News Desk

The U.S. Air Force is looking for a new family of aerial targets that can replicate an extremely broad range of airborne threats, from small drones operating in swarms to stealth fighters, large uncrewed aircraft, strategic bombers, and airborne early warning aircraft.

The service wants these targets to be realistic enough to challenge modern sensors and weapons, but inexpensive and simple enough that they can be routinely risked, and even destroyed, during testing.

The requirements are laid out in a new Air Force Request for Information (RFI), which calls for a family of systems capable of representing the “full range of airborne threats, spanning from inexpensive ‘hobby drones’ to the most advanced adversary fighter and large-scale aircraft.” Responses are due September 28.

The service says the next-generation systems should be sufficiently inexpensive and straightforward to manufacture that they can be “treated as attritable or expendable when required.”

That represents a significant departure from the economics of certain existing aerial targets. The Air Force’s QF-16 full-scale aerial target, for example, is based on a converted fighter aircraft, and can be crewed when required. It solves the problem of putting a full-sized, high-performance target in the air, but consuming an F-16 for a test is fundamentally different from losing a purpose-built target designed to be produced and expended in quantity. The service also uses purpose-designed drones of many kinds as targets, as we will come back to later.

Test Missile Fired at Boeing’s QF-16

The new effort is also deliberately open to approaches outside the traditional defense-industrial base.

The RFI calls for industry proposals “including commercial, modified commercial, dual-use, and non-developmental solutions.” The government is “particularly interested in non-traditional, commercially derived, or dual-use solutions” that can offer advantages in “cost, scalability, and simplicity over legacy systems.”

That language suggests the Air Force is not necessarily looking for another clean-sheet aircraft program. Instead, it appears interested in exploiting existing commercial technologies, manufacturing methods, propulsion systems, electronics and other readily available components to produce targets in significantly larger numbers and at lower cost.

The proposed systems would cover several distinct threat categories, with requirements changing substantially depending on what the target is intended to represent.

For advanced fighter aircraft, the Air Force wants targets capable of “supersonic capabilities (up to and exceeding Mach 1.6 at 40,000 feet)” along with high-agility and high-G combat maneuvers.

Reflecting the need to mimic more advanced threats, including stealthy ones, the Air Force says the new targets should also provide precise low-observable radar cross-section profiles, multispectral infrared signatures, active radio-frequency emissions, and integrated electronic-attack capabilities.

That could be particularly important for testing weapons and sensors against fifth-generation-type threats — and what might come after. A conventional subscale target can reproduce aspects of an aircraft’s flight behavior, but it does not necessarily reproduce the radar, infrared, electromagnetic or electronic-warfare environment presented by a sophisticated combat aircraft.

The Air Force has been trying for years now to acquire new full-size target drones, or ones that can at least mimic real fast-moving tactical jets. As in the new RFI, the goal has also been for those drones to have stealth and other more modern features, or the ability to simulate those capabilities with a high degree of fidelity. So far, however, despite the launch of programs such as the 5th Generation Aerial Target (5GAT), progress in this regard has been extremely limited.

A different set of requirements are outlined for targets representing C-130-sized multi-engine aircraft.

Here, the RFI calls for “matching the physical scale, slow subsonic flight envelopes, and propeller or turbofan propulsion characteristics of larger multi-engine aircraft.”

Those targets would need representative physical volume as well as basic RF and IR emissions and realistic radar returns. The Air Force specifically says these characteristics are intended to help verify missile-seeker guidance and assess warhead lethality against large-airframe targets.

For still larger aircraft, such as strategic bombers and AEW&C platforms, the emphasis shifts toward physical scale and signatures. The service wants targets capable of reproducing the “massive physical dimensions, multi-spectral thermal signatures, and heavy-aircraft radar strategic threats” associated with these aircraft.

That requirement highlights one of the limitations of today’s subscale aerial targets. A small drone can be made to generate a particular radar return, but there are important differences between artificially reproducing a signature and putting a target into the test environment that physically occupies something approaching the volume and presentation of the aircraft being simulated.

The proposed family would also encompass multiple classes of uncrewed aircraft.

For Group 5 UAVs, the targets should be capable of operating at altitudes up to 50,000 feet.

Group 3 and Group 4 targets would need to fly at approximately Mach 0.5 to 0.8 and maneuver at between 3 and 6 Gs.

At the other end of the spectrum, Group 1 and Group 2 targets should fly below 150 knots and be capable of operating in swarms.

The inclusion of swarm operations reflects the fact that the Air Force wants at least part of the new target family to be able to reproduce the massed airborne threat that small uncrewed systems can present.

That could allow weapons and sensors to be evaluated against scenarios involving numerous inexpensive targets rather than a single isolated aircraft.

The Air Force has operated remote-controlled aerial targets for decades, but many of its existing systems represent very different approaches.

The BQM-167A, which entered service in 2007, is a subsonic subscale target roughly 20 feet long with an 11-foot wingspan. It is inexpensive relative to a fighter-sized aircraft, but its physical dimensions are nowhere near those of many of the aircraft the Air Force may need to replicate.

At the other end of the scale, converted QF-16s provide a full-scale target with genuine fighter performance, making them useful for testing against fourth-generation fighter-type threats.

But a converted F-16 is expensive to operate, cannot be expended in large numbers, and increasingly falls short when it comes to replicating a fifth-generation stealth aircraft, let alone a strategic bomber, an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft, or a mass of inexpensive drones.

The new RFI appears designed to bridge that gap, and potentially eliminate it altogether by creating multiple classes of targets optimized for different threats.

Significantly, the effort put the requirement for targets to reproduce the characteristics that modern weapons and sensors use to find and defeat aircraft in the foreground.

That suggests the targets are intended to support testing across the entire kill chain, from initial detection and tracking through seeker acquisition, guidance, and terminal engagement.

There is also a strong emphasis on simplicity and scalability.

A target that costs almost as much as the system being tested is of limited value if the objective is to conduct repeated, realistic engagements. A target that can be manufactured cheaply enough to be routinely expended, meanwhile, would enable much more aggressive testing and larger numbers of test scenarios.

While it is relatively straightforward to produce a low-cost drone, the challenge will be producing one that can fly above 40,000 feet at supersonic speed, perform high-G maneuvers, generate controlled low-observable radar signatures, reproduce multispectral IR characteristics and conduct electronic attack.

The Air Force is therefore effectively asking industry to find the sweet spot where high-fidelity threat representation and mass-produced affordability intersect.

If it succeeds, the resulting target fleet could look very different from today, with the Air Force employing a family of relatively inexpensive systems that can be configured to represent almost any fixed-wing aircraft that might be encountered.

As well as training, the same family of drones could support development and evaluation of radars, infrared sensors, electronic warfare systems, air defense networks, and other technologies against a much broader range of realistic airborne threats.

The breadth of the requirement is noteworthy. If it achieves its goals, it could allow the Air Force to replicate large numbers of future Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs) as well as simulating swarms of small drones and barrages of one-way attack drones, reflecting the expected scale and diversity of future air warfare.

The new requirement ultimately calls for targets that can reproduce the speed, maneuverability, size, radar signature, infrared signature, electromagnetic emissions and electronic warfare capabilities of an increasingly diverse range of aircraft, while being cheap enough that losing them is an acceptable cost of testing and training.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Final voting for the 78th Emmys is now underway, which means The Envelope is bidding adieu to the TV awards season — and already gearing up for the film one.

This year, I’ll be in Venice while columnist Glenn Whipp heads to Telluride and movies editor Joshua Rothkopf leads our team at the Toronto International Film Festival. You can catch a daily roundup of our TIFF coverage, including exclusive photo and video highlights from our studio activation, right here in the Envelope Sept. 11-14.

Until then, enjoy highlights from this week’s issue below, and Glenn’s last newsletter of Emmy season on Friday.

Digital cover: Dakota Fanning

(David Urbanke / For The Times)

This week’s digital coverline is inspired by Dakota Fanning’s busy, busy schedule — with two Emmy-nominated shows, a film with sister Elle in the can, an Apple TV thriller in production and more — and, among her many credits, the one fans still bring up to her the most: “Man on Fire.”

