Boeing has decided not to pursue a bid for the U.S. Navy’s Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) competition. The company had previously planned to submit a version of the T-7A Red Hawk being built now for the U.S. Air Force. The winning UJTS design will replace the Navy’s T-45 Goshawk jet trainers. The new trainers will become part of a future naval aviation training curriculum for prospective tactical jet pilots that no longer requires carrier qualifications or even simulated touch-and-go carrier landings at bases on land.

The Navy issued a formal request for proposals for UJTS in March. The service currently plans to acquire 216 new jet trainers to replace the just under 200 T-45s that are in its inventory today. With Boeing now out of the running, the Sierra Nevada Corporation (which has now partnered with Northrop Grumman and General Atomics) and a team led by Leonardo and Textron are the only known remaining competitors. Lockheed Martin, which had teamed with Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), also dropped out back in April. Aviation Week and Breaking Defense were among the first to report on Boeing’s decision regarding UJTS.

“Boeing is focused on meeting our commitments, and we bid for programs where we believe we can provide the right solution tailored to our customers’ needs and requirements,” a Boeing spokesperson told TWZ. “After careful evaluation, we have determined the T-7A does not meet the U.S. Navy’s Undergraduate Jet Training System requirements.”

“We have therefore informed the Navy that we will not bid on the current RFP. We remain committed to delivering the T-7A as a modern, growth-oriented training solution for 4th, 5th and 6th generation pilots as requirements evolve,” they added. “We look forward to providing and sustaining both current and future capabilities for the Navy.”

Boeing says its decision on UJTS is tied to the General Electric F404 turbofan. The company has stressed that the F404 is a proven design with millions of flight hours on multiple platforms, including the T-7A, and is a clear example of a ready-to-field design. Still, Boeing’s view is that the UJTS engine qualification requirements would require additional long-cycle development work, and potentially limit its ability to meet the Navy’s initial operational capability target for the new jet trainers.

All this being said, it is still not entirely clear what the specific issues might be, given that the F404 is such a well-established design that has been and continues to be used on a variety of military aircraft. This includes several other land-based jet trainer designs beyond the T-7, like the Scaled Composites Model 400, which competed against the Red Hawk in the Air Force’s T-X competition, and the Turkish Aerospace Industries Hürjet.

Most notably, the F404 also powers the TF-50N that Lockheed Martin and KAI had put forward for UJTS. At the time of writing, neither Lockheed Martin nor KAI looks to have offered a detailed explanation for the decision to withdraw from the Navy jet trainer competition.

The T-7A has also suffered from various technical and other issues over the course of its development, which has led to significant delays in its entry into Air Force service. The service is now hoping to reach initial operational capability with the Red Hawk next year. Any potential for direct synergies in terms of support and sustainment between the Air Force and Navy jet trainer fleets is now off the table.

It is worth pointing out that the TF-50N and the T-7 are also both single-engine designs. The Beechcraft M-346N that Leonardo and Textron have put forward is powered by a pair of Honeywell F124 turbofans. Two Williams FJ44-4M turbofans power SNC’s Freedom Jet, which is also the only clean-sheet design in the running for UJTS. This may point to a general view of the UJTS requirements that make single-engine designs less attractive.

The Freedom Jet design is also tailored to meet now-axed requirements for UJTS to be able to perform carrier qualifications and simulated carrier touch-and-goes at base on land. The requirements for so-called Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) training at facilities ashore have historically been structured specifically in a way that “simulates, as near as practicable, the conditions encountered during carrier landing operations,” according to the Navy.

SNC says its choice to build an aircraft that can still perform these tasks is deliberate, and offers the Navy what could still be important capability and flexibility in the future, as you can read more about here.

The Navy’s decision to remove carrier qualifications and otherwise alter key aspects of the tactical jet aviator training pipeline has been and continues to be controversial. The service has argued that substantial investments in virtualized training and assisted carrier landing capabilities, such as Magic Carpet and its successors, have fundamentally changed the landscape when it comes to training future pilots for carrier-based operations.

Earlier this month, the Navy also confirmed that it had raised the total cost ceiling for the prospective UJTS contract from approximately $1.8 billion to $2.7 billion.

“The Government updated the price cap to reflect a change in the program cost estimate due to new information received,” Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) subsequently explained, according to Breaking Defense.

The substantial increase in the projected cost has raised its own questions about the outlook for the competition and the development program that is expected to follow. The Navy’s decisions to scale back its training requirements had previously been seen as opening the door to existing land-based jet trainer designs, or derivatives thereof, like the T-7 and the TF-50N. That, in turn, was viewed as a potential way for the service to help keep costs and risk low.

The Navy’s T-45 replacement plans have already been delayed multiple times, with the service originally planning to pick a winning design this year and to have the first example enter operational service in 2028. The goal now is to award a contract in the middle of next year.

The aging T-45 fleet has faced its own struggles, including a spate of reported hypoxia-like physiological episodes among pilots that led to the development of a new oxygen system. There have been several Goshawk crashes in recent years due to a variety of factors, with the most recent coming just last month. The pilots in that case thankfully survived.

For Boeing, the decision to drop out of the running for UJTS could also allow it to refocus resources to other priorities. The company is also notably one of two remaining competitors vying to build the sixth-generation F/A-XX carrier-based fighter for the Navy. Boeing is already heavily engaged now on work for the F-47 sixth-generation fighter for the Air Force.

When it comes to the UJTS competition, with Boeing having bowed out, the SNC-led and Leonardo/Textron teams are now facing off head-to-head.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Boeing Drops Out Of Navy’s T-45 Jet Trainer Replacement Competition appeared first on The War Zone.

In another indication of the growing military and economic importance of the Arctic, Russia and NATO are increasing their buildup of forces and facilities in the region. Recent media investigations found that Russia is constructing new bases near Finland to eventually house tens of thousands of troops while NATO on Saturday stood up a long-planned new battalion battlegroup. It is a force that will operate in Finland and Sweden as a deterrent against Russia.

TWZ has frequently reported how Russia, and to a lesser extent China, have moved aggressively to assert their presence in the High North, leaving the U.S. and its NATO allies looking to bolster their defenses.

While Russia remains totally bogged down and suffering high attrition in Ukraine with little chance of moving masses of troops to the Arctic at the moment, concern over the future has spurred NATO to bolster its presence along the Finnish border. Having moved to a wartime economy during the full-on conflict with Ukraine, Russia could leverage that in a post-Ukraine war future to threaten NATO’s borders.

A NATO official told us Friday morning that while the alliance assesses that the chances of a near-term conflict are low given the war in Ukraine, “Moscow could seek to expand westward into the Nordic and Baltic nations after a ceasefire with Ukraine.”

Russia appears to be investing in infrastructure in preparation of such a contingency. A joint report by several Nordic and Baltic media outlets published earlier this week has found that Russia is expanding military facilities along its borders with Norway and Finland to accommodate tens of thousands of new troops.

“New satellite images show that Russia is increasing its armament in [the] vicinity,” the report stated. “SVT, together with media partners in several countries, has examined how Russia is preparing for 80,000 soldiers… It is a threat that we should take seriously, says Thomas Nilsson, head of Sweden’s military intelligence service (MUST).”

The images “show new barracks for thousands of soldiers, long lines of military vehicles and ammunition storage,” the report further noted. “All winter, Russia has been building new military structures in several places on the other side of the Finnish border.”

“We expect to have 80,000 soldiers on our border and that can be compared to the fact that we previously had 20,000,” Finnish Army Chief Pasi Välimäki told the joint investigation.

A joint investigation by Nordic and Baltic media outlets found that these developments could enable Russia to deploy a force of up to 115,000 military personnel in the Northern European and Baltic regions. pic.twitter.com/ZiVpsP3fEz

— WarTranslated (@wartranslated) June 10, 2026

A separate report by the Finnish Yle media outlet found that the Russians are expanding a base in the town of Novaya Vilga to hold as many as 6,000 Russian troops. It is located about 100 miles east of the Finnish border.

