NEWS

Latest polls suggest Lula’s lead over Bolsonaro is narrowing, with neither candidate likely to win outright on Sunday.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro have wrapped up their election campaigns, each voicing confidence in victory ahead of Sunday’s tightly contested first-round presidential vote.

Lula, 80, closed his re-election bid on Saturday with a march through Sao Paulo, Brazil’s economic powerhouse, drawing what his campaign called a record crowd for a closing rally.

“Tomorrow, we’re going to win the elections in the first round,” he told supporters, describing Sunday’s vote as a choice between “democracy and barbarism” and promising to “defeat the far right”.

He has also framed the election as a test of Brazil’s sovereignty, warning against “meddling” by Washington.

Bolsonaro led a motorcycle caravan through towns in Sao Paulo state, echoing the campaign style of his father, before rallying later in Rio de Janeiro. “I am convinced that everything is in place for us to win this election in the first round,” he said.

The 45-year-old is the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally of US President Donald Trump. The former leader, 71, is serving a 27-year prison sentence for attempting to overturn his 2022 election loss to Lula.

The younger Bolsonaro was photographed at his rally holding a portrait of his father.

Trump has not formally endorsed Bolsonaro but has said he is watching the election “very closely”, a level of US interest that has become a flashpoint in the campaign.

Lula’s supporters have seized on it as evidence Washington is trying to meddle in the elections, while some Bolsonaro supporters, frustrated by the cost of living, say they would welcome US pressure if it helped force change at home.

Polls released on Saturday suggested Lula was still ahead but his lead was narrowing, with neither candidate likely to win outright on Sunday. Such a result would send the race to a run-off on October 25 between the two frontrunners, a contest polls suggest would also be close.

It is a far tighter race than Lula’s last victory in 2022, when he beat the elder Bolsonaro by less than two percentage points.

Meanwhile, the Bolsonaro campaign has faced scrutiny over a film-funding scandal. Flavio Bolsonaro is under investigation over financing for Dark Horse, a biopic about his father, bankrolled by a jailed banker tied to one of Brazil’s biggest financial scandals.

Brazil’s Supreme Court authorised federal police in April to investigate whether Flavio Bolsonaro made defamatory statements about Lula.

Bolsonaro has pledged to seek his father’s release from prison if elected, and has echoed his father’s unsubstantiated claims questioning the reliability of Brazil’s electronic voting system, which analysts say could be laying the groundwork to contest the result if he loses.

Beyond the presidency, Brazil’s nearly 160 million registered voters will also choose lawmakers, governors and senators on Sunday.

Right-wing candidates have gained ground in Latin America in recent months.

Ben Gannon-Doak turned North Macedonia inside out and upside down. He is woefully short of minutes for his club, Bournemouth, and lacks sharpness and ruthlessness as a consequence. His delivery has always lacked accuracy.

His raw materials, though, are exhilarating. His pace, his involvement, his number of touches, his chances.

He never left North Macedonia alone. They survived only because he blasted over with one of his chances, shot tamely with another, lost composure with a third one. Having tormented North Macedonia, he allowed them off the hook, but he was a one-man thrill-fest.

He’s 20, that can’t be forgotten. He’s going to be around for a lot of years and will play a heap of big games, but with his club he’s got some decisions to make.

Two minutes against Liverpool, 19 against Sociedad, eight against Brentford, one minute against Newcastle and Man City. The only game he has started this season was a League Cup tie against Lincoln.

Bournemouth is a tough team to get into, but he needs more time on the grass, more opportunity to develop. Maybe a loan move in January would make sense for him, if his club allows him to go. A big ‘if’.

That’s a situation Gannon-Doak needs to resolve for himself – and for Scotland.

William Serafino is a political scientist with a master’s degree in history. His research and analysis have focused on geopolitics. In this interview, he discusses Venezuela’s current relationship with the United States, including a major oil deal and what Donald Trump and Delcy Rodríguez seek to gain from it.

In New York, Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez thanked Trump for his support and described their bilateral meeting as “historic.” Nearly nine months after the January 3 US bombing and kidnapping of President Maduro, how would you describe the current relationship between Caracas and Washington? Which elements are short-term Trump gimmicks, and which ones will structurally define the relationship in the future?