“When people ask, ‘Do you even remember doing “Man on Fire”?’ I’m like, ‘Yeah, of course I do. What do you mean?’” she tells contributor Kara Warner of Tony Scott’s 2004 thriller, starring Denzel Washington as the bodyguard to Fanning’s 9-year-old kidnapping target. “I think about the memories with Denzel and with Tony, and getting to live in Mexico City for six months when you’re 9 years old is pretty spectacular.”

‘The Comeback’

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

For those of us who’ve been following the peaks and valleys of Valerie Cherish’s career since 2005, the end of “The Comeback” is bittersweet at best: While the series has achieved greatness by adhering to the old showbiz adage “always leave them wanting more,” I’d be happy to visit with the fictional actress for another two decades (or more).

There’s some solace, I suppose, in knowing creators Lisa Kudrow and Michael Patrick King feel the same way. In a moving essay for The Envelope, the pair share how the spirit of Robert Michael Morris, who played Valerie’s friend and hairdresser Mickey in Seasons 1 and 2, aided them during a crucial moment in production on Season 3. RIP, Mickey — and “The Comeback.” You are, and will be, sorely missed.

Viva Las Vegas!

Perhaps even more than Hollywood — and thanks in large part to Hollywood — Las Vegas is subject to cliched depictions in popular culture. But a new wave of Emmy-nominated series are showing a different side of Sin City,” writes contributor Whitney Friedlander.

“The Vegas we wanted to show and explore was Shyanne’s Vegas, which is so specific to her,” “Margo’s Got Money Troubles” director of photography Tari Segal tells Friedlander, referring to Michelle Pfeiffer’s character. “It would have that more aged, timeless quality of downtown Vegas, [and] it would have the income bracket of a Vegas that she would be comfortable in.”

More stories from our Aug. 20 issue

After nearly six months of war on Iran, the US appears to be taking a different approach.

President Donald Trump says Washington will carry out a “crushing economic operation”.

Attempts to reach an agreement to end the war have stalled.

Now, the US is calling on other countries to join what it calls the greatest coordinated economic isolation in history.

For its part, Iran says that any countries joining the US campaign will be treated as enemies.

What does this mean for the conflict?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Jamal Abdi – president of the National Iranian American Council

Hassan Ahmadian – professor at the University of Tehran and deputy director at the Center for Middle East Scientific and Strategic Studies

Mark Pfeifle – former White House deputy national security adviser and president of Off the Record Strategies

Actress Shelley Fabares, known for her television roles as Francine Webster on the 1975 sitcom “One Day at a Time,” Mary Stone on “The Donna Reed Show,” and her Billboard Hot 100 song “Johnny Angel,” died Sunday in Los Angeles surrounded by her loved ones. She was 82.

In a statement to The Times, a family friend shared the news of the star’s death.

“To her family and friends, Shelley was a source of love, strength, laughter, and comfort… whose warmth, generosity, humor, and grace made an enduring difference in the lives of everyone who knew her,” the statement read. “She had a remarkable ability to make people feel welcomed, valued, and cared for.”

The family did not disclose the cause of death.

Fabares was born in Santa Monica in 1944. She began her acting career at the age of 3 and became a household name playing teenager Mary Stone on “The Donna Reed Show” from 1958 to 1963. Fabares frequently praised her on-screen mother Donna Reed, calling her a “second mother.”

Fabares went on to star alongside Elvis Presley in three films: “Girl Happy,” “Spinout” and “Clambake.”

By the 1970s, Fabares transitioned back to television, starring in the 1971 TV drama “Brian’s Song” and appearing in “The Little People” and “The Practice.” She ended the decade on Norman Lear’s “One Day at a Time,” starring as Francine Webster opposite Bonnie Franklin.

Fabares later starred as Christine Armstrong on the ABC sitcom “Coach,” earning two Primetime Emmy nominations during the show’s nine-season run.

After her 1980 divorce from music producer Lou Adler, Fabares remarried “MASH” actor Mike Farrell in 1984. The pair eventually sold their Sherman Oaks honeymoon home they bought in 1985. They moved to Studio City to better accommodate Fabares’ mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.

Fabares spent her final years taking care of her mother and advocating for more funding for research into the crippling disease.

She is survived by her husband and daughter, Erin.

Aug. 23 (UPI) — House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., met privately with U.S. President Donald Trump‘s son-in-law and informal adviser Jared Kushner in recent weeks to discuss possible common ground, according to media reports Sunday.

According to the report, the meeting occurred in New York City and covered a wide range of issues.

Jeffries is widely seen to be the next House speaker if Democrats win the majority of the chamber in the November election.

“Throughout this Congress, Republicans have adopted a my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing that has failed the American people. To stop the madness, we have repeatedly made clear that an extremist approach will not work and will be met with forceful opposition. The American people want bold change and that’s what House Democrats will deliver,” Jeffries said in a statement to news agencies.

Kushner reportedly encouraged Jeffries to meet with Susie Wiles, Trump’s chief of staff.

Kushner has served a foreign envoy for Trump, notably on Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Sunday he was unaware of the meeting. “I don’t know what that’s about,” Johnson said on Fox News‘s “The Sunday Briefing.” “I know Jared has interest in a lot of other things going on.”

“He’s not really directly involved in the admin, at least in the day-to-day in the White House,” he added.

Barcelona ‌begin their La Liga title ⁠defence ⁠and bid for a third successive crown with a 5-0 ⁠victory at Elche.

Spanish champions Barcelona have cruised to a 5-0 win over Elche in their La Liga opener, with Raphinha and Fermin Lopez scoring twice each and Anthony Gordon setting up two goals on his debut.

After watching Jose Mourinho’s Real Madrid defeat Espanyol 2-1 on Saturday with a late winner, Barca’s display on Sunday warned the Portuguese coach that the Catalans will not relinquish the title easily.

Karim Adeyemi also found the net on his debut as Barca made light work of a vulnerable Elche side at Martinez Valero Stadium.

Hansi Flick started with several regular starters on the bench as they continue to get up to speed following the World Cup.

Teenage winger Lamine Yamal, a key part of the triumphant World Cup Spain squad, did start on the right but was far from his best, though it did not matter given Barca’s otherwise sparkling display.

Raphinha was cut down in the box by Victor Chust and stroked home the resulting penalty after 14 minutes to get Flick’s team on their way.

Eric Garcia was sharp at the back to ward off a threatening Elche attack, while Barca’s Gavi caught the eye in midfield – admittedly more for his pink haircut to celebrate Spain’s triumph than for his performance.

Rapid winger Adeyemi, playing on the left, started shakily but grew into the game and doubled Barca’s lead before the break after Raphinha unselfishly set him up.

In the second half, former Newcastle United winger Gordon, on as a substitute, teed up Raphinha for his second, and then supplied Lopez for Barca’s fourth in an electric and impressive cameo.

Youngster Xavi Espart played in Lopez, who endured a difficult summer after missing Spain’s World Cup triumph through injury, for his second to seal Barcelona’s comfortable triumph.

Flick’s high-line defence showed the occasional sign of its usual frailty, but goalkeeper Joan Garcia did well when called on to keep a clean sheet.

Raphinha told reporters after the game that “whether a game is easy or hard depends on us.

“If we start playing at the maximum level, we’re likely to win. It was a very tough game, but we did our job.”

Rugby star Joe Marler will soon be seen on screen, and in Lycra, as one of the formidable athletes taking on the challengers of the BBC gameshow Gladiators – where he will be known as Mauler

Rugby star Joe Marler has revealed his one request following his surprise casting as one of the resident champions on the BBC gameshow Gladiators. The 36-year-old rugby ace has seen his star power rise since appearing as a contestant on the first season of The Celebrity Traitors which aired on the Beeb last year.

And now Joe is to become a more permanent prime time star as one of the intimidating athletes on Gladiators – taking on the mantle of Mauler; a pun on his last name. Gladiators originally ran from 1992 until 2000 on ITV and was revived by the BBC in 2024 with Bradley Walsh and his son Barney as hosts.

The show is due to return for a fourth season in early 2027 – with cameras expected to start rolling before the end of this year. While Joe’s involvement was revealed last month and now he has explained that he feels he needs a bit more time to get fighting fit before squeezing into his Lycra outfit – and asked for a less revealing look.

He told The Sunday People’s Love Sunday magazine: “My kids love it, particularly my youngest boy. [I was at Soccer Aid with my family.] We walked past Nitro and he says, ‘Daddy, it’s Nitro!’