Breaking News: Where exactly is Russia building its massive new military garrison?

For the first time, a completely new base is going up behind Finland's eastern border, set to hold up to 6,000 soldiers. Take a look at the first satellite data: https://t.co/IuZerZRyeQ #russia pic.twitter.com/2UvQXheaAP

— Mika Mäkeläinen (@Mikareport) June 10, 2026

“NATO has monitored a buildup of military infrastructure in Russia along NATO’s Eastern Flank, particularly along Finland’s border,” the NATO official told us earlier this week. “The real question is what becomes of the infrastructure? Will, for example, Russian troops now in Ukraine be relocated there after the war? It’s something we certainly need to consider, and we do.”

“That’s why NATO and nations are working to deliver real military capabilities to the alliance now, not five to ten years from now, which is so very, very important,” the official added.

One of those efforts, as we noted earlier in this story, was stood up on Saturday, involving NATO’s two newest members.

NATO’s Forward Land Forces (FLF) Finland began operations in Finland and Sweden, according to the alliance. The FLF will include NATO’s newest multinational battlegroup, led by Sweden, “to support the defense of NATO’s northeastern flank.”

The establishment of FLF Finland places a Swedish battlegroup based in Boden, Sweden, and a Multinational Staff Element in Rovaniemi, Finland, under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and NATO.

“Sweden is contributing a battalion battlegroup that, together with a Multinational Staff Element in Rovaniemi, will form the core of FLF Finland,” NATO added. “The Swedish battalion battlegroup is prepositioned in Boden, with capacity to operate in the North Calotte and, where necessary, rapidly reinforce the presence in northern Finland. In 2026, Sweden’s contribution to FLF Finland will total around 600 personnel, with the option to expand to 1,200 personnel if needed.”

“This region is one of the most strategically significant and environmentally challenging areas in the world,” said U.S. Air Force Gen. and SACEUR Alexus G. Grynkewich. “FLF Finland, just like Arctic Sentry, will leverage NATO’s strength to defend our territory and ensure the Arctic and High North remains secure, especially considering Russia’s military activity and China’s growing interest there.”

The U.S. too is working to improve its presence and operations in the region. During last month’s SOF Week symposium in Tampa, Florida, the head of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) announced the formation of Nordic Bridge to “tie together” the work of U.S. European Command, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and SACEUR.

Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot provided no real details about Nordic Bridge at the time, so we reached out to NORTHCOM for additional details.

“The Nordic Bridge concept seeks to enhance Arctic integration between U.S. Northern Command and U.S. European Command and enhance cooperation between NORAD and NATO in order to expand domain awareness, strengthen deterrence, and improve interoperability,” a NORTHCOM spokesperson told us last month. “It envisions increased participation in each other’s training and exercises, increased data sharing (such as air pictures), deconflicting conferences to maximize personnel availability and participation, etc.”

Last month, Guillot visited Grynkewich “to discuss opportunities under this concept,” the NORTHCOM spokesperson told us.

All this is taking place, of course, against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s frequent insistence that the U.S. subsume Greenland to provide better Arctic protection for the U.S. homeland. The issue reached a fever pitch earlier this year, causing a serious rift with NATO after the president threatened to invade the world’s largest island. You can read more about that in our story about the crisis here.

While there are no indications that the Arctic region is about to break out into open conflict, there are several indications that Russia, NATO and the U.S. are increasing preparations for such an eventuality.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Russia Building New Infrastructure For Major Troop Deployments Along NATO’s Northern Flank appeared first on The War Zone.

In a significant development for Europe’s future air combat ambitions, Airbus is trying to restart the program to develop a sixth-generation combat jet, now under German and Spanish leadership. This comes less than a week after the Franco-German-led New Generation Fighter (NGF) effort effectively collapsed in its original form, amid acrimony between Paris and Berlin. The NGF was planned as the crewed centerpiece of the pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS), which Airbus, as the leading European aerospace corporation, now hopes to get back on track.

An exciting step for European sovereignty at ILA Berlin: "Team Gen 6", a group of eight leading German defence and aviation companies signed a strategic positioning paper. The German and French governments have announced a realignment of the European Future Combat Air System… pic.twitter.com/aZcjAaO6dE

— Airbus Defence (@AirbusDefence) June 11, 2026

Airbus’s Defense and Space unit launched the ‘Team Gen 6’ initiative today with a message on X, declaring that it was “an exciting step for European sovereignty.” So far, eight German defense and aerospace contractors have signed a strategic positioning paper as part of the effort. Those firms are Autoflug, Diehl Defense, Hensoldt, Liebherr, MBDA Germany, MTU Aero Engines, and Rohde and Schwarz.

Reflecting the German-Spanish nature of the new program, those companies are now “closely integrated” with firms from Spain, comprising GMV, Grupo Oesia, Indra, ITP Aero, and Sener.

“While the development of the overarching [FCAS] ‘system of systems’ is progressing as before, the sixth-generation fighter aircraft integrated within it requires a new, agile industrial setup,” Airbus said.

“As Team Gen 6, we have the capabilities and the capacities. Now, we are looking for close alignment with policymakers and the air force[s] to drive forward a superior European air combat system for collective security,” the X post stated.

Airbus also presented a video showing a notional concept aircraft flying with multiple uncrewed platforms. While not too much (as in not much at all) should be read into this, the crewed aircraft features canard foreplanes, a chin intake, and an unusual cranked wing.

Speaking just ahead of the announcement, at the ILA Berlin airshow today, where TWZ was in attendance, Jean-Brice Dumont, head of air power at Airbus Defense and Space, said the company remains committed to delivering a sixth-generation combat jet. “There is a need for a bit of a reshaping and reconsidering the reality of today,” Dumont added.

Dumont explained that the now-abandoned NGF was one of seven separate “pillars” of technology development being worked on under FCAS. As well as the crewed jet, pillars include powerplant, remote carrier vehicles, precision-guided weapons, and data connectivity.

“We have to consider safeguarding areas where it works, and how we reshape,” he added. “At the moment, we are going to seek guidance from our governments [on] what they want us to do. There has to be demonstrated an industrial feasibility of what is being asked — not only technical. That’s probably a lesson now,” Dumont added.

Dumont continued: “The world in 2026 is very different to the world of 2017 when the [FCAS] programme was launched. We have to accept that fact and reshape it — we need another way to get to the same goal, with faster milestones.”

“The problem we had is that we had drawn a line to 2040, and new technologies for everything,” Dumont added, referring to the goal of having the FCAS, including the NGF, in service by that date. “Today, you see demonstrations of connectivity, systems of systems and unmanned vehicles all around the world. The need is there, and in the countries that we are competing with, they are using it already.”

According to Dumont, the company has “put a number of options on the desk of our ministers and ministries of defense,” and is now awaiting further guidance from officials.

As the centerpiece of FCAS, in its original form, the NGF element was the most high-profile and challenging component of the project. However, it had long been dogged by disagreements over industrial workshare and leadership between Airbus and Dassault Aviation, which were the prime contractors for Germany and Spain, and France, respectively.

Dassault had demanded that it play the defining role in NGF, reflecting key requirements for the jet driven by the French Armed Forces. These included the ability to operate from aircraft carriers, and provision to deliver nuclear weapons. Germany or Spain needed neither of these functions.

Despite the disagreements that derailed NGF, Dumont argued that there had still been useful lessons learned from the FCAS program.

“What Phase 1A and 1B [of the program] have given is a very thorough analysis of the repartition of the work between the crewed and uncrewed platforms, and this remains. That kind of shapes what the manned aircraft will have to do.”

As an example of this work, Dumont pointed to ongoing work that will involve trials of a Eurofighter operating as a “command fighter” — a crewed jet that can operate in collaboration with drones, or what Airbus now refers to as uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft (UCCAs). The tests will see a Eurofighter fitted with a Rafael Litening 5 targeting pod modified to serve as the interface between the crewed jet and UCCAs. This should pave the way toward an in-service command fighter capability being introduced to the Eurofighter, something that will be incorporated in the sixth-generation combat jet from the outset.

