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 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.

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.

You can barely see… https://t.co/kaNB5FCdJ5 pic.twitter.com/JprSF5ykXW

— jadams (@jadamzs) June 7, 2026

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.

Otherwise, TWZ has previously laid out significant questions about the general feasibility of actually using the VC-25B Bridge aircraft in the Air Force One role, given the kinds of modifications that should be required for this demanding mission. Potential operational security concerns have been raised about using the gifted jet as a presidential aircraft, as well.

“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.”

“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.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post VC-25B Air Force One “Bridge” Aircraft Now Wears Trump’s Preferred Red, White, and Blue Paint Job appeared first on The War Zone.

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.

Aviation photographer Alessandro Ledda, who goes by Aerographist on Instagram, caught the KC-135 in question at RAF Mildenhall yesterday. The base is a major hub for U.S. Air Force operations in the United Kingdom. It has been utilized to support recent operations against Iran, as have other RAF facilities.

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.

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.'”

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.

“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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

https://t.co/whZtfocLFb

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) March 13, 2026

“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.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post KC-135 Tanker Spotted With New Satellite Communications Antenna appeared first on The War Zone.

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!

The post A-10 Cockpit And Walk-Around Tour With A Warthog Weapons Instructor appeared first on The War Zone.

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.

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.

In terms of “preserving operational expertise,” Hamadeh points directly to the A-10’s recent combat record in the Middle East, including its role in providing close air support during the recovery of two downed F-15E aircrew from Iran during Operation Epic Fury, and its work securing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime chokepoint.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

For more than four decades, the A-10C Demonstration Team performed dramatic displays around the world, but it ceased operations at the end of the 2024 season. At the time, the 355th Wing at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base said the decision was a part of the Air Force’s divestment of the Warthog.

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.

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.

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.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Congress Throws A-10 Warthog Another Lifeline appeared first on The War Zone.

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.

“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.

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.

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.”

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.

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].”

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.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post USAF Wants “MQ-9 Next” Reaper Replacement To Be Modular, Cheap appeared first on The War Zone.

The U.S. Air Force is already moving to lay groundwork for fielding the replacement of its GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster bomb. In the process, it has also revealed that the follow-on Next Generation Penetrator (NGP) has now been designated as the GBU-76/B. The service also has plans to continue upgrading the MOP, which became a household name after the first-ever combat use of the bombs against deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities during Operation Midnight Hammer last year.

“The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Armament Directorate, Attack Division (AFLCMC/EBD) is conducting market research for an industry analysis of capabilities,” according to a contracting notice posted online yesterday. “AFLCMC/EBD is seeking to award a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support all aspects of research & development, production, testing, and delivery of the Next Generation Penetrator (NGP), GBU-76/B weapon system.”

“All interested vendors shall submit a response demonstrating their capability to support the design, production, testing, and bed down of components and specific activities related to the development, performance and sustainment of the GBU-76/B weapon system,” the notice adds. It also stresses that information is only being gathered currently for “planning purposes.”

The notice lists a wide range of “tasks that may be pertinent to this effort.” This includes fuze development and production, the development and testing of the explosive filler, the design and integration of an “Alternate Navigation System” to help guide the bomb to its target, and integration of all components into complete bombs. The full list is reproduced below.

As TWZ regularly notes, fuzing is a critical element of the design of deep-penetrating munitions. These weapons are designed to be employed against targets that are underground or otherwise present inherent challenges when it comes to establishing their exact location and layout. As such, advanced fuzes that ‘count’ floors to determine depth and/or sense the ‘voids’ of underground mission spaces help maximize the damage from a weapon like MOP or NGP. These fuzes also just need to be highly reliable in order to function after impacting very hard surfaces at high speeds and then drilling even further down into them.

The Air Force has also said in past NGP contracting notices that it “will consider novel, demonstrated, or fielded Guidance, Navigation & Control (GNC) technologies with viability for integration into a warhead guidance system design that can achieve repeatable, high accuracy performance in GPS aided, degraded, and/or denied environments.” The MOP uses a GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS) guidance package contained within its tail unit.

Being able to reliably hit a very specific impact point is also essential for bunker buster bombs, especially ones designed for very deep penetration. During Operation Midnight Hammer, Air Force B-2 bombers dropped six MOPs in rapid succession on each of two ventilation shafts – 12 bombs in total – at Iran’s Fordow nuclear site in order to drill down into the facility below.

