very powerful, and that’s what this one is.”
I was on the phone with Trump as CENTCOM announced US retaliatory strikes against Iran. Here's what he said:
"I think it's very important to respond. They shot down a helicopter, and we are responding as we speak."
He added: "This is a response to what they did they did with…
Tasnim is reporting that the U.S. strikes appear to be over for now.
“The wave of American attacks in the south has subsided, and after the hostile actions in Qeshm, Sirik, Jask and Mount Mubarake Jask, the situation is now reported to be calm,” the outlet claimed on Telegram. It also published a video it says shows “a suicide drone in the sky of Iraq.”
A U.S. Navy uncrewed surface vessel (USV) found and rescued the crew of a U.S. Army Apache that went down overnight near the Strait of Hormuz, in the Gulf of Oman. This is the first known use of a drone boat executing a personnel recovery action as part of a military search and rescue operation, and it’s likely a glimpse of what’s to come. The cause of the incident is otherwise under investigation.
Navy Capt. Tim Hawkins, a U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman, has confirmed the use of the Navy USV in the rescue effort to TWZ. This had already been hinted at by the mention of Task Force 59, the Navy’s main drone force in the Middle East, in an official CENTCOM statement. What specific type of drone boat was utilized in this case is not yet known. Task Force 59 operates a variety of USVs, including speedboat-like types. The Task Force has been experimenting with all types of new uncrewed naval technologies and this rescue is clearly a major win for the forward-looking unit.
One of several types of speedboat-type USVs Task Force 59 operates, seen here during an exercise. USN
“At 7:33 p.m. ET on June 8, two crew members from a U.S. Army AH-64 Apache were rescued by American forces after their helicopter went down near the coast of Oman while patrolling regional waters,” per CENTCOM’s statement. “The Soldiers were safely rescued within approximately two hours and are in stable condition. The cause of the incident is under investigation.”
“Rescue efforts were led by U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the 82nd Airborne Division, with support from U.S. Air Force and Navy units including U.S. 5th Fleet’s Task Force 59,” the statement added.
A flight of U.S. Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, armed with rockets and Hellfire missiles, taxi out to conduct a scheduled flight in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. In addition to rockets and missiles, the Apache is additionally armed with a 30mm chain gun. (U.S. Army photo) U.S. Army Central
The New York Times was first to report that an Apache had gone down near the Strait of Hormuz. President Donald Trump had also confirmed the crew was safe while speaking to reporters earlier this morning.
“We are going to issue a report tomorrow, but the pilots are fine,” Trump said after returning to Washington from the NBA Finals in New York.
A US Army Apache helicopter went down near the Strait of Hormuz and it wasn’t clear if the aircraft suffered mechanical troubles or had been shot down by Iran, the New York Times reported.
Asked about the episode by @jendlouhyhc, Trump said the pilots were fine and that a report…
As we have reported in the past, Army AH-64s have been part of an effort by the U.S. military to enforce the ongoing blockade of Iran and to protect commercial shipping. Last month, Apaches and U.S. Navy MH-60 Seahawk helicopters destroyed six small Iranian boats that were threatening commercial ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz, according to Navy Adm. Brad Cooper, head of CENTCOM. Apaches had already been conducting missions targeting Iranian naval assets in and around the Strait of Hormuz before the announcement of the ceasefire in April. All of this has shown that armed helicopters remain important assets in maritime operations, especially for defending against swarms of small boats.
As TWZ regularly highlights, search and rescue operations present inherent complexities and risks, especially when conducted in or near hostile territory. The F-15E rescue effort in Iran put a particular spotlight on the immense risks that combat search and rescue (CSAR) forces take, with helicopters and C-130 variants sent into areas where even a high-end fighter aircraft didn’t survive.
Open-water recoveries can present distinct additional challenges. There is always the possibility of the loss of additional assets and personnel in the process, no matter where a CSAR mission occurs.