Initial trials will involve a Learjet test configured as a surrogate command fighter and flying with drones in an “enhanced teaming” mode. Airbus hopes to have the command fighter-configured Eurofighter ready for operational service in 2029.

“The demand from the customers is: be ready early,” Dumont explained. “This is not a contradiction to the Future Combat Air System challenge — it is the need to have our platforms evolved earlier than we had traditionally planned.”

The termination of NGF and the launch of Team Gen 6 leaves plenty of questions over the future of Europe’s air combat landscape.

TWZ spoke to Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) research institute in London, for his take on what might happen next.

On the matter of Germany and Spain now teaming up under the Airbus umbrella, Barrie said that the relationship makes a lot of sense, but its success is far from certain. On the one hand, the two countries already work together within Airbus, and both Germany and Spain are seeking a replacement for their Eurofighter fleets.

“In terms of Team Gen 6, I do wonder if there’s an element of trying to kind of scramble to recover something from the wreckage of NGF, as it were, that the collapse of NGF doesn’t signal the end of Spanish industrial interest in next-gen combat aircraft development,” Barrie said. “But if somebody asked me, do I think between Germany and Spain, they can put together a credible program if nobody else is involved? I think that the numbers would be very difficult to stack up.”

Putting the German and Spanish future fighter requirements together, the two countries might, at best, need to build 300 new combat jets, with a figure of 250 more likely, Barrie contended. Team Gen 6 would then face a real struggle to break even.

This reality will, Barrie believes, force Germany and Spain to look for other partners, which will likely come down to a choice between the British-led Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) and the Swedish next-generation combat aircraft program, led by Saab. Of these, GCAP has the Tempest crewed fighter as its centerpiece, and also involves Italy and Japan. Sweden’s crewed fighter requirements are less clear at this point.

Building a role for Airbus in GCAP would be difficult at this point. With the industrial architecture already in place, bringing not one, but two more partners into that program would be disruptive, particularly in terms of timeline. Already, the Japanese in particular are concerned about the pace of the program, especially since the United Kingdom has not yet fully committed to it in terms of funding.

“My own view is that the United Kingdom remains committed to the program, but there are financial pressures elsewhere,” Barrie noted. “I think that the more likely outcome in all of this is a kind of German, Spanish, Swedish tie-up. The kind of requirements in some ways are aligned a bit better.”

This extends to the size of the aircraft, Barrie observed.

“The kind of aircraft that the Swedes seem to be thinking about, the crewed element is probably more of a bigger Gripen E/F, heading towards Typhoon, in terms of size. This is more in keeping with what the Germans and the Spanish seem to be looking for. Obviously, the United Kingdom and Japan, in particular, need something with longer legs and bigger internal payload, hence GCAP.”

“GCAP will be highly capable,” Barrie continued. “That will come with a unit cost to go with it. Maybe what the Swedes, the Germans, and the Spanish might do will be cheaper.”

Provided a German, Spanish, Swedish teaming arrangement could work, the resulting combat jet could still enter a space where it would face competition for important export orders from France, which looks set to continue the development of the Rafale, especially now that NGF has collapsed. Further competition could be provided by South Korea with further developments of its KF-21 and Turkey with the TF Kaan, although these are notably less-ambitious fifth-generation designs.

The Tempest, as currently envisaged, with its very different set of requirements, would not necessarily be a direct competitor to Team Gen 6, Barrie argued, since it would be a closer match to the F-47 in terms of size, capabilities, and cost. While the potential size of this market would be more limited, probably U.S. reluctance to export the F-47 would play in the Tempest’s favor.

As to the possibility of the United States offering a ‘watered-down’ export model of the F-47, Barrie considers this unlikely to generate much interest.

“Yeah, you can have a downgraded version of my super airplane — as a kind of marketing slug that hardly sells, does it?” Barrie continued. “Even if it’s 10 percent less capable, even if it’s 10 percent less expensive, it’s still a likely unit cost of $250 million or more, which is eye-watering.”

This leaves us with the French, and what they might be able to recover from NGF.

If France goes it alone with a sixth-generation combat jet, Dassault will likely be strongly backed by the French government, and the company has traditionally punched well above its weight.

In the medium term, Dassault has a healthy backlog of orders for the Rafale and is very much at the right end of the cost curve. Barrie considers that the Rafale will remain a profitable airplane for the foreseeable future, but at some point, France will need to think about a successor based on an all-new airframe. Industrially, France has the capability to go alone with this, but they would likely look to a partner or partners to come on board. The likelihood of those partners coming from Europe has now been reduced, but other possibilities might be found in the Gulf states.

Then there is the question of India, which may still buy more Rafales but which, in the fullness of time, is likely to look for a new-generation fighter, and could be a potential partner for France.

“I don’t see the Indians ever being fully committed to only one country,” Barrie continued. India has already hinted that it might want to try and join the pan-European FCAS or GCAP. Meanwhile, Russia has been a long-term military partner for India, and Barrie thinks that the recent appearance of a two-seat version of the Su-57 Felon may well indicate another effort to sell that fighter to India.

Were India to continue its pattern of buying Russian combat aircraft, that would give any potential European partner serious pause for thought, based on the security implications. Meanwhile, India also remains committed to developing its own next-generation fighter.

What the NGF debacle has demonstrated is that any potential partner with France on its next-generation combat aircraft program will likely have to be happy taking a junior role, with Dassault calling the shots.

The collapse of the New Generation Fighter could well be a pivotal moment for European defense cooperation, but it does not signal the end of Europe’s sixth-generation combat aircraft ambitions.

Airbus’s Team Gen 6 announcement marks the start of a German-Spanish-led industrial approach that its backers hope will be more agile and less contested than its Franco-German-led predecessor. However, significant political, financial, and industrial challenges remain, including the search for a reliable partner, or partners. As with NGF, the success of Team Gen 6 will ultimately depend on whether European governments can align their strategic priorities and industrial interests to deliver a sovereign future air combat capability.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Germany And Spain Launch ‘Team Gen 6’ After Europe’s Next-Gen Fighter Effort Collapses appeared first on The War Zone.

She has sleep apnoea, but if I move into the spare room, how do we explain it to the kids without them thinking we’re having marriage trouble?

Members of Congress are again moving to block the U.S. Air Force from retiring all of its U-2S Dragon Lady spy planes. This time, legislators also want to compel the service to “fully restore” four of the iconic aircraft through heavy depot maintenance, which would bolster the fleet’s operational capacity. The Air Force continues to argue that the high-flying Cold War-era jets are too vulnerable to support future high-end fights and should be supplanted by a mix of space-based and other capabilities. This would presumably include a classified stealthy high-altitude drone, commonly (and unofficially) referred to as the RQ-180, or an evolution thereof, which first emerged publicly just earlier this year.

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee released a draft defense spending bill for the 2027 Fiscal Year. It includes a provision that would prevent the Air Force from retiring more than two U-2Ss in that fiscal cycle. The Air Force currently has 23 of these aircraft in inventory, including three two-seat TU-2S trainers.

A summary of the proposed legislation also says it includes “$81 million for U-2 programmed depot maintenance to fully restore four aircraft.” The current operational status of the aircraft in question is unclear. This is included under the umbrella of $335.3 billion in total funding for operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts across the services that the draft bill would appropriate for Fiscal Year 2027.

Programmed depot maintenance for any aircraft is an intensive process that essentially involves a full tear-down and detailed inspection. Paint and other coatings are typically stripped and reapplied. Upgrades and modifications are often worked into depot maintenance cycles given the extensive work already being done.

The Air Force’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year completely zeroes out the line for U-2 O&M, to include depot maintenance, reflecting the service’s desire to retire the fleet. An annual force structure report the Pentagon released in May concisely outlines the current argument for retiring the remaining U-2Ss.

“The Air Force will retire the entire 23-ship U-2 fleet, as the platform is no longer viable for future high-end conflicts,” the force structure report says. “Continued operation presents significant safety, logistical, and financial risks that outweigh the platform’s remaining utility in contested environments.”