It is difficult to find a precise definition. Many speak of a protectorate-like condition; some even go so far as to describe it as a relationship of colonial or neocolonial subjugation. Others, however, define it as a process of political, economic, and energy normalization in which the Venezuelan acting government makes tactical concessions, but without formally compromising national sovereignty. I believe the devil is in the details, not in one-size-fits-all approaches. At the level of inter-state relations, what I observe is a strategic attachment of Venezuela to the US sphere of influence and an energy realignment that operates with significant geopolitical restrictions in what concerns relations with Russia, China, and Iran.

At the governmental level, an asymmetrical alliance (favorable to Trump) has been forged in the wake of the military defeat on January 3, from which Caracas and Washington derive immediate and existential gains: Trump cherishes the sole geopolitical achievement of his second term, and Rodríguez gains relief and fresh revenue to govern after more than a decade of suffocating sanctions, within a framework defined by US interests. This reality can hardly be classified as a protectorate, in which a foreign power takes control of diplomacy, defense, and other strategic elements of the subordinate state. Could one speak of a sui generis, or “soft,” protectorate? Perhaps, but that would be an acknowledgment that the concept is not entirely effective in explaining the situation. 

The same is true of the thesis of a “retreat with full sovereignty,” which is difficult to sustain when the US is clearly shaping the portrayal of the new national political dynamic and controlling the country’s oil revenues. That is why I have ventured –at the risk of being wrong –to speak of “joint governance” or “co-government,” in which Washington and Caracas divide areas of responsibility and share the political costs of each move so that the alliance endures and each party can, albeit unequally, reap its corresponding share of the benefits.

Trump, despite his constant demeaning tone, needs the Rodríguez administration to be strong enough to lead the country in order to get what he wants; only under such conditions can he extract the oil. And she, too, needs Trump to remain in power so that the oil agreement and other commitments can move forward in the medium term. This is the only way to stay in power and hope to gain legitimacy through performance. I believe that, described in this way, we are talking neither of classic colonialism nor of uncompromised sovereignty, but of something more unique that requires developing other analytical categories.

In your articles, you have pointed out that the US-Venezuela oil deal must be analyzed beyond the announced figures. What do you consider to be the true political and geopolitical scope of this agreement, and what benefits do the various actors seek to extract from it?

I see it more as a political arrangement than a formal agreement. Its function is not legal or institutional, but political. The announcement gave Trump narrative ammunition to promise that gas prices will drop, a necessity driven by his debacle in Iran. By not having signed anything, he avoids going through Congress, sends a message to his core electorate that he is guaranteeing the country’s energy security, and reassures energy corporations to go ahead and invest in Venezuela because the relationship with Caracas is solid and unshakable. Rodríguez, on the other hand, benefits from the fact that the agreement shuts the door on María Corina Machado in Washington’s power circles and thereby helps reestablish her domestic legitimacy, promising a secure path to economic and social recovery underpinned by US investment.

I would go as far as saying that the agreement is Rodríguez’s trump card in a potential presidential campaign, where she will be able to present herself as the only political actor capable of boosting the economy, as opposed to potential rivals who lack influence in the White House and do not have a reliable plan to pull the country out of the spiral of inflation and economic frustration in which it finds itself after years of sanctions. 

Both sides stand to gain politically, and the agreement appears to be designed to avoid institutional resistance: neither is forced to face the hassle of legislative approval nor the criticism from political opponents. Since there are no specific clauses, they can more easily divert attention and focus their message on the eventual economic benefits. This level of coordination is a sign of partnership, not of one-sided imposition. If that were the case, Trump could force Rodríguez to sign a bilateral treaty in the National Assembly, and that is not what we are seeing.

You have paid special attention to the role of the Pentagon and the involvement of its Office of Strategic Capital in the structure of the agreement. Why is it so significant that the US defense establishment is a formal actor in a Venezuelan oil deal?

It seems to me that the Pentagon’s involvement serves as a coercive cover—an insurance policy backed by force—to ensure, in the medium and long term, US commercial and financial advantages in the exploitation of the oil fields included in the agreement. Let us imagine that the current government, or another one in the future, wants to modify the arrangement and secure better terms. At that point, it would not be dealing with a conventional transnational corporation, but with one controlled by the Department of War. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that negotiating under such conditions would scare anyone off: the language of business would be replaced by the language of weapons, and after January 3, no one would want to venture into this murky territory.