HH-60Ws refuel from an HH-130J. (USAF)
The use of a Navy drone boat in the rescue overnight highlights a new dimension for maritime CSAR going forward. These uncrewed assets can be more readily pre-positioned in a distributed manner. For example, in the broad expanse of the Pacific, USVs could be forward-deployed at multiple points along certain flight paths for this exact purpose. USVs could offer other distinct advantages in certain scenarios where they might be able to get into areas where traditional assets cannot and without risking additional personnel. These realities extend well beyond the maritime domain, and we are only likely to see uncrewed platforms of all kinds increasingly taking part in rescue efforts, especially in denied areas. The U.S. military is coming to terms with just how vulnerable their CSAR assets are and the ranges that would be needed to access highly defended areas, especially during a peer fight. Using drones to execute personnel recovery is being viewed as one part of a larger set of solutions to this pressing problem.
With the Apache going down near the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. military has now lost at least seven crewed fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters since the start of the latest operations against Iran in February. In addition, several aircraft have been damaged in the air and on the ground, including by Iranian fire. The TWZ graphic below offers a visual tally of damaged and destroyed aircraft as of April 10.
TWZ
Despite the loss of the Apache, the use of a USV in the rescue effort is a major development and a sign of things to come.
UPDATE: 12:56 PM EDT –
President Donald Trump said the Apache was shot down by Iran and that the U.S. will retaliate.
“I have just been informed by our Great Military that last night the Iranians shot down one of our highly sophisticated Apache Helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz,” the president said on his Truth Social network. “There were two pilots involved, both are safe and uninjured. Nevertheless, the United States must, of necessity, respond to this attack.”
Trump says that Iranian forces shot down the Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopter that went down over Hormuz yesterday.
The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that the VC-25B “Bridge” aircraft is now wearing its new (and controversial) red, white, and blue livery as it undergoes final preparations for its official delivery.
Aviation photographer Travis Ghormley shared the first picture of the modified Boeing 747-8i with its new paint scheme yesterday. It was taken the day before in Waco, Texas. The aircraft had been undergoing modification and flight testing at L3Harris’ facility in Greenville, also in Texas, as part of the conversion into its new role, since at least April, before subsequently moving to Waco to be painted. The jet, gifted to the Trump administration by the government of Qatar last year, is set to serve as an interim Air Force One aircraft ahead of the much-delayed arrival of two fully outfitted VC-25Bs from Boeing.
The VC-25B Bridge aircraft seen unpainted sometime circa May 1. Courtesy photo via the USAF
“The VC-25B Bridge aircraft has been painted and is going through final modifications,” an Air Force spokesperson told TWZ today when asked for more information about the aircraft’s current status. “I don’t have any additional details I can provide on delivery dates at this time.”
A press release the Air Force put out on May 1 said that the “VC-25B Bridge aircraft has officially completed modification and flight testing” and was “being painted.” We have confirmed that the completed modifications referred to here were on the contractor side, but the U.S. government still has additional modifications to make to the jet.
Ghormley’s picture does clearly show the jet wearing the same red, white, and blue scheme that has already been appearing on various Air Force and other U.S. government VVIP jets. The livery also includes a large American flag, depicted blowing in the wind, painted on both sides of the tail and “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” written on both sides of the fuselage. The paint job is virtually identical to what President Donald Trump had previously chosen for the future VC-25B Air Force Ones during his first term. President Joe Biden had previously reversed that decision, bringing back plans to paint the VC-25Bs in the iconic scheme that dates back to President John F. Kennedy’s administration.
A rendering of a future VC-25B with the livery President Trump had originally selected. BoeingA rendering of a future VC-25B wearing the Kennedy-era scheme. USAF A rendering of a future VC-25B Air Force one jet. USAF
The Bridge aircraft’s current location is also unclear. Video posted on social media yesterday, seen below, purported to be of the jet departing for its new home at Andrews Air Force Base just outside of Washington, D.C. This is where the two current VC-25A Air Force One jets, as well as a host of other Air Force VVIP aircraft, are based.
Full blown operation to get this thing out without us seeing. Fueled, loaded crew, and preflighted in the hangar. Flipped CRANE01 to face me at the south end and beam me with landing lights. Entire airport blacked out, crew and grounds crew all wearing NOD’s.
Online flight tracking data does show that another U.S. military Boeing 747-8i flew from Waco, Texas, to Andrews on June 7, using the callsign Crane 01. However, this callsign has been associated with an ex-Lufthansa 747 the Air Force has also acquired for use as a trainer in support of future Air Force One operations. This aircraft, which may now carry the serial number 25-3200, has been tracked multiple times flying between facilities in Texas and Andrews in recent months. There does not appear to be tracking data for the VC-25B Bridge jet, which may also now have the serial number 25-3300, but it could have made the trip without broadcasting on ADS-B.