“This decision allows for the strategic reallocation of fiscal resources to fund more critical, high-priority service requirements and accelerate modernization efforts in other key areas,” it adds. “Continuing to operate the U-2 fleet would require a significant investment to address systemic issues, including diminishing manufacturing capacity, material shortages, and safety risks inherent in the aging platform.”

Questions about the continued relevance of the U-2 in the face of an ever-expanding global air defense threat ecosystem are not new. Near-peer competitors like China and Russia, as well as lower-tier potential adversaries like Iran, continue to develop and field more capable air defense systems and expand their anti-access and area denial bubbles. This, in turn, has threatened to push the U-2 further and further from the areas where it would be tasked to collect.

On top of all this, the U-2s are aging and becoming more costly to operate and maintain. The U-2S models in service today were upgraded from earlier variants that began their service careers in the 1980s.

As noted, this is not the first time the Air Force has tried to retire its remaining U-2s, citing operational and sustainment-related factors. In response, Congress has repeatedly intervened in the past few years to at least block full divestment of the fleet over persistent concerns about the aerial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability and capacity gap that might result.

The Dragon Lady continues to offer a unique ISR platform that can fly higher than any other operational non-orbital platform, crewed or uncrewed, the U.S. military has, at least from what we know today. This, in turn, means that the aircraft can bring imaging, signals intelligence, communications payloads, and other sensors up to those altitudes, giving them particularly good fields of view. From this perch, aircraft can use a slant angle to peer deep into denied areas while still flying international airspace and further away from potential threats. The use of the U-2 to gather intelligence about a Chinese spy balloon that soared over parts of the United States and Canada in 2023, which involved flying above it, offered a particularly public demonstration of the value of the aircraft’s high-altitude capabilities.

Each Dragon Lady can also carry a wide array of different sensor systems simultaneously, as well as communications packages, further increasing its flexibility. The U-2Ss have the ability to be readily deployed to forward locations globally and conduct long-duration sorties, as well. The latter points have been especially relevant in comparison to known existing ISR satellite constellations that are constrained by their orbits and can only offer relatively short-term coverage over a specific area. We will come back to this in a moment.

It is worth noting here that the Air Force’s Dragon Lady fleet also has a long history now of providing valuable ISR support outside of traditional combat operations. Last year, the service confirmed U-2Ss were supporting the enhanced border security mission along the United States’ southern boundary with Mexico. The aircraft have been used to support counter-narcotics operations over the years, as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions. NASA also operates a pair of ER-2 aircraft, another version of the Dragon Lady, as high-flying scientific research platforms.

The Air Force has been hinting for years now at the existence of advanced aircraft in the classified realm that could help fill gaps left by the retirement of the U-2, and also be more survivable in very high-threat environments. This has now been further underscored by the emergence of the ‘RQ-180,’ or a related stealthy design, in Greece earlier this year, the likely capabilities and roles of which TWZ explored in a detailed feature in April. At the same time, we have raised still unanswered questions in the past about how many of any such drones might actually be in service and what kind of operational capacity those fleets might provide.

American RQ-180 stealth drone landing in Greece, supporting US operations against Iran. pic.twitter.com/Go5YHBM1p8

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 6, 2026

The U.S. military is also pushing ahead with the development and fielding of new space-based ground and air surveillance capabilities. This includes work toward the fielding of new satellite constellations that could provide game-changing persistent coverage globally, as you can read more about here. Despite steady progress, including on-orbit testing of prototypes, there are still questions about when any of these new assets in orbit will be fully operational. The U.S. Space Force recently announced it is now targeting 2028 for the “early” fielding of at least some of these new space-based surveillance capabilities.

The draft defense spending bill from the House Appropriations Committee does still have to be finalized, and then brought in line with companion legislation in the Senate. Both chambers of Congress then need to pass the bill before it can be sent to the President’s desk to be signed into law. There are many opportunities along the way for major changes to be made to the bill.

That being said, Congress has consistently blocked Air Force efforts to fully retire the U-2 in recent years. Another potential reprieve, which would also demand the service take steps to bolster the operational capacity of the remaining fleet, has now appeared on the horizon.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Four U-2S Spy Planes Would Be Restored In Bill That Would Save The Dragon Lady Fleet appeared first on The War Zone.

Boeing’s 757 Flying Test Bed was recently spotted carrying a stealthy underwing infrared sensor pod under its fuselage. This may be the first time this aircraft, better known as ‘The Catfish’ because of its unique and highly modified nose profile, has ever been seen lugging around a store on this station. The pod itself is part of a larger “Raptor 2.0″ upgrade package being developed for the F-22. Catfish has served as a key systems integration testbed for the Raptor since the 1990s.

Jerod Harris caught Catfish with the pod under its belly as it came in to land at Edwards Air Force Base in California on Monday. Edwards is the main hub for U.S. Air Force test and evaluation activities, and Catfish has been seen there many times over the years as part of its work. The aircraft, which carries the U.S. civil registration code N757A, also happens to be the first 757 ever built, and took to the skies for the first time back in 1982.

As already noted, Catfish has already played a central role in the story of F-22. The aircraft’s heavily modified nose is designed to directly replicate that of the Raptor, and contains the same AN/APG-77 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar as the fighter. The swept wings on top of the cockpit were also designed to support testing of the conformal antennas for the Raptor’s AN/ALR-94 electronic support measures system and other components of its ‘fused’ sensor suite. The aircraft has supported the development of a wide array of other systems for the F-22, and is packed inside with additional equipment to support those needs in particular, including a replica of the Raptor’s cockpit. You can read more about Catfish and its general history here.

So it is not surprising then that the heavily modified 757 would also be used now to help with continued testing of the new underwing infrared sensor pods for the Raptor. Carrying the pod under the forward end of the fuselage would offer the sensors inside a good open field of view to the front, as well as to the left, right, and down.

The stealthy pods have been test-flown on actual F-22s for years now. At the same time, there are only a limited number of Raptors available, in total, and they are notoriously fuel-hungry, maintenance-intensive, and otherwise expensive to operate. If the particular test plan calls just for level flight, and over extended periods of time, a platform like Catfish could be an attractive alternative. With space for dozens of engineers and technicians in its main cabin, and workstations for them, the aircraft would also offer very different options for testing and evaluating the pod while in-flight. A North American Sabreliner business jet has also been used to test these pods in the past.

N33TR, a Rockwell Sabreliner 65 for Airborne Imaging returns to KJWY/Mid-Way regional Airport as " AIRBORNE33 " carrying one of the future F-22 pods.

It was at Nellis AFB testing the pod alongside RATT55/NT-43A, a radar test bed that regularly flies alongside B-2s. pic.twitter.com/kNADnga7H0

— 𝗦𝗥_𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 (@SR_Planespotter) July 1, 2024

The capability, in general, for Catfish to carry stores under its fuselage might open up additional possibilities for utilizing the aircraft in support of other testing efforts, if it hasn’t already.

Catfish would also be well suited to supporting testing of other elements of the Raptor 2.0 package. Under the current plan, the Air Force’s F-22s are also set to get a new integrated distributed infrared search and track (IRST) system called the Infrared Defensive System (IRDS).

IRST systems have seen a renaissance across the U.S. military in recent years, as well as elsewhere globally. IRSTs detect and track targets via their infrared emissions, making them particularly valuable for helping spot stealthy targets with features designed to reduce their radar cross-sections. The sensors are also immune to radio frequency electronic warfare jamming and operate passively, meaning they do not emit signals that could alert a target to the fact they are being tracked. IRSTs can also be used to cue or otherwise be linked to other sensors, including AESA radars. This data fusion can provide higher fidelity tracks of multiple targets, as well as improved situational awareness overall.

Increased demand for IRSTs has led to a commensurate increase in demand for testing using multiple platforms. This, in turn, has been a major component of a general uptick in U.S. military flight testing in recent years to support a variety of new, advanced programs.