Furthermore, I believe that the Pentagon’s involvement sends a message to companies to invest and feel secure in the knowledge that the Department of War guarantees their investments and capital commitments in the Venezuelan energy sector. For the US, Venezuela’s oil reserves are not being treated as an economic asset, but rather as a matter of “national security.” As we well know, when that term is used, any coercive tool is fair game against a country’s sovereignty.

You have argued that the relationship between Caracas and Washington is taking on the characteristics of a negotiation marked by a profound power asymmetry. And many official spokespeople or analysts ask, “But what alternative do we have?” whenever criticism is raised about the path the government has chosen. What real ability does Venezuela have today to negotiate different terms or reject certain demands from the United States?

Right now, those capabilities are very limited, because, as I said, it’s not just a matter of US impositions, but also of calculating how to obtain tangible benefits from an asymmetrical relationship. But politics also takes place outside institutional spaces, and I believe there is much to be done there. What I’m about to say won’t, I don’t think, resolve the dilemma you’ve raised, but it could be a path toward regaining political vitality and initiative: strengthening social consensus on national sovereignty, refusing to concede the battle for historical memory regarding a century-long history of US plunder, and fostering a broad discussion on the vision for the nation’s future. These steps could help break the inertia somewhat and prepare the country for more favorable political conditions in the near future. In contrast, suggesting specific policies or positions to the current government would be irresponsible, because I’m not the one who has to deal with a Trump and his violent ego.

My message is directed at all of us who do not hold such high-stakes positions and can contribute, from our own small spheres of influence or through our individual activism, to rebuilding a patriotic consciousness that must adapt to a new reality. How many open forums are being promoted to discuss the educational model, the economic model, and the model of income distribution? Which bodies are evaluating the trajectory of the bilateral relationship with the US in order to better address it? Are these discussions conceptually limited? Perhaps these debates will not change the current situation of Trump’s disproportionate influence, but they would give us autonomy in our vision and in shaping the future. If Venezuela does not have its own vision on major national issues, there is a risk that they will end up being imposed from Washington. That would be committing the perfect crime, and I believe we must avoid it: with national unity, transcending political divisions.

In your articles and social media posts, you have criticized political elites who, historically, have lacked “imagination” beyond offering lucrative deals to the US. How did Chávez manage to break that mold? How could Venezuela return to a more sovereign path?

To be fair, Chávez broke the mold but the political and geopolitical conditions were ripe for it. The weakness of the national elites, discredited by a society weary of inequality and injustice, coincided with the US being drunk on power at the end of the Cold War. In its plans to establish itself as a unipolar superpower, Latin America did not figure as the central battleground. The inattention of an empire more concerned with reshaping West Asia, forcing China into the “rules-based order,” and eliminating the last strongholds of the socialist bloc (Tito’s Yugoslavia) in turn allowed Chávez to implement his agenda without facing a full-scale war, although he did face numerous coup attempts. 

The present conditions are different. There is a hemispheric imperial retreat underpinned by a militarized reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which drastically raises the cost of sovereignty-oriented proposals. Still, I believe that what is most commendable about Chávez, and which can be of use in this new context, is his ability to clearly identify favorable conditions and act upon them.

I believe that anyone who considers themselves a political figure must build upon these principles to take on the new challenges of the present, developing and defending a dignified vision of the nation’s future. I believe that, rather than waiting for another Chávez to emerge, we should instead study his thought in depth and draw on the best of it to renew political practices, always interpreting the situation for what it is: changing, volatile, and full of opportunities. Chávez is a great political school, but it has been reduced to a crude tool for private interests of all kinds.

United States President Donald Trump has increased the pressure on US Senate Republicans to make Daylight Saving Time permanent, singling out one of the body’s members for stalling legislation to end the twice-a-year changing of clocks.

In a social media post on Saturday, Trump blasted US Senator Tom Cotton for “holding up” the Sunshine Protection Act, which Trump has personally opted to call the “No More Changing of Clocks Act”.

“For some reason, Tom is stopping the Bill and, in the Senate, it’s very easy to do, it only takes one!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account about the Arkansas Republican. “It should pass overwhelmingly, in a Bipartisan fashion”.

“Nobody wants to spend their precious time running all over the place, turning Clocks back twice a year and, having sunshine in the afternoon is better than early in the morning!” he added.

Trump went even further, publishing what he claimed was Cotton’s phone number as he implored Arkansas residents to pressure him. The move echoed a moment during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, when then-candidate Trump gave out US Senator Lindsey Graham’s number after the former rival criticised him.