Past reports have indicated that the Bridge aircraft could make its public debut on July 4, which this year is also wrapped up in additional celebrations of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. President Trump’s birthday (June 14) is also this weekend.
“L3Harris, known for its executive communications systems and services, was selected to undertake a complex modification of the bridge aircraft. L3Harris not only delivers secure, reliable and resilient communications for VC-25A and the executive airlift fleet but has extensive experience with self-protection and customization of VIP aircraft,” the Air Force wrote in the May 1 press release. “The accelerated timeline was further made possible by a mission-focused partnership with Boeing, who provided the necessary engineering data to support the required structural modifications.”
“Additionally, elite specialists from multiple government agencies developed advanced protocols to detect and-if necessary-neutralize potential technical hazards on previously owned aircraft,” it added. “Their rigorous approach on the Bridge aircraft has literally ‘written the book’ and set the benchmark for integrating used airframes into the secure military inventory.”
Another picture of the unpainted VC-25B Bridge aircraft, seen after arriving in Waco, Texas. Courtesy Photo via USAF
“Safety and security were at the forefront of this program. We deliberately minimized interior aesthetic modifications to focus on modifications for safety, security and mission execution. We assessed which requirements were necessary for an interim capability. We had greater flexibility in developing our mission requirements,” the Air Force also told TWZ directly at that time. “After safety and security, we focused on the mission communications systems.”
“We have made deliberate decisions such as the reduction of the number of airstairs, less chiller space, and exclusion of the Golden Eagle mission [to fly the remains of former presidents] to minimize structural modifications, while prioritizing modifications focused on safety, security and secure communications,” the service added.
Getting a new Air Force One aircraft of some kind into service on an accelerated timetable has long appeared to be a major goal for President Trump. The fully-equipped VC-25Bs from Boeing are years behind schedule. Last year, the Air Force announced that there had been some improvement on that front, but that it still did not expect to have the first of the two jets in hand until mid-2028, which would be just months before Trump is set to leave office.
What we do know for sure is that the VC-25B Bridge aircraft is now wearing Trump’s preferred red, white, and blue paint scheme ahead of its official rollout later this summer.
The troubled pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) appears to have lurched to an undignified — but predictable — end, at least in its current form. A flurry of media reports today indicate that France and Germany, the two major partners in the program, have abandoned their program to develop a crewed New Generation Fighter (NGF) aircraft together, a conclusion supported by a French diplomat who spoke to TWZ today.
According to sources including the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has urged French President Emmanuel Macron to pull the plug on the NGF. The German newspaper cited unnamed government sources in Berlin. Reportedly, the French and German leaders concluded that the companies involved — Dassault and Airbus — have been unable to reach agreement on key aspects of the project, specifically relating to the jointly developed fighter jet.
Concept artwork of the NGF future fighter. Dassault Aviation
At this stage, it is reported that Merz and Macron cannot see a future for the NGF, although it is apparently still unclear whether the French government fully shares this assessment and is prepared to accept its consequences.
At this point, it should be recalled that there are at least three separate FCAS initiatives in Europe.
As well as the pan-European version headed up by France and Germany, with Spain and Belgium as junior partners, there is a rival British-led FCAS. This has the Tempest crewed fighter as its centerpiece, involves Italy and Japan, and is now more commonly referred to as the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP). Finally, the Swedish next-generation combat aircraft program, led by Saab, is also known as FCAS.
Returning to today’s developments, French officials are reportedly surprised by what they viewed as uncoordinated messaging from Berlin. From Paris’s perspective, it is the responsibility of political leaders to provide industry with clear direction.
French President Emmanuel Macron talks with Eric Trappier, chairman and CEO of Dassault Aviation, after the unveiling of a full-scale model of the NGF at the Paris Air Show in 2019. BENOIT TESSIER/AFP via Getty Images BENOIT TESSIER
The French government is also said to be frustrated over what it sees as Germany’s increasing preference for national solutions, which threatens to sideline its own industrial input.