Other elements of the Raptor 2.0 upgrade plan include new stealthy drop tanks, improvements to the jet’s stealthy features, radar capabilities, electronic warfare suite, and more, as you can read about in detail here.

At least a portion of the Raptor fleet is also set to receive modifications to enable them to act as airborne controllers for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones. The Air Force’s F-22s are set to be the service’s first tactical jets to be used in that role, though others will follow.

The F-22 upgrade work is reflective of current Air Force plans to keep the Raptors in service for decades to come. In 2024, the Air Force said it no longer had a firm retirement schedule for the fighters.

Raptors have been used in recent years as surrogates to support work on the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative, a component of which is Boeing’s F-47 sixth-generation fighter. As such, Catfish will have already been feeding into those developments, which are now firmly a top Air Force priority.

At the same time, Catfish is now 44 years old. Boeing 757s, in general, are increasingly disappearing from service globally as they become more complicated and cost-intensive to sustain. Especially with the work ongoing now on the F-47, it seems likely Boeing will start looking toward a new highly specialized testbed aircraft modified to reflect the particular physical geometry, unique avionics, and other features of the new fighter.

Similarly, the F-35 family also has a dedicated test jet, the Boeing 737-300-based Cooperative Avionics Testbed, nicknamed the CATbird. There are several other airliner and business jet-based testbeds flying globally today, though Catfish is certainly one of the largest and most visually distinctive. Improving digital simulation and modeling tools could allow for less reliance on surrogate testbed aircraft in the future, but they will in no way be eliminated.

China notably has something of a clone of Catfish based on a Russian-made Tupolev Tu-204C airliner, which itself was designed as an analog to the 757. The Chinese jet’s primary purpose has been supporting the development of the J-20 stealth fighter, the country’s closest answer to the F-22.

In the meantime, Boeing Catfish remains a very important part of continued work to improve and expand the capabilities of the F-22. This now extends to testing of specialized underwing pods for the Raptor.

Special thanks again to Jerod Harris for sharing his pictures of Catfish carrying the stealthy sensor pod with us.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post F-22’s ‘Catfish’ 757 Testbed Spotted Carrying Raptor’s New Infrared Sensor Pod appeared first on The War Zone.

With President Donald Trump proclaiming his desire to take Iran’s Kharg Island — whether he actually means it or not – we reached out to some former military commanders to get a sense of what it would take to seize and hold it and how telegraphing such a move could impact operations. The island, as we have noted in the past, is Iran’s main center of oil exportation, and a U.S. seizure would have tremendous military and economic impacts. An attempt to take it by force and hold it, as we have highlighted in prior reporting, would be an extremely risky operation, by all accounts.

Trump’s latest statements about taking Kharg Island came in the wake of the most intense round of tit-for-tat attacks between the U.S. and Iran since the ceasefire went into effect April 8. The U.S. launched waves of strikes across Iran, including firing what Trump said was 49 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles at Iranian targets. In response, Iran launched missiles and drones at U.S. bases in Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain.

Meanwhile, Iran claimed it shut the Strait of Hormuz completely after the new round of kinetic action while U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) insisted it remains “open for transit.”

Spoke with President Trump tonight as he oversaw the U.S. military strikes against Iran from the Situation Room.

The President told me he spoke directly with Iranian officials tonight who asked him to stop bombing.

49 Tomahawk missiles had been fired by the United States at… pic.twitter.com/s4WnsPTO4d

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) June 10, 2026

However, in the wake of yesterday’s back-and-forth strikes, Trump proclaimed his desire to seize Iran’s vital oil infrastructure, including Kharg Island.

“At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America,” Trump said on Truth Social.

The United States will be hitting Iran (Whose Navy, Air Force, Radar, Anti Aircraft, and all other forms of Defense, together with most its offensive capability, are GONE!), VERY HARD TONIGHT. At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other… pic.twitter.com/RPeL3khVrr

— Commentary Donald J. Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) June 11, 2026

A short while later, the president modified those remarks in an interview with Fox News.

“I don’t know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with you,” Trump later told the network. “You’d make a fortune, but I don’t know that America has the stomach, I think they’d like to see us come home.”

NOW: President Trump tells Fox and Friends his preference has always been to "take Kharg Island," but he doesn't think "America has the stomach" for it. pic.twitter.com/iWCOooqioP

— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) June 11, 2026

Located about 20 miles from the Iranian coastline, Kharg Island presents a daunting challenge, leaving troops trying to take it under threat from Iran’s remaining arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, drones, rocket artillery, and fast boats that can launch swarming attacks on ships, fire missiles, and lay mines. This is something we were among the first to point out, before the possibility of invading the island became a national news story.

There are also a number of islands in and around the Strait of Hormuz that could be used help put up a screen against shipping attacks etc. Also risky for obvious reasons. pic.twitter.com/0nolqdew9J

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) March 13, 2026

“It seems unusual that we would announce an intention to seize Kharg Island in advance,” retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel, former leader of U.S. Central Command, told us. “Military commanders always want to preserve the principle of surprise in any operation – it helps reduce risk and often times gives us the tactical edge.”

“In this case the president did not announce any specific details – which can preserve some operational flexibility,” Votel noted. “It may also be a part of a more elaborate communications strategy that is focused on getting the regime to understand they are running out of options and that we can and will do whatever we need to, militarily, to support diplomatic efforts and bring the conflict to a conclusion.”

“Seizing Kharg Island is a significant undertaking,” added Votel, now a Distinguished Military Fellow at the Middle East Institute. “Not only will it involve ground troops to actually control the terrain – but also tactical delivery means, air cover, a strike campaign to set the conditions and then all the resources to protect this force while they are on the Island. In addition – the force has to be sustained meaning we have to have a way to get them supplies, engineering capabilities, life support, evacuate casualties, and if necessary reinforce them with additional force.”

All these actions would be taken close enough to the Iranian coast to “potentially subject [assault forces] to missile and drone attacks,” the former CENTCOM commander noted. “Not impossible, but certainly not insignificant either.”

When we first spoke to Votel about this issue in March when stories first bubbled up about Trump threatening Kharg Island, he told us that “a battalion sized force of Marines or soldiers could probably do that. So you’re probably looking at 800 to 1,000 troops, kind of size, maybe a little bit smaller, probably not much larger than that.”

Plans for the U.S. military to try and capture the island “have been drawn up for months but continuously shelved because the operation was considered too risky,” a senior Pentagon official and two administration officials told CNN.

Speaking to us on Thursday, Chris Miller, who served as acting Defense Secretary at the end of Trump’s first administration, said it would take considerably more troops for such an operation than Votel first suggested.

“I would expect it would take an infantry brigade at a minimum,” said Miller, referring to a unit of between 3,000 to 5,000 troops. “I’d prefer two brigades and a lot of mobile air defense to protect from Shaheds and plenty of barrier material to make bunkers when artillery starts dropping in. Plus, obviously, significant air power to hit time-sensitive Iranian targets like artillery and missile batteries.”

An Iranian Shahed-136 One-Way-Attack drones reportedly flying over the sky of Kuwait in the early hours of this morning, June 3, 2026. pic.twitter.com/oUwbbilmzd

— Mehdi H. (@mhmiranusa) June 3, 2026

“It’s completely doable by our combat forces in the region,” added Miller, now founder and CEO of FPF Defense, a startup building a low-cost Shahed drone interceptor. “This is exactly the type of operation they are designed and optimized for. It’s not that heavy of a lift for them.”

Holding the island, if taken, won’t be easy, however, Miller posited. 

“The logistics would be challenging for us because it will be difficult to get resupply ships in under the Iranian defensive shield,” he explained. “And aerial resupply will be contested as well.”

Miller said he was not concerned that Trump told the world he wants Kharg Island.

“My assessment is the Iranian regime continues to misunderstand President Trump,” Miller said of his former boss. “I suspect the Iranians have already prepared for such an eventuality.”

Former Army Maj. Gen. Pat Donahoe, who retired in 2022 as commanding general of the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning in Columbus, said asking how Kharg Island can be taken “is the wrong question.”