“He walked over like, ‘Hi, Nitro.’ And I’m like, ‘What? Who is this? You barely say hello to family members, but you’ve gone straight up to Nitro.’ So when the call came in to say, ‘We’d like you to be a Gladiator if you fancy it,’ it was a definite yes.”

The Rugby legend revealed he requested to be the first Gladiator to wear baggy clothes- which will contradict with the tight outfits Gladiators are known to wear and the show creators quickly shut him down.

He then added: “I’m going to need a little bit of time to get as close to Gladiator-ready as possible.”

His involvement was announced by the BBC earlier this month as they prepare to begin filming the 2027 season. A statement declared: “Trading the rugby pitch for the iconic Gladiators arena, Marler will join the epic Gladiators in battle, introducing fans and audiences alike to his new identity – Mauler.

“Mauler, the Gladiator, will make his debut across series 4, where he’ll go head-to-head with some of the Contenders in special appearances packed with power, personality and plenty of surprises.”

And the bulletin added: “Known for his uncompromising style of play and larger-than-life sense of humour, Joe has built a reputation as one of the UK’s most entertaining sporting personalities. Now, he’s taking on an entirely new challenge as he joins the ranks of the Gladiators, bringing his trademark physicality and competitive spirit to one of television’s toughest arenas.”

As well as being a star of rugby, Celebrity Traitors, and now Gladiators, Joe is also the host of a popular podcast titled Joe Marler Will See You Now. A recent guest was Prince Harry – which drew chuckles as the host and Prince discussed their daily grooming routines.

Joe, however, later revealed he suffered a backlash for inviting the Prince onto his podcast – which he co-hosts with comedian Jake Bhardwaj. He told The Mirror+: “We put some prep in but it crept up on us and I was nervous, thinking about the whole thing and also the polarising public opinion of it.

“Jake just said, ‘Calm down and think about what we want to achieve from having him as a guest.’ I knew I liked him. I was Team Harry, if there were teams or whatever.”

He added: “I knew that there would be some level of backlash to whatever question or whatever answer he gave.

“But I didn’t want that to stop me and Jake from being genuine and in the moment. I wanted him and us to be present and to have the experience. I didn’t want to overthink things or not ask a particular question because of how it might be received. But the level of vitriol that comes with him, the social media backlash… What is the matter with some people?”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Aug. 23 (UPI) — At least 30 people were killed during an overnight landslide at a garbage dump in Conarkry, the capital of Guinea, the government of the West African nation said Sunday.

Six others were seriously injured and 16 more sustained minor injuries in what officials described as a landslide at the Dar-es-Salam landfill in the commune of Gbessia.

The incident happened around 2 a.m. local time on Sunday as heavy overnight rains in the bustling port city and national capital caused several homes to collapse.

Emergency personnel and equipment were mobilized immediately to search for any survivors who might still be buried, rescue victims and recover bodies, the government said.

The Red Cross, armed forces members, medical teams, local authorities and nearby residents were on the scene as Guinean Prime Minister Amadou Oury Bah visited the site to “assess the situation and oversee the mobilization of public services.”

He said all necessary measures are being taken to aid the injured, many of whom were taken to Donka University Hospital in Conakry.

“The government extends its deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims, wishes a speedy recovery to the injured, and expresses its profound gratitude to all those involved in the rescue operations,” the official statement read.

Officials urged the public to “remain calm, show solidarity, and strictly adhere to the instructions of emergency services and competent authorities.”

Castelion, a startup begun by former SpaceX employees, has provided the first view of its Blackbeard hypersonic weapon. The first look at what has been billed as a lower-cost missile comes as the company announces that it has secured $1 billion in new financing, which it says will help get its first hypersonic weapon into production as part of its ambitious manufacturing strategy. While hypersonic weapons have very attractive qualities, they are extremely expensive and that cost will likely keep them from being bought in large quantities or used against wider target sets. Castelion is focused on trying to shift that, building hypersonic capabilies that can be bought in large quantities and used more freely, even if they have reduced performance.

A profile photo at the company’s headquarters reveals a weapon with a ballistic missile-like booster, on top of which is mounted an unpowered hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV). The booster brings the HGV to the desired velocity and altitude before releasing it toward its target. The concept is in contrast to air-breathing cruise missiles capable of traveling at hypersonic speeds. Hypersonic speed is generally defined as anything above Mach 5, which larger ballistic missiles also reach in the course of their flights. More precise performance figures for Blackbeard are lacking, but Castelion has previously hinted it could hit targets out to just under 500 miles.

Both stages of the weapon have cruciform fins, while the HGV features a prominent ‘chine’ line along the length of its body, and a slightly beaklike nose. The trolley on which the weapon is mounted provides some idea of its overall size. The blue stripes seen on each stage normally signify that a munition is an inert, non-explosive round utilized for training or tracking purposes. This would indicate a real (unarmed) missile rather than a dummy or mockup.

The company has previously said that it was aiming to have a more finalized Blackbeard design by 2027, so there is still potential for more design changes to come. We have reached out to Castelion for more information.

Castelion has previously released images of various missiles with very different, far more simple designs, which it has said “are representative of the low-cost internally developed test vehicles we use to enable rapid subsystem design iteration and to ground our performance models in real-world test data.”

OCTOBER 5, 2025

Two more development flights completed Sunday.

Each test validates vertically integrated subsystems and components from new suppliers nationwide – tightening the link between engineering and manufacturing to deliver capability faster. pic.twitter.com/t4tKM2cPx9

— Castelion (@Castelion) October 7, 2025

Some of these earlier experimental configurations also look to feature tail sections that are at least heavily inspired by, if not lifted directly from Standard-series surface-to-air missiles as used by the U.S. Navy and other navies globally.

Castelion yesterday also announced it had received Series C financing, comprising $800 million in equity financing and $250 million in committed financing. The equity round values Castelion at approximately $13 billion.

The company says it will use the funds as it transitions from development and flight testing toward producing Blackbeard in significant quantities.

Castelion claims the weapon is the first hypersonic strike system to be designed from the outset to be substantially less expensive and easier to manufacture at scale than traditional high-end missile systems.

“Deterrence depends on unapologetic American strength; highly capable weapon systems that adversaries fear produced in quantities they can’t imagine at a price taxpayers can afford,” Castelion CEO and co-founder Bryon Hargis said.

Another flight test in the books – this time @Spaceport_NM. Our second flight in the past 30 days.

The best way to stay ahead of your adversary in a prolonged competition is to have faster learning cycles than they do. pic.twitter.com/9n776j8XWr

— Castelion (@Castelion) February 19, 2025

The company says Blackbeard has gone from a clean-sheet design to a program of record in less than four years, with fielding targeted for 2027. Castelion has also secured more than $500 million in U.S. military contracts over the past 18 months.

A major part of the company’s strategy is its Project Ranger campus in Sandoval County, New Mexico. Castelion describes the roughly 1,000-acre facility as the largest dedicated hypersonic missile manufacturing site in the United States. The company previously committed more than $250 million of its own capital to infrastructure at the site and says it will now invest hundreds of millions of dollars more to expand production capacity.

That emphasis on manufacturing is central to how Castelion distinguishes Blackbeard from many existing hypersonic programs. The company has designed the weapon and its production processes around the expectation that large numbers will eventually be required.

“There’s a manufacturing renaissance underway and this round turbocharges American production of Blackbeard,” Hargis said. “Designed in California, built in New Mexico, supplied from small and large businesses across the United States; Blackbeard is an example of what America can do when private capital and Government work together.”

In May of this year, the Pentagon outlined plans to acquire at least 10,000 Blackbeard missiles, as well as a similar number of lower-cost cruise missiles, over the next three years.

These framework agreements are part of a larger effort to rapidly expand U.S. reserves of long-range, standoff weapons and, at the same time, strengthen the defense-industrial base so manufacturers can keep producing those weapons at a high rate over the long term.

The U.S. Army has made clear it is interested in employing Blackbeard in a ground-launched mode, as you can read more about here. Army budget documents confirm it is pursuing Blackbeard aggressively, but through a phased approach that offers multiple off-ramps. The service has previously talked of firing Blackbeard from new uncrewed launcher vehicles, as well as from existing M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launchers. How many Blackbeard missiles are compatible with each of these launch systems is unclear.