A French diplomat told TWZ: “The President of the Republic and the Federal Chancellor have held extensive and frequent discussions on ways to move forward with this important project for European defense. Both leaders expressed regret that the industrial partners have been unable to reach an agreement on the continuation of the project. The German authorities considered that it was not possible to exert further pressure on the companies involved. France remains convinced that Franco-German cooperation is essential both for our two countries and for our European partners in the fields of defence and security.”
The diplomat added: “The French authorities will continue to encourage our industries and armed forces to explore avenues for ambitious European projects that are consistent with our national security interests.”
According to reports, Macron and Merz discussed the future of FCAS last week, in the latest of several recent efforts to keep the program on track. At the same time, however, Merz had become increasingly vocal about his skepticism regarding the project’s prospects.
The FCAS program was launched back in 2017, with the primary aim of replacing France’s Rafale fleet and Germany’s Eurofighters.
A German Luftwaffe Eurofighter pair. Bundeswehr/Bicker A pair of Eurofighters from Tactical Air Force Wing 73 “Steinhoff” during air-to-air training. Bundeswehr/Bicker
FCAS was envisioned as a next-generation European combat air system entering service around 2040, spearheaded by the NGF crewed fighter. As of 2022, it was envisaged that “in-flight demonstrations” would be achieved by 2028 or 2029.
Before long, however, the project was overshadowed by arguments over workshare agreements, and it is unclear how far the partners had got in terms of agreeing on NGF requirements and starting its design.
By February of this year, Merz was publicly raising doubts about the program’s viability, arguing that key issues had never been fully resolved during the planning phase. According to the German leader, Germany and France have fundamentally different operational requirements for a future combat aircraft.
Merz pointed to the specific French requirements that call for aircraft to be capable of carrying nuclear weapons and operating from aircraft carriers. Merz argued that Paris is seeking to shape the aircraft around French military requirements, which do not necessarily align with Germany’s needs.
French President Emmanuel Macron (right) greets German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the Elysee Palace in Paris in January 2026. Photo by Tom Nicholson/Getty Images Tom Nicholson
“This is not primarily a political disagreement,” Merz said. “The real issue lies in the requirements profile. If we cannot reconcile those differences, the project cannot continue.”
Within France, Dassault CEO Éric Trappier recently declared the FCAS project dead if Airbus refuses to cooperate, while Macron continued to make efforts to resuscitate the program.
There are indications that Paris will still try to do its best to keep the program alive, and it remains possible that the broader FCAS architecture, or parts of it, could continue even without the NGF. FCAS has always intended to field families of drones, air-launched weapons, and potentially other aerial platforms, within an overarching ‘combat cloud.’
An Airbus concept showing an NGF connected via satellite-based Combat Cloud to Remote Carriers, as well as a variety of legacy combat and support platforms. Airbus
The German government considers that the “true essence of FCAS” should be continued as a European system of systems, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Whatever happens next, the program appears to be at a crossroads, and facing its biggest existential challenge yet.
It is highly questionable whether either France or Germany (even with Spanish industrial support and finance) could develop a fighter without the other major partner.
This could open the door to a radical reshaping of European combat air programs.
There have already been suggestions at the highest military levels that the British-led and Franco-German FCAS efforts could be fused in some way. However, it seems highly unlikely that all these partners could come together with agreement. Just as questionable is whether the GCAP effort would be able to admit new major partners at this late stage.
Then there is the issue of Sweden.
Last month, we reported on Airbus having raised the possibility of teaming with Saab on the manned tactical component of FCAS. That was one of the clearest indications yet that Airbus is actively exploring post-FCAS alternatives, or, at the least, a major overhaul of the program’s structure.
A Saab study for a supersonic uncrewed platform as part of its own FCAS effort. SVT screencap via X
Potentially, Airbus and Saab could now team up to develop a joint next-generation fighter, with their requirements likely to be more closely aligned than those of France. Germany and Sweden also have a less urgent need for a sixth-generation combat jet, with Sweden only now introducing the Gripen E, and with Germany looking forward to receiving F-35s as well as more Eurofighters.