“It’s not taking it, it’s holding it over time and enduring the slow bleed of casualties that comes with holding it,” noted Donahoe, now chief operating officer at Columbus State University in Columbus, Georgia.

“It’s Khe Sanh,” explained Donahoe, a reference to one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War, where about 6,000 Marines and their South Vietnamese counterparts held out at a base along the Laotian border against 20,000 North Vietnamese troops for nearly 80 days. 

“Sure we can grab it, but it puts us in range of all their stuff,” Donahoe said. “And we have to resupply it, etc. It’s dumb.”

The U.S. struck military targets on the island during Epic Fury, but Trump has stated he ordered all the oil infrastructure to be left untouched. Since the ceasefire, Iran has been preparing for a possible U.S. operation to take control of Kharg Island, CNN noted today.

“Iran laid traps and moved additional military personnel and air defenses there earlier this year, according to multiple people familiar with U.S. intelligence reporting on the issue,” the network reported. “The island already has layered defenses, and the Iranians moved additional shoulder-fired, surface-to-air guided missile systems known as MANPADs there.”

Plans for the US military to try and capture Kharg Island have been drawn up for months but continuously shelved because the operation was considered too risky, a senior Pentagon official and two administration officials told @alaynatreene @NatashaBertrandhttps://t.co/09STWDvMJg

— Haley Britzky (@halbritz) June 11, 2026

It remains to be seen whether Trump actually takes any action against Kharg or anywhere else on the ground in Iran. As we have previously noted, Trump has threatened to put boots on the ground to capture Iran’s highly enriched uranium and has constantly made grand military threats without following through. This includes repeated threats that he would order the destruction of Iran’s civilian infrastructure. Clearly these are meant to push the adversary to the negotiating table, but their potency has degraded as this has become increasingly clear.

Hours after raising the specter of seizing Kharg Island, the president seemingly reversed course, saying he was halting orders to bomb the Islamic Republic tonight due to a breakthrough in negotiations.

“Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening,” Trump stated on Truth Social. “Discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved, including the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others. The Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this Transaction is finalized — Time and place of the signing to be announced shortly.”

pic.twitter.com/l6yqxrGqr6

— DOW Rapid Response (@DOWResponse) June 11, 2026

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), however, reportedly pushed back on Trump’s negotiations claims.

“The Fars News Agency, associated with the Revolutionary Guards, quoted a ‘knowledgeable source close to the Iranian negotiating team’ who denied President Trump’s claim regarding an agreement on an initial deal, and stated that ‘no text of the initial memorandum of understanding with the United States has been approved,'” Axios reporter Barak Ravid stated on X.

סוכנות הידיעות פארס, המזוהה עם משמרות המהפכה, ציטטה ״מקור יודע דבר המקורב לצוות המשא ומתן האיראני״, שהכחיש את טענת הנשיא טראמפ בדבר הסכמה על הסכם ראשוני, ואמר כי "לא אושר שום נוסח של מזכר הבנות ראשוני עם ארצות הברית" https://t.co/I0LN2sxy25

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) June 11, 2026

Trump has made repeated claims that a deal was virtually done, when it never materialized and the Iranians certainly have their own strategy they are executing. Whatever comes next, whether it be more bombing, a peace deal, a continued blockade and strait closure, or even an invasion of Kharg Island, it’s unclear, and that may be just as true moment-to-moment for the President of the United States as it is to everyone else.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post What It Would Take To Seize Iran’s Kharg Island, According To Top Former Military Leaders appeared first on The War Zone.

The Russia Day concert, an annual tub-thumping Red Square performance, is canceled for the first time in 23 years. The marquee annual air show is canceled. The Victory Day parade was notably lower key. Ukraine’s expanding drone campaign is taking its toll on big, splashy Kremlin-backed events.

Trump says a deal with Iran could be signed in Europe over the weekend. Tehran cautions against speculation.

Geordie Greig, who was close to David Hockney for more than 50 years, interviewed him countless times, sat for him and drove round the Hollywood Hills with him, pays tribute to his witty and wonderful friend

© Geordie Greig

Two suspects in a corruption scandal that has shaken Ukraine and cut close to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke of a prominent lawmaker as someone who could advance their interests and protect cash flows, audio recordings obtained by Schemes reveal. The lawmaker and suspects deny any wrongdoing.

Steven Spielberg’s alien conspiracy thriller looks great and boasts a dazzling Emily Blunt performance… but are its final 40 minutes really meant to be so goofy? Adam White digs into **MAJOR SPOILER** territory to unpack a movie that left him feeling cold

© Universal Pictures

Despite the collapse of European fighter jet venture, there is optimism about the future of Europe's strategic autonomy.

A chain of sexual violence that Britain built, France refined and Israel inherited is being used against Palestinians.

Israeli zone extends into Lebanon's maritime territory, raising fears that it could become a long-term 'resource grab'.

Matt Reisener, senior national-security adviser at the Center for Maritime Strategy, talks to RFE/RL about why diplomacy and military pressure are likely to continue, what Iran and the United States each believes it has to gain from talks, and why any agreement may actually hinge on Israel.

Across a career built on lyrical introspection, Death Cab for Cutie frontman Ben Gibbard has rarely shied away from emotional candour. The indie rocker speaks to Annabel Nugent about growing up, resisting the safety of nostalgia – and why he doesn’t like the term ‘divorce album’

© Invision/AP

As Hezbollah's future is unclear, what role can Amal, Lebanon's other major Shia party, play?

Operators of the C-17 Globemaster III have been reaching out to Boeing about possibly restarting the product line, and the company has been “encouraged” by these engagements. Separately, Congress recently directed the U.S. Air Force to prepare a formal briefing on the feasibility of acquiring new Globemaster IIIs. The Air Force’s C-17 fleet is critical for U.S. power projection globally. At the same time, a succession of crises in recent years has put serious strain on these aircraft, and questions have already been raised about the viability of the current plan to keep them flying through 2075.

The House Committee on Armed Services added the requirement for the C-17 production restart briefing to a report accompanying the latest draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), last week. The Air Force took delivery of its last Globemaster III in 2013, and has some 222 of these airlifters in service today. The air arms of Australia, Canada, India, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom also have smaller fleets of these airlifters. Three more of these aircraft are operated under the Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) initiative, a multi-national arrangement with several European members, as well as the United States. Boeing shuttered the C-17 line entirely in 2015.

“The committee recognizes that the existing C-17 fleet continues to bear significant operational demands supporting combatant commander requirements, humanitarian assistance missions, and global mobility operations,” the provision in the House Committee on Armed Services’ report notes. “The committee is concerned that future operational demands may place additional strain on the existing C-17 fleet.”

“Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2027, assessing the feasibility of restarting the production line for the C-17 aircraft,” it adds.

The committee wants the Air Force’s briefing to at least include the following:

• “An assessment of the technical and industrial feasibility of restarting the C-17 production line, including the status of tooling, supplier base viability, workforce availability, and potential reconstitution costs.”
• “An estimate of the timeline required to reestablish production and deliver the first newly produced aircraft.”
• “A cost estimate for restarting the production line and procuring additional aircraft, including options for limited procurement and multi-year procurement.”
• “An evaluation of alternative approaches to increasing strategic airlift capacity, including service life extension programs, modernization of existing aircraft, procurement of commercial derivative cargo aircraft, and expansion of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.”
• “An assessment of potential international partner interest in participating in or contributing to a restarted production line.”

TWZ subsequently reached out to Boeing to ask about the company’s current position on rebooting C-17 production.

“Our goal is to help our customers be successful, and we work with them to develop innovative solutions to meet their mission needs, including development and production partnerships,” a Boeing spokesperson told us this week. “We are proud of our continued support for the unique, mission-proven capabilities that the C-17 Globemaster III delivers to the U.S. Air Force and eight allied nation partners.”