“The mission of Blackbeard Ground Launch (GL) is to attack/neutralize/suppress/destroy using hypersonic missile delivered precision fires (seeker based) against time sensitive moving targets and hardened targets at a much-reduced cost per missile than currently exists in the Army inventory,” the Army stated in its proposed budget for the 2026 Fiscal Year. “Blackbeard Ground Launch (GL) is an affordable, mass-produced hypersonic weapon designed for mid-range precision. The Army will leverage advancements in technology, materials, and cost-effective production methods to provide superior capabilities through fast, iterative design cycles, flexible hardware development, and modern manufacturing practices.”

Meanwhile, earlier this year, Castelion announced receipt of a contract from the Navy to integrate Blackbeard onto the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet carrier strike fighter and transition the system to an early operational capability in 2027. This will involve extensive system safety and certification testing, flight testing, and other integration activities related to carrier-based operations. This development may well be connected with halting plans for an air-launched, air-breathing hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile. A version of Blackbeard could also find its way onto Navy ships and submarines, as well as ground-based launchers, as we have discussed in the past.

In fact, the Army has also said that the ground-launched version of the weapon that it expects to receive will leverage an “existing air-launched, extended-range Blackbeard design,” without providing more information.

The U.S. Air Force has also awarded Castelion contracts in the past in relation to long-range strike weapon concepts, and TWZ has previously reached out to that service for more information.

Regardless, Castelion’s ambitions extend beyond Blackbeard. The company says it has been developing a much longer-range precision strike weapon for several years and will now accelerate its development and testing. That system is intended to reuse technologies, components, and manufacturing techniques developed for Blackbeard.

With a huge demand signal from the Pentagon, Castelion is also working on defensive systems based on the same development and manufacturing philosophy. The company says those efforts are focused on lowering costs, increasing production rates, and providing greater magazine depth for air and missile defense.

The strategy responds to the fact that the U.S. military’s growing interest in hypersonic weapons has been accompanied by persistent questions about production capacity and cost. Hypersonic systems are technically demanding, but the ability to manufacture them in meaningful numbers is ultimately just as important as demonstrating that an individual weapon can fly.

Castelion is betting that a different approach to development and manufacturing can change that equation.

“Castelion is at the forefront of defense manufacturing in the nation,” said Tom Ochinero, chairman and founding partner of Interlagos Capital, which provided some of the equity financing. “They’re building the capabilities to produce thousands of hypersonic weapons a year, something the U.S. has never seen before.”

This reflects a steadily growing U.S. military-wide push toward lower-cost precision munitions that are relatively simple to manufacture, while also drawing on non-traditional defense contractors to develop and produce them. Such efforts are widely viewed as essential to building up stockpiles in an economically sustainable manner ahead of a major contingency, such as a large-scale conflict in the Pacific with China, and ensuring a steady supply of weapons throughout a prolonged war.

The next test of this model will be whether Castelion can translate its relatively rapid development timeline into sustained production at the scale it is promising. With Blackbeard targeted for fielding in 2027 and a new generation of longer-range and defensive systems already in development, the company is positioning itself as much as a defense manufacturer as a missile developer, but this remains very much an unproven concept in this notoriously tricky area.

The new view of Blackbeard at Castelion’s headquarters offers a glimpse of the hardware at the center of that effort.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Dogs Behaving (Very) Badly expert Graeme Hall is one of the 2026 Strictly Come Dancing contestants – who was a keen dancer away from his job on-screen until a stroke derailed his hopes

Strictly Come Dancing contestant Graeme Hall has revealed he was previously forced to quit dancing after doctors discovered a hole in his heart. The 59-year-old TV star received his shock diagnosis after initially suffering a stroke – with doctors making the diagnosis after he was rushed to hospital.

Graeme – who is a dog trainer on the hit Channel 5 series Dogs Behaving (Very) Badly – feared he would never be able to dance again, but is now thrilled to be taking part in the 2026 season of the long-running BBC reality contest. While he is not a fully trained dancer, Graeme got a taste for the art form after taking part in an amateur competition over a decade ago.

He went on to compete regionally before his health emergency forced him to give up his dancing shoes. Fans will soon be able to see him take to the dancefloor on Strictly when the show returns for its twenty-fourth series with a launch show set to broadcast in September 2026.

Speaking about his past health issues ahead of the new season, Graeme told The Sun: I’d done a local competition called Strictly Northampton in 2012 and loved it so much that I carried it on as a hobby. I started taking part in regional events in church halls and community centres but I had to give up because I had a stroke in 2019.”

He revealed that doctors then found a hole in his heart, which was quickly operated on and the Channel 5 star began his road to recovery. He added: “I was out of action for quite a while and I thought it had brought an end to my dancing.

“I’m fine now but I had to put my dance bag away — now I’ve got it out of the loft and there’s all my kit and practice trousers so I will be using those soon. But if you’d told me in 2019 that I was going to be taking part in the show I would have dismissed you as a fantasist.”

Graeme’s involvement in the 2026 season of Strictly was announced earlier this month – and he shared his excitement over being included when his casting was revealed.

He declared: “I can’t believe I am joining the cast of Strictly for 2026. I have always loved dancing, so to have the opportunity to learn from the best in the business is a dream come true.”

He added: “I have watched the show for years, so to be a part of it feels like a very exciting challenge, albeit more than a bit nerve-wracking! I can’t wait to get started. Bring it on.”

He joins a varied cast of co-stars for the 2026 season which ranges to include Australian pop sensation Delta Goodrem to social media hairdresser Chris Appleton.

EastEnders icon Lacey Turner – known to millions as Stacey slater – and House of the Dragon actress Bethany Antonia – known to even more millions the world over as Lady Baela Targaryen – will also be taking part. While Big Brother presenter Will Best, Emmerdale actor Lawrence Robb, and footballer Shaun Wright-Phillips are also among the contestants.

Fans of Strictly will find a revamped show when it returns next week as long-running hosts Claudia Winkleman and Tess Daly have been replaced by a trio of new hosts. Presenting Emma Willis, comedian Josh Widdicombe, and former dancefloor professional Johannes Radebe will be co-hosting the show.

As news of the new presenting line-up emerged earlier this year, Emma declared: “To be stepping into the Strictly ballroom is something I can’t quite comprehend.” While Josh added he was: “giddy with excitement, honoured and a little overawed to be given the chance to step into the biggest shoes in television”.

And Strictly pro Johannes – who danced professionally on the series from 2018 through 2025 – said returning to the series as a new presenter was “beyond anything I ever imagined”. The 2026 season of Strictly is expected to begin airing in September.

As for the judges – Shirley Ballas, Anton Du Beke, Motsi Mabuse and Craig Revel Horwood have all been confirmed as returning as their seats to preside over all the toe tapping action which will receive marks out of 10 from each expert. The 2026 season of Strictly is expected to begin airing in September.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

In this week’s episode of The Envelope podcast, the Welsh actor joins The Envelope for a conversation about his Emmy-nominated roles in “Widow’s Bay” and “The Beast in Me.”

Kelvin Washington: Hello, and welcome to this week’s episode of The Envelope. Kelvin Washington, Yvonne Villarreal and Mark Olsen here. We’ve been talking about it now for the last couple of weeks, but we’re less than a month away from the Emmys. Mariska Hargitay is gonna be the host. I’m looking forward to that because who’s living a better life than her? She’s nominated, of course. She’s hosting. And her Knicks won the NBA championship — she’s at this point an honorary Knick. I mean, it’s like she’s on the team.

Yvonne Villarreal: And she went to the Taylor Swift wedding.

Washington: That’s a good point.

Villarreal: Don’t forget that. And starring on Broadway.

Washington: So she is living her best life, yeah.

Villarreal: She’s living a better life than I am.

Washington: So I’m going to answer the question first. I’m gonna ask you, what are you looking forward to [at the Emmys]? Maybe some things you’re excited for. For me, it’s just seeing this culmination of all these things for her and just having a big moment there. I think she’s gonna own that space and I think everybody’s gonna enjoy it as well. What are you looking forward to?

Villarreal: I’m really, really excited to see my beloved Philip and Elizabeth Jennings as nominees — Matthew Rhys and Keri Russell. Not to be parasocial, but I just love that they’re both nominated. I just want a magical night for them both.