Many details about the planned design of the NGP remain unknown, including its expected total weight. The Air Force has previously said that the bomb’s “warhead” is set to tip the scales at around 22,000 pounds, but the complete weapon could be heavier. The contracting notice from yesterday says prospective vendors need to show general understanding of “tasks associated with the lifecycle of Large Penetrator Warhead Systems weighing approximately 20,000 to 30,000 lbs.” The MOP is a 30,000-pound-class bomb that includes a BLU-127/B warhead with a nominal weight of approximately 27,125 pounds.

The GBU-76/B could incorporate other advanced or novel features. The Air Force has raised the possibility of a powered design offering extended reach in past discussions about MOP replacements. An add-on rocket booster could also help further improve the weapon’s penetration characteristics.

As an aside, the B-2 is the only aircraft currently certified to employ MOPs operationally, and each of the bombers can carry just two of the bombs at a time. Making the GBU-76/B lighter and/or smaller than MOP could be beneficial for future integration on the B-21 Raider. The Raider is smaller than the B-2, and is only expected to be able to carry a single MOP at a time. The smaller payload capacity of each B-21, in general, is also set to be offset by a far larger fleet size of at least 100 bombers, and likely more. Only 21 B-2s were ever built, and 19 of them remain in service today.

In line with evolving plans to actually field the new bunker busters, the NGP contracting notice the Air Force put out yesterday also asks prospective vendors to outline their ability to provide other related support. This includes supplying mission planning and weaponeering software, training assets and procedures to go along with them, and just the means of getting the bombs from point A to point B and then into waiting aircraft. The Air Force already has specialized equipment to train ground personnel on the movement and loading of MOPs on B-2 bombers, including a full-size mock bomb bay.

When the Air Force expects to start fielding its first operational GBU-76/Bs is unclear. The Air Force’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request says that “Next Generation Penetrator Prototype Demonstration including Modeling and Simulation, Design, Product Development, and Test” is set to wrap up at the end of Fiscal Year 2028. It also says, unsurprisingly, that the goal of current prototyping efforts is to demonstrate an “Air to Ground penetrator with equivalent or better MOP performance.”

In September 2025, Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) announced it had received a contract for work on NGP to include the production and delivery of full-scale prototypes. ARA also said at that time that “Boeing will drive tail kit development and support all-up-round integration.” Boeing is the prime contractor behind the MOP.

The start of fielding of the GBU-76/B is also unlikely to lead to the immediate retirement of GBU-57/B, and the Air Force is continuing to work on improving that bomb’s capabilities in the interim. The service’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget proposal outlines plans for additional upgrades to the MOP’s tail kit and fuze. After Operation Midnight Hammer, the Pentagon also moved to help the Air Force replenish and potentially expand its stockpile of GBU-57/Bs. How many MOPs have been procured to date is unknown. Boeing has reportedly expanded its capacity to make the bombs in the past, but total production is still understood to be relatively limited.

The budget documents also note that MOP funding has been supporting the construction of a new test target, referred to as MS-34, further details about which are not provided. While significant weaponeering work can be done today in the virtual space, testing against real-world targets continues to be an important aspect of the development of munitions, in general. They are especially important for validating the capabilities of highly specialized weapons like the MOP and NGP. You can read more about this in the context of the development of MOP here.

The ability to defeat very deeply buried and otherwise hardened targets continues to be a top priority for the U.S. military, broadly speaking. Though successfully executed, Operation Midnight Hammer underscored challenges just in holding relevant targets in Iran at risk. There have been reports in the past that some Iranian nuclear facilities might be beyond the reach even of MOP.

Other U.S. competitors and adversaries globally, including China, Russia, and North Korea, already have extensive subterranean and other hardened military infrastructure, including underground naval and air bases, as well as missile silos and command and control bunkers. Those target sets are only continuing to expand, particularly in China, where there has been major work to construct vast new fields of silos for intercontinental ballistic missiles and hardened command and control facilities in recent years.

This is also driving U.S. development of a new deep-penetrating nuclear bunker buster bomb, currently referred to as the Nuclear Deterrent System-Air-delivered (NDS-A). The Air Force’s stockpile of MOPs currently offers the only real conventional alternative to those weapons in many cases. A nuclear weapon would still be required to realistically destroy certain especially deeply buried facilities.

Fielding the NGP bunker buster, now designated GBU-76/B, in the coming years will give commanders a new conventional option for prosecuting strikes on hardened facilities very deep underground.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Next Generation Penetrator Bomb Slated To Replace MOP Has Been Designated GBU-76 appeared first on The War Zone.