At the Paris Air Show last year, Turbo Sjogren, Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Global Services-Government Services, had told Shephard Defense that talks with an unnamed country about a possible C-17 production restart were in their “early infancy.”

“It is a very extraordinary effort to do” and is “reflective of the utility of the aircraft,” he also said at the time, according to Shephard.

Boeing has also now said that it is always willing to work to better understand the requirements and needs of its customers. Any talk about the prospect of restarting C-17 production would also have to be viewed in the broader context of the Air Force’s still-evolving requirements for the Next Generation Air Lift (NGAL) program. The service’s current NGAL plans envision a single aircraft replacing the very different C-17 and C-5 Galaxy fleets, as you can read more about here.

TWZ also reached out to the U.S. Air Force about the recently requested briefing.

It is unclear what it might cost to get the C-17 line restarted and what the unit price of these new-production aircraft would be in the end. There are various factors at play, including whether Boeing retains any relevant tooling, the knowledge base of its current workforce, the state of third-party supply chains, and the availability of physical space to build the airplanes. Back in 2019, the company sold off the facilities in Long Beach, California, where it built the original run of Globemaster IIIs.

More than a decade ago, the RAND Corporation did conduct a detailed, independent analysis that explored options for resuming production of the baseline C-17A, a new C-17B, and a significantly revised “fuel efficient” C-17FE derivative.

The C-17B was “a variant Boeing has proposed that adds centerline landing gear, a tire deflation/inflation system, higher-thrust engines, advanced flaps, and an advanced situational awareness and countermeasures system,” according to RAND’s report. The C-17FE derivative “would have a narrower fuselage, up-rated engines, a double-element flap system, winglets, a longer loading ramp, a shorter cargo door, and a modified horizontal tail.”

RAND said that it could cost between $2.1 and $2.7 billion in 2011 dollars to begin making C-17A models again after a pause, depending on how much tooling Boeing retained. The cost ranges would be $4.6 to $6.4 billion for new production of the improved C-17B version, and $6.2 billion to $7 billion to start building the C-17FE derivative. Billions more would be required to actually procure the aircraft, with unit prices being highly dependent on the total size of the production, as outlined in the table below. If nothing else has changed, these cost projections would still be significantly higher today just due to inflation.

As an aside here, RAND published a similar assessment of the options for restarting production of the F-22 Raptor in 2011. That report factored heavily into a study the Air Force subsequently delivered to Congress on that topic back in 2017, which you can read more about here.

Foreign participation in new production of C-17s could help defray costs, and is one of the points the House Armed Services Committee specifically wants the Air Force to address in its briefing. As TWZ noted last year after Turbo Sjogren made comments at the Paris Air Show, Boeing’s discussions at that point might not have been with the U.S. government. Earlier in 2025, then-Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba had expressed interest in buying Globemaster IIIs, raising immediate questions about where those aircraft might come from.

It should be noted here that the U.S. Air Force’s C-17s have received various upgrades over the years, and the service continues to move ahead with other plans to improve their performance and expand their capabilities. This includes the installation of 3D-printed microvanes on the fuselage, which offer a very minor reduction in drag (approximately one percent), but that translates into real reductions in fuel consumption. All Air Force C-17s are expected to have this feature by the end of next year. Communications and data-sharing upgrades have also been a major focus area across all of the Air Force’s airlift and tanker fleets.

Boeing is now under contract for a more extensive upgrade of the flight decks on Air Force C-17s. The company says this will aid in “resolving avionics obsolescence” and integrate new open systems architectures to make it easier to add new and improved capabilities and functionality in the future.

The prospect of a re-engining effort for the Globemaster III fleet has also been raised in the past, but the Air Force downplayed the value of doing so earlier this year.

When it comes to discussions about restarting C-17 production, another key factor is the lack of immediate alternative options. There is really no other aircraft in this class in production now in the United States or anywhere else in the West. Airbus has long positioned its turboprop-powered A400M as sitting in a capability space between Lockheed Martin’s C-130 family and the C-17. Embraer’s KC-390 Millennium design, which is also offered as an aerial refueling tanker, has generally been pitched as a jet-powered competitor to the C-130. China’s Y-20 and Russia’s Il-76 are really the only in-production analogs on any level to the C-17 globally.

The House Armed Services Committee has now also asked the Air Force to speak to the possibility of buying “commercial derivative cargo aircraft” and/or an “expansion of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet,” or CRAF, to help bolster airlift capacity. The CRAF is an arrangement by which the U.S. military can call upon commercial airlines and charter companies to help move cargo and personnel, which you can learn more about here.

A key issue here is that the C-17 is specifically designed for tactical operations right at the tactical edge. This includes the ability to bring combat-ready forces to far-flung locations without the need for an established airfield. Additional commercial alternatives could still be utilized in rear areas to help free up C-17s for more demanding missions and otherwise relieve stress on the Globemaster III fleet.

Questions have been increasingly raised about the survivability of the C-17 itself, especially in the context of a future high-end fight, as the threat ecosystem continues to expand and evolve. The Air Force has made clear that it is working to find new ways to bolster the defensive capabilities of all of its existing airlifters, as well as its tanker fleets, and that this is a key consideration in the evolving NGAL requirements.

TWZ has long been sounding the alarm on the need for more survivable cargo planes and tankers. The Air Force already has decades’ worth of experimental work and studies on concepts for stealthy cargo aircraft and tankers, as well as non-stealthy ones with blended-wing-body (BWB) planforms, under its belt. Over the years, several companies have publicly put forward prospective designs that could be relevant for NGAL, as well.

When any new platform developed under NGAL actually enters service remains to be seen. The stated plan the Air Force has put forward to date would see those new aircraft replacing its C-5s first, with C-17s flying through 2075. By that point, the Globemaster III, as a type, will have been in service for 80 years.

“The C-17 is the most amazing airplane ever made. I have a lot of time in it, so I can say that. We have asked it to do a lot of things, and it’s done more than we ever planned for when we bought that airplane,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. “It has performed flawlessly, but it’s getting old too.”

Sonkiss is Deputy Commander of Air Mobility Command (AMC). 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.

“I cannot have a gap in my strategic airlift forces, and we’re working forward on the NGAL to combine the view of the C-5 and the C-17 fleet and figure out what the next strategic airlifter needs to be. That conversation, in my book, can’t happen enough, or can’t happen fast enough,” she added at the roundtable in February. “We have to get after what next looks like, and we can’t wait until we’re shoveling it into the boneyard before we get to that discussion.”

Whether the Air Force’s future airlift plans also include buying new-production C-17s remains to be seen. For its part, Boeing does not appear to have ruled out the possibility just yet.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Boeing “Encouraged” By C-17 Production Restart Discussions appeared first on The War Zone.

Norwegian missile-maker Kongsberg has finalized its acquisition of a majority stake in Zone 5 Technologies, bringing under its umbrella the U.S. start-up’s Rusty Dagger low-cost cruise missile, among others. With both those weapons already moving into large-scale production, the two companies are making the case for combining Kongsberg’s stealthy Joint Strike Missile (JSM) cruise missiles in operational scenarios. Zone 5 has also now confirmed that the Rusty Dagger, which is already being supplied to Ukraine, is now cleared for use on four different types of fighter aircraft, including the F-16.

At the ILA Berlin airshow yesterday, where TWZ was in attendance, officials from the two companies announced that Kongsberg has now formally acquired a 90 percent stake in Zone 5. California-based Zone 5 will continue to operate as an independent subsidiary under the Norwegian contractor. As well as discussing the industrial acquisition, the officials provided details of how the Rusty Dagger fits into the new-look portfolio, and updates on how that program is progressing.

Founded in 2011, Zone 5 is one of an emerging class of defense companies gaining prominence for developing low-cost, rapidly deployable capabilities. In many ways, they represent the inverse of traditional defense contractors, favoring speed, scalability, and cost efficiency over highly customized, high-priced systems.

Kongsberg first announced the acquisition in December, with executives noting that buying a stake in Zone 5 offered the fastest path to offering lower-cost missiles that still deliver meaningful combat capability, especially in terms of bringing these to the European market.