Mark Olsen: I don’t want to be a bring-down bummer here, but, you know, I find that the Emmys in particular, even more than the Oscars, kind of play favorites, and the same winners can happen again and again. It’s not as bad as it may once have been, but I’m always rooting for new blood, first-time nominees, people that it’s exciting to see them kind of get this platform. So nothing against your beloved, but I would be excited to see an underdog or somebody kind of an outsider. Say, for example, the rest of the cast of “Widow’s Bay,” which as you’ve said before, really came out of nowhere, [and] it’s become a bit of a favorite this season. And there’s some other performers there, Dale Dickey, Stephen Root, Kate O’Flynn, and I think any of them winning would be really exciting.

Villarreal: I won’t argue with that.

Washington: I was waiting on an argument.

Villarreal: We fight off camera.

Washington: And by the way, Mark, I mean, can good be good? Or great be great? If I’m great 10 years in a row, can I just be great 10 years in a row and win? You’re putting limitations on my victories.

Olsen: Yeah, but at some point, your shelf is full.

Washington: That’s true. Don’t worry about what’s going on in my mantle, all right?

That being said, we got Matthew Rhys, who you had a chance to speak to. Double nominee here, “Widow’s Bay” and “The Beast in Me.” Tell me a little bit more about your conversation.

Olsen: Just a rare double nominee, lead actor in a comedy series with “Widow’s Bay,” and then lead actor in a limited or anthology series or movie with “The Beast in Me.” And I think what’s exciting here is that these are just two very different performances. He’s this manipulative, maybe psychopathic real estate developer in “The Beast in Me,” and then this kind of harried, put-upon single dad and mayor of a small, cursed New England island in “Widow’s Bay,” and I think both of these roles show new sides of Matthew to audiences. But then when you take them together, it just feels like something else entirely.

Washington: All right, well let’s take a look. It’s M&M — Matthew and Mark — here now.

Matthew Rhys.

(Ebru Yildiz / For The Times)

Mark Olsen: For the Los Angeles Times and The Envelope, I’m Mark Olsen. I’m here today with Matthew Rhys, who is nominated for an Emmy for lead actor in a comedy series for “Widow’s Bay” [and] lead actor in a limited or anthology series [or movie] for “The Beast in Me,” and another nomination as executive producer on “Widow’s Bay.”

Matthew Rhys: I forgot about the executive producer part. It’s an exciting time.

Olsen: And now being nominated for these two performances, which are very different performances —

Rhys: [whispers] They’re not really.

Olsen: Now tell me about that. You don’t think they are?

Rhys: Look, I think I was about to speak for a number of actors and I shouldn’t. I can only speak for myself. Sometimes there’s seemingly or feels like there’s very little difference in them. I’m not, I don’t pretend to be an enormously transformative actor, hunting for the “chameleon” praise.

Olsen: But do you consider yourself versatile? It’s so interesting to me to hear you say you don’t see these roles as that different.

Rhys: I wouldn’t say I’m versatile in that chameleon-like way or transformative way, I just try to work from a place… We’re already into it.

Olsen: That’s what we’re here for.

Rhys: I know. It always makes me nauseous. I do try to live in a place that feels real to me and that what we talk about, working from your center. So when I move away from that, things start to feel insincere, so I tend not to.

Olsen: With “Widow’s Bay,” a lot of the coverage around it has been talking about how it’s been a real surprise hit. And I’m just wondering, what is it that you think that audiences are responding to?

Rhys: You know, timing is everything. I do think there was a place that was ready for “Widow’s Bay,” whereby nothing of the sort had been around for a while. You hadn’t had “Twin Peaks,” although we were kind of slightly “The Office,” “Twin Peaks,” sprinkling of “Northern Exposure” maybe, but nothing I think of that sort had been for a while. So I think people were just ready for something different, and then we’re certainly different.

Olsen: Betty Gilpin, your co-star on the show, she is also a nominee, in a recent interview said that she feels like it’s as if audiences are rejecting this idea of a really sort of safe, algorithm-approved show. And do you feel the same?

Rhys: Absolutely, and it’s wildly refreshing to know that people are going, “No, we want something different. And we are intelligent enough to deal with it. So give it to us.” And that I found very, very inspiring, very encouraging — that television and film should be pushing itself continually for that original material and not relying on remakes.

Olsen: When did you realize that the show was connecting in the way that it is? I’ve seen in some other interviews you say that even when you were shooting it, you weren’t totally sure, didn’t totally think that it would connect with people.

Rhys: No, none of us — a lot of us were like, “Are we getting the tone right? Is this right? Is this going to work?” It was a swing. It was an absolute swing. A kind of beautiful one, nonetheless. But we were all concerned — not concerned, maybe just intrigued — as to how it would be received. And it was a little bit more word of mouth. Friends were saying, “Oh, I’ve seen your show.” And then throughout my career, it’s probably the job I’ve been stopped most for. And I’m not saying that happens often. But at least twice I’ve been stopped for it. So that’s been refreshing.

Olsen: And people are really talking a lot about this mix of tones. It’s a horror-comedy that’s both very much funny and scary. What was the challenge of getting that mix right?

Rhys: Making both real, ultimately. I know that sounds very obvious and stupid, but it’s true. And also Katie Dippold spoke to this, the creator and writer, where she said she kind of thought one can almost relieve the other. When there’s incredible tension from horror, when the laugh comes in, it’s almost a big laugh because it’s the relief of being allowed to laugh. So she says sometimes that can pay off in a way. It’s much harder the other way around, but it also works the other way around where you catch an audience off guard because they’re laughing and then you hit them with horror. So I think both bizarrely can help each other.

Olsen: I’m thinking about something like the episode that’s mostly on a boat, that gets very sort of slapstick-y at moments, but then there’s still something very terrifying about what’s happening there.

Rhys: Yes, we’ve hit the nail on the head. That kind of tone I found very hard. There are these borderline farcical moments of wrestling with a man who’s 400 years old and it becoming kind of very comedic physically and yet it has to remain that there’s this element of danger or threat that’s very real and palpable. And so those are the moments you try and ground in a way so that the extreme elements can also live in a real place.

Olsen: Because you mentioned a man who’s 400 years old, the mythology of the show gets more complicated as it goes along, right up until the very last episode. Were there moments where you had to sort of step aside and ask people to explain it to you?

Rhys: No, because I think the chronology is laid out beautifully throughout the series and you’re kind of led in a way where it unfolds very organically. So I was very relieved that to be the case that there’s no kind of, “Wait, where are we? What’s, who’s this?” So that I thought was kind of beautifully executed. And because of that, because of the detail in the backstory, then the story I think pays off far greater.

Olsen: The final episode really lands it so well as far as being both funny and scary and also the way that it sets up a next season, which happily is happening. The finale promises even more murder and mayhem for Season 2. I know the writers room is already hard at work. Do you have any insights on what at least you would like to see happen?

Rhys: No, I’m desperately intrigued as to what she has in mind because I wouldn’t have the first clue as to where to start Season 2. I’m very assured that the warped mind of Katie Dippold will helm us into a giddy storm.

Olsen: One thing I have to ask about “Widow’s Bay” is simply, in preparing to play this small-town mayor who’s very concerned about tourist season, did you refer at all to maybe the most famous other small-town mayor played by Murray Hamilton in “Jaws”?

Rhys: Well, I would like to say yes because “Jaws” is an enormous favorite of mine, but he’s a very different mayor, if you look at his mayor. He’s very assured. He gets a little frustrated with Brody, but he’s not that kind of cortisol-burning, wild-eyed panic that Tom Loftis is. He is far more assured of what he should be doing for the municipality than Tom is. I even said at one point, I said, “Can we get away with the jacket, you know, the anchor jacket?” And they were like, no, because that would be too obvious.

Olsen: I like that you had the impulse.

Rhys: A lot of my performances have some reference to “Jaws,” regardless of the piece, because I’m usually Quint. So I was very upset in the boat scene you referenced when obviously myself, Stephen Root and Hamish Linklater sat around and said, OK, Stephen Root, you are obviously Quint, what does that make Hamish and myself? Who’s [Richard] Dreyfuss and who’s Roy Scheider in this? And Hamish went, “Well, I’m Dreyfuss.” I was like, “I am not Brody.” They’re like, “You’re wearing the life jacket. Of course you’re Brody!” This is the kind of thing actors talk about.