The first Gripen E for the Swedish Air Force. Saab SAAB
For France, losing its partners for NGF could be more critical, although it continues to work on advanced versions of the Rafale. In 2024, France also unveiled plans to develop a new uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV) that will complement the forthcoming Rafale F5 crewed fighter. The industrial side of the drone program will be headed up by Dassault, drawing upon its previous nEUROn UCAV demonstrator, which has already been used in trials with crewed combat aircraft.
A Rafale accompanies a nEUROn drone during a test flight. Dassault Aviation/Anthony Pecchi Dassault Aviation/Anthony Pecchi
The F5 standard of the Rafale is planned to keep the multirole combat aircraft in frontline service until around 2060. That will at least give France some time to consider what to do about a future crewed fighter.
A French Air and Space Force Rafale C. Dassault Aviation
Drones are also increasingly part of the combat-air picture in Germany, too. Delays in fielding a sixth-generation fighter could be mitigated, to a degree, by Airbus developing combat drones. Airbus and Kratos are already pitching the stealthy XQ-58A Valkyrie drone to Germany, and Airbus has also been working on a stealthy CCA-like concept of its own, known as Wingman.
A rendering of the Airbus Wingman CCA-like drone. Airbus
In the background, the U.S.-made F-35 continues to expand its customer base in Europe. There is also the prospect that, in the future, the sixth-generation F-47 might be offered for export in the region, although this might only be in a watered-down form.
Overall, though, the latest development is a poor reflection on Franco-German cooperation, which has singularly failed to come to agreement about what should be a flagship program, providing a cornerstone of efforts to strengthen Europe’s defense capabilities.
With the ILA Berlin airshow starting on Wednesday, this news could hardly be worse-timed. On the other hand, we may well learn more about Germany’s vision for its future combat aircraft program before the week is out.
A U.S. Air Force KC-135 tanker appeared in the United Kingdom this weekend with a new antenna on top of the rear of the fuselage. The service has several efforts underway to improve the communications networking capabilities of all of its tankers and cargo planes, including ones that leverage Starshield, the government-focused cousin of SpaceX’s Starlink. This has become an especially critical priority for future survivability and effectiveness of the aging KC-135 fleet.
A stock picture of a KC-135 tanker taking off from RAF Mildenhall in 2025. USAF/Staff Sgt. Kevin Long
Ledda told TWZ that online flight tracking data says this particular KC-135 is serial number 63-7976, but that this might not be correct. The plane is largely devoid of markings, preventing easy confirmation. Two years ago, the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command (AMC) began removing serial numbers and other unique identifying markings from tankers and other aircraft as an operational security measure, as you can read more about here.
Ledda also told us that this is the first time he has seen a KC-135 with the new dorsal antenna, despite regularly photographing tankers of this type at Mildenhall. The base is home to the Air Force’s 100th Air Refueling Wing, which flies the KC-135, but is also a regular staging point for temporary deployments and a stop-over for aircraft just passing through.
A picture of the same antenna on top of a KC-135 had emerged online in April, but where and when it was taken are unclear. This may or may not be the same aircraft seen at Mildenhall this weekend. It is unknown how many Air Force KC-135s may have received this modification so far, and TWZ has reached out to the Air Force for more information. At the beginning of Fiscal Year 2026, the Air Force had 368 KC-135s in inventory, in total. At least a portion of that fleet is set to remain in service through 2050.
A close-up look at the dorsal antenna on the KC-135 seen this weekend at RAF Mildenhall. Alessandro Ledda
The antenna has a very roughly trapezoidal shape with a mostly flat top. There is a single small blade that sticks up at the rear, as well. The size and shape are broadly reflective of ‘hump’ style antennas associated with high-bandwidth satellite communications (SATCOM) suites seen on large military and commercial aircraft. In both pictures we have seen of this installation on the KC-135 so far, the new antenna is also mounted right behind a much smaller existing platter-shaped type typically used to support ultra-high-frequency SATCOM links.
Back in April, the possibility was raised that the new antenna for the KC-135 could be tied to Airlift/Tanker Open Mission Systems (ATOMS) and/or its successor, MAF NEXUS, both developed by the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC). MAF here stands for Mobility Air Forces, a collective term for the Air Force’s tanker and airlifter fleets, and the personnel that support them.