“What we’re doing here is that we’re combining Kongsberg’s niche, exquisite technologies with a company very capable of designing for cost efficiency and mass production,” explained Thomas Akers, founder and CEO of Kongsberg.

KONGSBERG announced today that it has closed the acquisition of US missile company Zone 5 Technologies LLC, following approval by US regulatory authorities.

https://t.co/meRxfmYHH6 pic.twitter.com/EXVbYhDers

— KONGSBERG (@kongsbergasa) June 10, 2026

As to why Kongsberg didn’t choose to develop its own equivalent to the Rusty Dagger, Harald Aarø, Kongsberg’s executive vice president for business development and strategy, provided the following answer:

“Technically, could we be capable of doing it? Yes, but we are not as capable, as we will probably spend a longer time, and perhaps not strike as smart solutions,” Aarø said. “That doesn’t mean that our engineers aren’t just as smart. Our engineers are just as smart, but on a different sports field, so to speak.”

Aarø also described how the specific combination of the Rusty Dagger and the JSM makes for “a very effective future strike solution.” Namely, the Rusty Dagger provides cost-effective but still highly capable standoff strike, while the more exquisite JSM comes with a heftier price tag but offers a greater chance of making it through to even heavily defended targets, on account of its sophisticated guidance and low-observable characteristics.

As well as being launched from a pylon on a fighter, the Rusty Dagger can be configured for palletized employment from a cargo aircraft, reflecting growing interest in this type of munition employment. It can also be surface-launched both on land and at sea.

According to Tom Kanewske, Zone 5’s chief strategy officer: “What’s interesting about our missile is that the same base, light cruise missile is field retrofittable for all employment modes, and that puts us in a very unique space, in that a country and their [armed] services are able to purchase the same munition and field retrofit for that to be surface launched, whether from land or the deck of a ship, or pylon launched from a fighter aircraft, or palletized.”

Since larger numbers of Rusty Daggers can be launched in any given scenario, they can overwhelm enemy air defenses and improve the chances of success.

According to Kanewske, Rusty Dagger and JSM “offer a weapon pairing that truly no other missiles in the world do.”

While the JSM can be carried internally in the F-35, the same is not currently the case for the Rusty Dagger, although Kanewske said that this is “something that is of keen interest to the [U.S. military] services and several of our international partners.”

When it comes to utilizing the Rusty Dagger and JSM together in a combat scenario, Kanewske noted the possibility of integrating capabilities that would allow the Rusty Dagger to offer “cooperative behaviors” with the JSM. This reflects a growing trend toward leveraging artificial intelligence to help make all munitions more effective and survivable, something that has been demonstrated via Golden Horde and follow-on programs.

Both missiles fly at high-subsonic speeds, the Rusty Dagger being able to strike targets at a range of 250 miles, according to Zone 5, while the JSM has a range of more than 215 miles.

In one highlighted scenario, F-35s could penetrate closer to the target, with their JSMs carried internally to preserve their low-observable features. Meanwhile, much larger numbers of Rusty Daggers could be pylon-launched from fighters, and dropped in palletized form out of the cargo holds of transports, from outside of the range of hostile air defenses.

Kanewske confirmed that, this year, its first year of production, “well above 1,000 units for Rusty Dagger” will be completed, including for the U.S. Air Force, as the AGM-188, under the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program. The Air Force’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year laid out plans to buy nearly 28,000 FAMM munitions over the next five years.

Last month, the Pentagon laid out plans to acquire at least 10,000 lower-cost cruise missiles over the next three years, as part of a broader strategy to dramatically bolster its stockpiles of standoff strike munitions and prepare the industrial base to sustain those inventories going forward. This is seen as especially critical for supporting the demands of future high-end fights, such as one in the Pacific against China, and doing so in a cost-effective manner.

The Rusty Dagger has so far been cleared for use from four different types of fighter aircraft, Kanewske said. One of these is the F-16, which used the weapon in end-to-end live-fire trials at the Eglin Test and Training Range in Florida earlier this year. Another platform may be the A-4, with a contractor-operated example of the attack jet having been used in company trials. Then there is the Ukrainian Air Force, which is using the Rusty Dagger, under the Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program, although the specific platforms have not been disclosed. Any of the MiG-29 Fulcrum, Su-25 Frogfoot, and Su-27 Flanker are likely candidates — as well as its own F-16s.

A series of unverified photos, first published by Russian sources, showing purported parts of Rusty Dagger missiles retrieved after being used by Ukraine:

It appears that the AGM-188A “Rusty Dagger” cruise missile has undergone field testing in Ukraine.

Russian sources are publishing photos of an unknown 8-element CRPA antenna. On the back side of the unit there is a circuit board with a large heatsink, which carries the CAGE code… pic.twitter.com/phZeOJfHJ0

— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱△ (@TheDeadDistrict) June 7, 2026

In the case of the F-16, Kanewske said that only 72 hours were required to integrate the Rusty Dagger on the jet during the trials at Eglin.

“We’re the only affordable mass munition that is currently on contract with an export international customer, and we are actively involved with them at this time,” Kanewske said, clearly referring to Ukraine.

Zone 5 is currently under U.S. Air Force contract for both FAMM and ERAM, and is also under contract with the U.S. Army for its Low-Cost Containerized Missile (LCCM) program, and for the U.S. Navy as part of its Coalition Heterogeneous Affordable Offensive Strike (CHAOS) program, which seeks a low-cost anti-ship cruise missile to provide to partner countries. Both LCCM and CHAOS involve surface-launched missiles.

As well as the ability to rapidly scale up production and a relatively low unit cost, the Rusty Dagger brings with it an open-architecture concept, applying to both software and hardware. This means new, sovereign features and capabilities can be introduced at short notice by customers. In the past, an operator might have to wait up to five years for unique subcomponents to be integrated in a similar weapon, Kanewske contended. With the Rusty Dagger, Zone 5 has demonstrated that this can be achieved in under 12 months.

Then, when it comes to producing the missile at mass, rather than having to “make that factory bigger and bigger,” Kanewske explained that the company offers a franchise model “that allows us to roughly parachute in the design, the equipment, the tooling, the fixtures, the quality control, so that countries can drop in their own subsystem capabilities, and we can achieve manufacturing at pace and at scale.”

Speaking in Berlin yesterday, Kongsberg’s Harald Aarø confirmed that Germany is a particular target for this franchise model, including for the Rusty Dagger. He identified Germany as having “probably the best manufacturing capabilities on this planet,” making it an obvious choice for a European manufacturing footprint.

Reflecting on the changing security situation on the continent since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Aarø said that now is “a natural time to start looking at a production site in Europe,” providing nations there with national sovereign capabilities based on the Kongsberg/Zone 5 joint portfolio.

Kongsberg’s acquisition of a majority stake in Zone 5 evidences a broader shift in Western defense planning toward affordable, mass-produced precision weapons that can be fielded at scale alongside more sophisticated strike systems.

The war in Ukraine has exposed the harsh reality that Europe needs far more standoff weapons than it currently possesses, and it needs them at a price point that allows stockpiles to be measured in the thousands rather than the dozens. Rusty Dagger is very much indicative of a new generation of systems designed around that requirement, prioritizing low-cost mass production over the exquisite but scarce munitions that have traditionally dominated Western arsenals.

As conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East continue to highlight the operational value of low-cost, long-range munitions, demand for capabilities such as the Rusty Dagger is likely to grow. In an increasingly crowded marketplace, Kongsberg and Zone 5 will hope they can leverage their partnership, the Rusty Dagger’s combat use in Ukraine, and the potential to harness its capabilities in combination with the JSM, to build on the missile’s success.

At the same time, Kongsberg’s interest in establishing European production reflects a wider recognition across the continent that long-range strike capacity, industrial resilience, and the ability to sustain missile inventories are becoming increasingly important elements of national and collective defense.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Kongsberg Bets On High-Low Cruise Missile Mix With JSM And Rusty Dagger appeared first on The War Zone.