Olsen: But you weren’t happy with that?

Rhys: I’ve always wanted to be Quint. I love Brody, but my heart lies with Quint

Olsen: Now, I came to realize that “Brothers and Sisters,” it goes back 20 years now that you were on that show. And I’m just so curious, working steadily in TV for 20 years now, how has the job of being an actor on TV changed in that time?

Rhys: I don’t think it’s changed, per se. From a personal point of view, it’s been incredible to play the wide variety that I’ve been allowed to. I think the scope of television has changed wildly in 20 years and the length and breadth of the variety there is kind of remarkable at times. And sometimes you wonder if it’s sustainable. If anything, it’s offered more opportunities, I think, for actors, but the kind of core fundamentals I think are still the same.

Olsen: Do you yourself watch a lot of TV?

Rhys: Yes, yes. I never watch myself, but yes. I tend to lean towards more documentaries than anything else. Fiction, I’m always like, “Oh, that’s the day job.”

Olsen: Because I know you’ve talked a lot about your interest in boats, and is there a lot of boats-and-restoration content out there?

Rhys: What, fiction or documentary-wise?

Olsen: I wonder what your algorithm is like.

Rhys: I don’t do much with Instagram but my algorithm is generally older men showing you how to kind of spile a garboard plank next to a keel, things like that.

Olsen: And are there a lot of documentaries about boats and restoration?

Rhys: There’s a lot on YouTube, none of which really hold your attention. What I think is like, where is the kind of “Chef’s Table” of boat restoration? That’s what I’m waiting for.

Olsen: I think you maybe have to be the one to make that show.

Rhys: I might have to, but I worry about the breadth of audience we’d have there. Or how to make boat restoration interesting to the masses. Therein lies the challenge.

Olsen: Well, they say niche markets sometimes …

Rhys: You can capture a zeitgeist moment.

Olsen: With your work on television, you have a really strong track record between “Brothers and Sisters,” “The Americans,” “Perry Mason,” now with “Widow’s Bay,” and also with “The Beast in Me.” For you, what goes into choosing a role?

Rhys: This is the real luxury of having a degree of choice. It’s not always choice, but more often than not, a project comes along that I’ll read and there’ll be a number of things. I’ll be like, “Ooh, I’ve never done it.” Like “Widow’s Bay,” I read it and I went, “The scripts are fantastic and I have never done anything like this in my life.” “Beast in Me,” the same, the writing’s so strong, but also that role is something I’d never done before. And the same, obviously, for “The Americans” and “Brothers and Sisters.” So if there’s an opportunity to try something very new, to me, it’s the ultimate luxury. And so that’s been a real driving force. And strong stories, the want of knowing how it ends, just simple storytelling.

Olsen: Do you find that your instincts have changed over the years? Are you looking for the same things that you feel like you were when you were starting in television 20 years ago?

Rhys: No, not necessarily. I always wanted, if I was fortunate enough, to do something that would challenge me, that would push me, that I hadn’t done, that’d scare me, that’d make me nervous every day on set, which a lot of these projects have done. I thought that would be all that I’d want.

Olsen: Because your character in “The Beast in Me,” again, I have to come back to this idea that you think these two roles are kind of similar, because your character on “The Beast in Me” seems so self-assured, like he has a confidence that Loftis does not have.

Rhys: Yes, that is very true and it was the observation of the wealthy that kind of led me there and especially uber-wealth, where there’s a real assurance of not having to try almost because there’s no need and this innate feeling that you will absolutely get your own way and people will bend to your will purely because of wealth.

Olsen: And now playing that role, getting a little taste of that, like, is that a nice place?

Rhys: What, self-assured?

Olsen: Is that a good position to be in, that people do what you want.

Rhys: Oh, I’m sure it’s great. I’ve never tasted it. It’s something I aspire to by the hour. And being riddled with all the cliched insecurities that every other actor, when you’re playing it, you go, “God, this feels great. To not even have to try with people must be so wonderful.” I’ve no desire to kind of glean the kind of affirmation from the person I’m talking to. Almost quite the opposite.

Olsen: “Widow’s Bay” has such a big ensemble, and then in “The Beast in Me,” really most of your scenes are just you and Claire Danes in this series of escalating conversations. Did you like that distinction? For “The Beast in Me,” did you like the pared-back intimacy of those scenes that the two of you have?

Rhys: Absolutely. I think that was the big draw of the piece, these two people who are kind of, they’re like two magnets in a way, they’re so drawn, they are so repulsed, they’re kind of images of each other’s shadow self, they see so much of each other while [being] polarizingly different. That to me was part of the great draw of that piece, with these two people and how they connected or seemingly didn’t.

Olsen: I don’t think you’ve worked with Claire Danes before?

Rhys: Prior to that, no.

Olsen: Because just in a practical sense, what is it like for two actors when you have so many of your scenes together? Like you sort of have to feel out not only how the characters are, but also how you as performers, as work colleagues, get through the day. What is that process like?

Rhys: I mean, look, with Claire, having known and watched her body of work, [I knew] she’s like a powerhouse and kind of brings that to set. And from day one of rehearsals, I kind of sat up and went, “Oh God, right, come on, let’s focus here,” because she has that laser that is on a switch. And when it’s switched, it’s on. And woe betide you if you haven’t prepared as well as she has. So that was very quick. The ascent of going, “Right, yes, A-game at all times, please.” Which is fantastic. It’s everything you want in a scene partner. It’s someone who kind of scares you and kind of raises your game and demands, you know, a kind of a better tennis game, although I’ve never played tennis. I’m sure it’s great.

Olsen: Do you feel like you’re that kind of actor too?

Rhys: No. I’m the one making fart jokes and then kind of going, “Will you concentrate?” I don’t think I have that kind of prowess, that kind of switch [that] is so alarmingly kind of night and day. I creak into it.

Olsen: Because there’s an intensity to your performance here. I mean, it goes big at times, there’s the “Psycho Killer” dance —

Rhys: The Achilles’ heel. I begged them to remove that scene because anywhere I see the scene direction “He dances” or “[Character] dances,” I can taste the vomit in my own mouth.

Olsen: And now did you choreograph that ahead of time?

Rhys: Nope, I just went for it. In fact a very charming woman came up to me on the street and she goes, “I love ‘The Beast in Me’ and I loved how camp your dancing was.” And I went, “Oh, it wasn’t meant to be necessarily camp.” Well, clearly it was to her. And also playing drunk, drunk and dancing, I was like, “Oh, some vicious planets are aligning.”

Olsen: And do you have a trick to drunk acting?

Rhys: Yes, I get drunk. It’s a very simple trick that most actors overlook. You just drink and then you’re drunk. The only time I venture into Method acting.

Olsen: But then about how many takes do you have in you?

Rhys: Two. No, no, I didn’t get drunk. I got tipsy. No, no it’s very different. It’s hard, it’s hard. That’s always a hard one because also we shot that over the entire day. So it started at like 8 a.m.And to be perfectly honest, sometimes you’ll do a take and it’s like, the drunk acting is too apparent. Let’s bring it back. Claire Danes nailed drunk acting from take one. And I was like, god— it! I mean, she’s done it again.

Olsen: And then also the chicken scene, how many chickens did you have to eat?

Rhys: I come into my own. Eating on screen is not and never has been a problem for me. I will take down any amount of food and I will not ask for a spit bucket. They were like, “Oh, we have a spit bucket.” I think, “No, I’m not spitting up perfectly good chicken” — and it was really good chicken. I think I went through about three chickens. What I loved about that scene, and this is what I love about all good writing, is when a brief element, usually it’s wordless, can say so much about a character or what the character is trying to do to the person in the room through a very simple action. So I loved that from what it did in that moment. He’s doing it overtly to try and intimidate her. It’s something which says so much about him and the way he does it, I thought it was an incredibly beautiful and shrewd piece of writing.

Olsen: Over the course of the series, how did you modulate how crazy to seem?

Rhys: Because it’s kind of present from the get-go. And that was a heavy reliance on the directors. We had some incredible directors on that. Antonio Campos, who kind of began and ended us, we had a little bit of a dial, and he was like, “Bring it back a bit” or “I think it needs a little more.” He was very good at truly kind of conducting in that moment. And we had the luxury of being able to do a few takes where he’s like, “Bring it up a bit” or, “OK, that’s good, let’s take it down a bit.”