ATOMS is “a Starshield-based BLOS [beyond line of sight] satcom system SNC has been installing on a handful of [KC]-135s, [C]-17s, [KC]-46s, [C]-130s. Saw a C-17 getting it last week in Dayton,” Aviation Week‘s Brian Everstine wrote on X, speaking generally, in a thread discussing the first picture of the new antenna for the KC-135 that had emerged. ATOMS is “now transforming to Air Mobility Commands [sic] ‘MAF Nexus.'”
Elements of at least one iteration of ATOMS are seen, at center, inside a C-17 cargo plane during a briefing for senior officials in 2025. USAF/Staff Sgt. Joshua T. Crossman
As noted, Starshield is a more secure, government-centric offshoot of SpaceX’s Starlink space-based network. Starshield and Starlink have been in increasing use across the U.S. military on aircraft, as well as warships and in various contexts on the ground, for years now, as TWZ has explored on several occasions in the past.
The size and shape of the antenna on the KC-135 at Mildenhall is, broadly speaking, in line with commercial Starlink antennas used on airliners and other civilian aircraft.
An example of a commercial Starlink antenna for use on aircraft, in this case integrated onto a Beechcraft King Air turboprop. AeroMech Incorporated
“The SNC solution for ATOMS, originally provided as a Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) in just six months, delivers enhanced situational awareness through multidomain networking and datalink,” SNC had explained in a press release in August 2025. “The system’s ability to provide a Common Operating Picture improves data interpretation and bolsters decision advantage, strengthening AMC’s effectiveness by leveraging multiple communications paths and sensors to seamlessly share data.”
That release followed the conclusion of the Air Force’s Mobility Guardian 2025 exercise, in which ATOMS “played a pivotal role” by “demonstrating its ability to provide seamless data management and communications solutions on multiple aircraft platforms, including the C-17, KC-135, KC-46 and C-130, as well as numerous ground nodes.”
The Air Force’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request highlights at least two other potentially relevant communications upgrade efforts for the service’s KC-135, specifically, which could also make use of Starlink/Starshield.
A row of US Air Force KC-135 tankers. USAF
There is the “Hybrid SATCOM capability,” which involves “the employment of Multi-Band, Multi-Orbit SATCOM terminals to switch between different government and commercial constellations,” according to official budget documents. This is tied to another project called MAF Connectivity focused on developing a “path forward as the tanker needs to be able to connect to the Joint fight to close kill chains and logistics chains.”
For MAF Connectivity, “possible capabilities include, but are not limited to, intelligent gateways, antennas, radios, software updates, crew displays, and multiple aperture array housings,” the budget documents also note. An “increment 1 first prototype installation” was also scheduled to be completed in the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2026, which began on January 1 and ended on March 31.
The antenna could be part of a different effort, as well. The Air Force has fielded a number of roll-on/roll-off communications and networking suites for the KC-135 over the years, but in an ad hoc manner and on a relatively limited scale. Last year, the Air National Guard also announced the demonstration of a new communications and data-sharing node packaged inside a heavily modified underwing Multipoint Refueling System (MPRS) pod, but the extent to which that capability may now be available for operational use is unclear. KC-135 and KC-46 tankers use unmodified MPRS pods to transfer fuel to receivers via the probe-and-drogue method.
A repurposed Multipoint Refueling System (MPRS) pod containing a communications and data-sharing package, seen under the wing of a Utah Air National Guard KC-135. MSgt Nicholas Perez/Utah Air National Guard
As an aside, a Boeing 757 called Trailblazer (N-number N473AP), which defense contractor L3Harris uses as a testbed, also recently emerged with a new elongated dorsal fairing. Trailblazer’s new addition is similar in some broad strokes, but also distinctly different from the antenna seen on the KC-135 at Mildenhall this weekend. One of L3Harris’ major business areas is satellite communications systems, including for the U.S. Air Force. TWZ has reached out to the company for more information about this development.
For years now, the Air Force has been trying to more deeply integrate new communications and networking capabilities onto the KC-135, as well as other tankers and aircraft across the MAF. Senior service officials have also described this as a gateway to enabling other new capabilities down the road, including ones to help better protect tankers and airlifters from future threats. TWZ has previously highlighted this as a path to airborne control for “loyal wingman” type drones and other uncrewed aerial systems, something the Air Force has already been experimenting with to differing degrees.