Olsen: Were you happy with how that ended up?

Rhys: I don’t watch it. I haven’t watched myself in about 10 years. I get stuck on the wrong things. I become too concerned about the way I use my hands or how strange my walk is or the weird kind of idiosyncrasy of my mouth. So then when I’m doing it next, I’m like, “I am not going to do anything with my hands and I’m going to change my walk.” And then the director is like, “What is wrong with your walk and why are you sitting on your hands?” So I tend not to watch myself.

Olsen: You said 10 years ago. Did something really make you be like, “I’m not doing that anymore?”

Rhys: In fairness, it was more than 10 years ago. It was “Brothers and Sisters.” I started watching that and I was like, “Oh my God. Why has no one said anything? Look at my posture.” And then you become obsessed with sitting with better posture. And then everyone’s like, “Why are you sitting weirdly?” I was never clever enough to take from it a kind of positive critical foundation. I was taking the wrong things, usually physically attributed, that would get in my head when I was acting. And then that’s all I could think about while I was doing it, and I was on a road to ruin.

Olsen: So often you’re doing an American accent or a voice that is not your own and I know for myself I feel like I wouldn’t be able to think about anything but that, that’s all I would be able think about while I was performing.

Rhys: The accent is strange because I think in one way such an enormous part of my head is always working on the next sound to come out of my mouth. I think it stops you in a way from kind of acting, if that makes sense. It takes the self-conscious element out of you because you’re so busy working on something else. My acting teacher from drama school would always say, “Give yourself something to do to stop yourself acting.” It’s like you’re spending so much time thinking about the way you sound, it can relax you in a different way because you’re not thinking about acting.

Olsen: And then is it also a big challenge for you to try to make different American accents? How hard is it for you to do those different American sounds?

Rhys: It depends on the accent. I mean, sometimes the more extreme sounds are easier to hook into, like, you know, the Southern states or Boston or New York. Then you get, you know, California’s kind of softer, so it’s harder. It doesn’t have that extreme hook to find. And then there are just simply words in the American dialect that can take me down, like “murderer” or “world,” sometimes “girl” is tricky. But “murderer.” Which is unfortunate, because I played lawyers, spies who kill people. I’ve had to say it a lot. So I always go, “Can I say ‘killer’?” I just sound like I run out of battery.

Olsen: Do you find that living in America, has it helped you?

Rhys: Oh, without question, because going into a job, a couple of weeks before, I’ll be doing it — not at home, because it drives the kids crazy. They’re like, “He sounds so fake.” And then they’re like “Oh, here he is, he’s doing that again.” I’m like, “I’m not Dick Van Dyke, so I don’t know who you’re impersonating.” So yeah, you can go into the bodega and pretend to be American.

Olsen: On the day that Emmy nominations were announced, you did an interview with my colleague, Yvonne Villarreal, and you told her that you were meeting your partner, Keri Russell, also an Emmy nominee, at a mystery location. Would you mind completing that story? Where did you go?

Rhys: We went to the U.N. No, we didn’t, but I wish I could say that. We went to the Armory in New York with, oh God, I can’t remember the name of the exhibition. It was an incredible exhibition where three enormous tanks of water were filled with water and ceramic bowls and a current was introduced and then these ceramic bowls would clank into each other to make different noises in this incredible space. It was wondrous. Now, if the artist, for some unknown reason, watches this and goes, “I can’t believe he didn’t remember my name or the name of the exhibition,” I apologize profusely. But it was incredible.

Olsen: That sounds like a great way to spend the day.

Rhys: Yeah, it was. It was fantastic. And then we had a great dinner and celebrated and said, you know, “This is the high point, it’s downhill from here on out.”

Olsen: Well, the two of you were recently referred to as television’s first couple.

Rhys: I said that.

Olsen: And I’m wondering, I can only imagine you don’t walk around thinking of yourself —

Rhys: Oh, no, I do. I have a badge and a T-shirt, but no one believes me.

Olsen: But what does that make you think of when you hear yourselves referred to in that way?

Rhys: It kind of makes me laugh. You go, “Oh, God.” And also — and I hate to sound like I’m some bitter old fool, but I am — we’ve done it a long time. We’re of a certain age. You kind of know tomorrow there’s another first couple. So you go, “We’re today’s first couple, and it’s great. And we’ll take it and we’ll enjoy it.”

Olsen: Do you find, especially in the way that your personal and professional lives are intertwined, is it good that you have each other to keep yourselves in check?

Rhys: Yes, it also helps that you have a partner that fully understands what you do, because it’s a mad circus life and sometimes, you know, it’s hard, I think, for partners who don’t quite understand how crazy it is. So it is great in that respect that you fully understand what the other one is doing.

Olsen: And is that also part of where your interest in boats comes from? Is it something that’s totally separate?

Rhys: So she could kick me out of the house is why she bought me the boat.

Olsen: There’s something just totally separate from your work life.

Rhys: Absolutely, absolutely. And it’s something so other. … Opinions can vary so wildly, you know, critics can contradict each other in certain criticisms. The kind of more simple aspect, especially when I was restoring the boat, was that it felt a lot purer and simpler. That you can, at the end of the day, you look back at this piece of wood you’d be working on and go, “There we are, I did that.” And there’s no one saying, “Well, you could have done it this way.” You know what I mean? I always enjoyed the satisfaction it gave me in that sense.

Olsen: Wait, how many boats do you have?

Rhys: I only have one. She’s for sale, if anyone’s interested.

Olsen: Do you want to now find another boat to do this all over again?

Rhys: I don’t, because my wrists have given up. It was much harder than I thought it was going to be. It was an incredible journey, and it was kind of inspired by Hemingway, in a way, it was the same class of boat that he had. So I had all these giddy, kind of rose-tinted romantic notions of what I was doing until I was knee-deep in fiberglass, going, “Why did I think this was a good idea?”

Aug. 23 (UPI) — Thailand’s southern region has been hit by dozens of coordinated arson attacks and bombs “aimed at creating unrest,” officials said Sunday.

The Thai Military said there were more than 50 incendiary attacks overnight on Saturday, injuring at least two people, the BBC reported.

At least six of the attacks involved bombs.

A government office building, convenience store and vehicle were set on fire.

Car tires were burned and power poles were blown up, Xinhua reported.

The attacks happened in Narathiwat, Yala and Pattani provinces, the news agency reported.

The investigation into the incident continues, and no group has claimed responsibility yet, the BBC reported.

The group exhibition “To Share a Stomach” is a bit like the children’s game Telephone, in which a phrase, whispered from person to person, inevitably comes out a bit garbled. Urgently conceived by curator Aram Moshayedi in March, on the heels of the latest U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, it features works envisioned by 25 Iranian artists that were fabricated with varying degrees of collaboration by 24 counterparts here in the U.S.

Hampered by significant internet blackouts, displacements and the loss of studios and artwork in Iran, as well as an extremely compressed timeline (just five months), the results are understandably rangy and uneven. Yet the show, now on view at the Brick through Sept. 19, is an achingly beautiful meditation on the difficulty of communication and the shared goodwill that intermittently, imperfectly, surmounts it.

Sina Ghadaksaz and John Ziqiang Wu, “What the Clouds Remember and the Mountains Forget,” 2026; Carmen Argote, “Aram’s sneakers: Mount Eynali,” August 6, 8–1030p.m., 2026; Mohammadreza Jahanshir, “Glory / 50904020,” 2026; Maryam Lashkari, Hodjat Salimi, and Oscar Tuazon, “Can You S…?,” 2026; Kelly Akashi and Mimi Amini with David Gutierrez, Matt Rademacher and Kazuki Takizawa, “The Anatomy of a Postponed Intent: The Glass Blade,” 2026; Fatemeh Kazemi and Olivia Mole, “The Conference of the Birds,” 2026, can be seen in the exhibition “To Share a Stomach,” at the Brick in Los Angeles.