“I gotta keep modernizing the tanker force,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss told TWZ and others at a roundtable at the Air & Space Forces Association’s annual warfare symposium in February. “If I was going to parcel out the things we care about in that, though, it’s connectivity and survivability. So those are the things that we really care about in that effort.”
“There’s various ways to get after survivability,” she continued. “It starts with being connected so that you have battlespace awareness, and then it continues on to how do we protect those assets.”
Sonkiss’ official title is Deputy Commander of AMC. However, she has been serving as the interim head of the command since her predecessor, Gen. John Lamontagne, became Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force in January.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss speaks at the 2026 AFA Warfare Symposium. USAF/Capt. Christian Little
“The single biggest contributor to survivability in a big airplane is connectivity. The biggest contributor is not having a 12-hour-old Intel brief that you’re relying on to get you through the mission,” retired Air Force Gen. Michael “Mini” Minihan, who led AMC from October 2021 to November 2024, told TWZ in an interview in February, as well. “So real-world updates, real-time updates, just like our fighters and our bombers enjoy. Battle management that gets after maneuver and not just kill chain. Those things matter.”
“The reality is that the car I rented right now, driving from the airport to my hotel room, has more connectivity in it than the overwhelming majority of the mobility fleet. So connectivity matters,” he also told us at that time.
New communications and networking suites could enable AMC’s KC-135, as well as the rest of the command’s fleets, to serve as essential ‘translators’ between disparate networks and waveforms in the future. Providing a link between low probability of interception/low probability of detection (LPI/LPD) datalinks that stealthy aircraft use, such as the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) and Intra-Fighter Data Link (IFDL), and more general-purpose ones, would be especially valuable. IFDL is currently only found on the F-22 Raptor, while all variants of the F-35 fighter (and future B-21 Raider bombers) use MADL, and the two cannot ‘talk’ to each other directly, which has long created challenges. Upgraded tankers could serve as important parts of a beyond-line-of-sight mesh-like network that incorporates other kinds of line-of-sight links like Link16. In this way, they could help relay data to and from forward battle management and other command and control nodes, including ones in the air.
An F-22, in front, flies together with an F-35A, at rear. USAF
In addition, improved connectivity stands to provide additional operational and safety benefits across the MAF.
“According to the Air Force, the tankers’ ability to access tactical data links could increase mission success in contested environments by improving survivability, agility, and situational awareness for command-and-control elements and aircrews,” the Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote in a report published in January. “The connectivity could provide aircrews with such information as potential threats, fuel availability, and safer landing sites. In addition, tanker aircraft could serve as a backup information conduit for other aircraft in a degraded communications environment.”
The points here have become a broader topic of discussion after two KC-135s collided over Iraq in March during the opening weeks of Operation Epic Fury against Iran. One of the aircraft crashed, killing all six onboard. The other tanker involved was able to land in Israel despite suffering severe damage. At the time of writing, the Air Force has not yet shared any official determinations as to the chain of events that led to that fatal incident.
“We should never put mobility crews, especially tanker crews, in a position during combat operations where they have to choose between being seen by everyone, including the enemy, or being seen by no one, including the joint force and civil aviation,” Minihan subsequently wrote in a post on LinkedIn. “Mobility force connectivity now. Write the damn check.”
“Most KC-135s [sic] communications networks are ‘not the type of battle space awareness that shows you where the red is, where the blue is, and the actions that are being taken in real time in a conflict,'”Defense One reported in March, citing an interview with retired Air Force Gen. Jacqueline Van Ovost, who previously served as head of U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM). “All you have is the intelligence you took off with when you got the brief two hours prior to take off.”
All this being said, the Air Force is still years away from integrating more robust communications and networking capabilities onto the entire KC-135 fleet.
“Over the course of about the next six years, you’ll see the full fleet of KC-135s fully connected,” Lt. Gen. David Tabor, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, told members of Congress at a hearing last month.
The appearance of the KC-135 with the added antenna at Mildenhall does point to new progress on key connectivity upgrades for Air Force tankers and airlifters. At the same time, improved communications and networking capabilities are increasingly critical now, and it remains to be seen when they become more commonplace across the KC-135 fleet.
Special thanks again to Alessandro Ledda for sharing the picture of the KC-135 seen at Mildenhall this weekend with us.
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.
Login