(Ruben Diaz 2026)

None of the works address the recent bombardments directly, although the precarious context of ongoing threat, instability and struggle can be felt in almost all of them. Ducking into Maryam Lashkari, Hodjat Salimi and Oscar Tuazon’s interactive sculpture — an enormous cardboard tube lying on its side — feels like entering a culvert or a bomb shelter. Inside, one lies on a crude bed of felt blankets and dons a set of headphones; the sounds of jet planes, a party, conversations and emergency sirens are interspersed with an imperious voice reading a guided meditation on how to be present in one’s body during a bombing. The harsh realities of war are woven into the textures of everyday life, warping and fraying into something absurd. Viewers may scan a QR code for their own copy of the audio track, which deteriorates in sound quality with every download.

Slow disintegration also appears in a triptych of videos by Ismail Ghanbari (facilitated by Tala Madani but not credited as a collaboration). In the largest central one, we see Ghanbari holding two nearly destroyed boxing gloves as he explains how he trained so intensely for a performance in which he boxed for five hours that the gloves began to fall apart. Their tattered remnants, barely held together with patches and stitching, are poignant metaphors for a battered will that keeps fighting even as protections wear thin.

Vulnerability and violence also co-exist in Mimi Amini and Kelly Akashi’s collaboration: a sword made of clear glass. Hanging from the rafters, the tip of its blade points down ominously over viewers’ heads, emphasizing both the danger of the weapon and its fragility. If it fell, would it pierce one’s skull or shatter into bits? It exists suspended between latent violence and the risk of its own annihilation.

Fatemeh Kazemi and Olivia Mole, “The Conference of the Birds,” 2026; Fatemeh Kazemi, “What the Birds Did Not Tell Upon Their Return,” 2026, in the exhibit, “To Share a Stomach,” at the Brick in Los Angeles.

(Ruben Diaz 2026)

These impressions are responses to the works as they exist in the gallery, but the show has another layer, revealed in an accompanying booklet that reproduces the initial emails or texts from the Iranian artists to the curator. Interwoven with stories of life during wartime are proposals or instructions, allowing viewers to assess for themselves how much the works in the gallery reflect the artists’ original ideas. For example, the tube-bunker was initially envisioned as a “completely dark space” twinkling with a variety of malfunctioning countdown clocks. Ghanbari’s video appears in lieu of the gloves themselves, and Amini’s original digital rendering of the glass sword is much more detailed and intricate than the comparatively “low-res” version on view.

If we think of an artwork as an intentional, carefully wrought creation that comes directly from an artist, what are we to make of these incomplete, unfaithful interpretations? I was reminded of the reality TV show “Nailed It!,” in which amateur bakers fail spectacularly to reproduce complex cakes. I cackle at the distance between perfection and utter collapse, but I also feel a pang of tenderness: I am moved by their effort.

Artists, of course, are no strangers to things not going to plan. While the exhibit is enabled by the entwined ubiquity of the English language and the internet, the artists know these technologies aren’t transparent. Most of the Iranian artists left their instructions generously open-ended, inviting the interpretations and transmutations of their U.S. peers. In some cases, it seems the partners did not continue the conversation; whether due to disagreement, bombardment or government-imposed internet blackouts (described to chilling effect in an essay by Negar Karimkhani) is unclear. The U.S. artists were constrained by a very compressed timeline (and presumably budget and space) to fabricate and display the works. Even without these limitations, to hand over one’s vision to someone else, and conversely, to shoulder the responsibility for realizing it are both touching acts of trust.

Ali Ansari and Renée Petropoulos, “Between Entries”, 2026; Salman Khoshroo and Daid Roy, “Defensive Wall,” 2026; Ismail Ghanbari, “Proxy (Neyabati) 1,” “Proxy (Neyabati) 2,” “Proxy (Neyabati) 3,” 2026, on view as part of the exhibition, “To Share a Stomach,” at the Brick in Los Angeles.

(Ruben Diaz 2026)

Viewers must exert themselves a little too. Understanding who is responsible for what work and to what degree requires consulting a floor plan, a checklist and the booklet: an awkward juggling act that would have been eased by some wall labels. Still, as I shuffled papers, I became part of the buffering, incomplete chain of communication. As Amini wrote of the glass blade, “the perfection of this form is preserved only with the mental space shared between the conceptualizing artist and the interpreting artist.” I venture to add the viewer to that space, thinking of Yoko Ono’s instruction artworks (across town at the Broad) which short-circuit any physical acts of making to take shape only in our minds.

This kind of intimacy — thinking, envisioning, constructing together — is rare when it comes to American intersections with Iran. I was previously unfamiliar with the Iranian artists in the show, and I’m sure I missed many cultural and linguistic references in their works. My focus on pieces evoking violence predictably reflects my limited knowledge of Iran as other than a locus of U.S. antagonism (the result of a different information blackout).

Yet, “To Share a Stomach” lays down — gingerly, gently — an alternate connective thread, spun from a mutual recognition of fallibility. In his introductory essay, curator Moshayedi reveals that the show’s title is his mistranslation of the Farsi word for “empathy.” (The correct translation is “to share a heart.”) He goes on to confess that after many years’ study, he finally gave up on learning the language. We will never understand each other perfectly; I am still moved by the effort.

Aug. 23 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday accused Canada of wanting the “benefits of being a state, without being one” as trade tensions between the U.S. and its northern neighbor escalate.

“Canada wants the benefits of being a State, without being one!!!,” Trump posted on social media overnight. “They have also charged our great farmers, for many years, massive amounts of Tariffs. No more!!!”

Trump’s remarks came after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa next month would impose retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. after the Trump administration’s 50% tariffs on Canada took effect.

Carney told a press conference that his government would “match Washington’s new tariffs dollar for dollar in order to protect Canadian workers, farmers, families and businesses.”

He said further details on the retaliatory tariffs would be released in the “coming days,” with the levies targeting steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics.

Carney said Ottawa is “reluctantly” taking this step.

Trump has previously discussed making Canada the 51st state, which Canadian leaders have rejected.

United States President Donald Trump’s unpredictability isn’t strengthening the US position in the Iran war, as “the Iranians have no reason to believe anything Trump tells them”, argues Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Walt tells host Steve Clemons that the war is now in a “hurting stalemate” where “neither side really wants to escalate; they’re just waiting for the other side to crack”.

On the Palestinian-Israeli front, Walt doesn’t see an opening for a genuine political solution, as neither US party is willing to exert pressure on Israel, where “there’s still a very strong commitment to ‘Greater Israel’”.

Some, ahem, “congratulations” are in order for Post Malone and his sweetheart Christy Lee.

The “Sunflower” rapper-turned-country singer is engaged to stylist Lee more than a year after sparking a romance. Lee’s close friend Marina Hollyer announced the engagement news Wednesday on her Instagram stories, captioning a photo of the newly betrothed pair with the caption: “My best friend in the world just got engaged.” Hollyer also shared photos of the couple and friends posing in front of a flower arch and at dinner, seemingly moments after the proposal. Per Hollyer’s Instagram page, Posty popped the question in Utah, where he currently resides.

A representative for the Grammy-nominated “Circles” musician did not immediately respond Thursday to The Times’ request for more information.

Post Malone, 31, reportedly began dating Lee at the beginning of 2025 after calling off an engagement with his then-longtime girlfriend, with whom he shares a 4-year-old daughter. The exes settled their custody battle in November but details about their agreement were sealed, People reported at the time.

This year has been an exciting one for the singer. In April he headlined the final night of the Stagecoach festival in Indio, and this summer he headlined the FIFA World Cup 2026 closing ceremony in New Jersey, debuting new music and performing the fan favorite hit “Sunflower” with Swae Lee on the global stage.

While he is still yet to wed, Malone is already celebrating a milestone anniversary. His popular 2016 mixtape “August 26” is celebrating its 10th year and will finally be available to stream on — surprise — Aug. 26, he announced last week.

Ukrainians have observed a national holiday meant to instil patriotism during the fifth year of their war against Russia.

On Ukrainian National Flag Day on Sunday, participants raised the flag, observed a minute of silence for those killed in the war, sang the Ukrainian national anthem and listened to patriotic and folk songs performed by a military orchestra.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attended ceremonies in the capital, Kyiv.

Addressing military personnel, Zelenskyy said the flag “symbolises what is most precious” to the thousands of soldiers defending “our entire Ukraine”.

Ukraine’s National Flag Day was established as a national holiday on August 23, 2004, one day before its Independence Day.