Al Jazeera called the number listed in Trump’s post, but an automated message stated the voicemail box was full. Cotton’s spokesperson and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

The president has routinely pushed Senate Republicans to pass legislation mandating year-round daylight saving, which would end Americans’ decades-long practice of changing their clocks twice a year to increase daylight hours. On Friday, Trump urged the US Senate to approve the bill, which passed the US House in July by a 308-117 vote.

Cotton has previously opposed the bill, arguing in a US Senate floor speech last year that farmers, construction workers, commuters and children heading to school would begin their days in the dark during the winter.

Trump disputed that argument in a separate post on Saturday, saying the bill “would be a very nice and easy WIN for the Republican Party”.

“If Tom Cotton were putting Arkansas first, he would give them an extra hour of daylight and, more importantly, they wouldn’t have to run all over their houses, farms, workplaces, and everywhere else, twice a year, having to change their Clocks, and often forgetting to do so”, Trump wrote.

Trump, an avid golfer, also highlighted what he considered to be another selling point of the bill: the North American Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) tour.

“The PGA TOUR, as an example, needs more Daylight in the afternoon in order to finish their Tournaments”, he wrote in a post, which included a letter from PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp supporting the bill. “Likewise, regular Golfers, Tennis Players, Hunters and, perhaps more importantly, Farmers who want more Daylight to play or work.”

The US president, who spent part of Saturday at his golf club in Sterling, Virginia, indicated in a subsequent post that he had received personal feedback on the proposal: “I don’t know about anyone else, but a table full of very distinguished people just told me that they HATE, immediately after a mandatory time change, going home at night – and it’s DARK. It’s depressing!”

In 1974, the US Congress briefly adopted year-round daylight saving time in response to the country’s energy crisis. But Congress repealed the law less than a year later over safety concerns as children commuted to school before sunrise.

US senators left Washington this week and have no set plans to return until after the November 3 midterm elections.

Some members, such as Senator John Kennedy, weren’t optimistic that Senate Republican Leader John Thune would bring the bill up for a vote before polling day.

“It’s dead as disco,” the Louisiana Republican told Reuters this week of Trump’s push to make daylight saving time permanent. “My sense is it would have trouble passing … I don’t think the leader is going to bring it up.”

The emperor is a symbol of Bulgarian national identity whose repatriation stoked tensions with Greece.

More than 1,000 years after his death, the remains of medieval ruler Czar Samuel have arrived in Bulgaria.

A symbol of Bulgarian national identity, Samuel was a warrior emperor who battled the Byzantine Empire to expand his kingdom before suffering defeat and dying soon after in 1014. His supposed remains were discovered in a Greek border area in the 1960s.

The coffin and remains were flown on Saturday to the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, on board a military aircraft that was surrounded by air force fighter jets.

Thousands of people poured into a public square to honour the czar’s arrival, which capped years of fraught negotiations between Bulgaria and Greece until an accord was reached this week.

Bulgarian politicians across the spectrum paid tribute to the medieval ruler, listening to the national anthem and a 21-gun salute.

“Today, we Europeans are learning to read history with a desire to belong not only to our homeland, but also to the culture that unites us across the entire European continent,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev said.

“That is why Europe must not reopen old wounds but must work for peace as the supreme good,” Radev continued, referring to the centuries-old rivalry between neighbouring Greece and Bulgaria.

Crowds cheered as fighter jets performed a flypast.

Martin Nestorov, a 42-year-old software engineer, told the AFP news agency he attended the ceremony “to welcome Czar Samuel back to Bulgaria, where he belongs”.

“I am here because I am Bulgarian, and a Bulgarian is returning to his homeland,” added Tsanka Zlatkova, 65, a retired art historian.

A procession brought the remains to be laid in the Church of Saint Sofia, a sixth-century basilica that is the capital’s namesake and where church officials say Samuel was baptised.

Competing claims

The handover of Samuel’s remains is part of a broader accord between the Greek and Bulgarian culture ministers.

In exchange, Greece is slated to receive 48 objects that Bulgarian troops pillaged from churches and monasteries in Greece during World War I.

Speaking before the handover, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said he hoped the ceremony would boost Greece’s campaign to repatriate the Parthenon Marbles, a collection of 2,500-year-old marble sculptures taken from the Acropolis in Athens and later displayed in the British Museum.

“The global community is essentially re-evaluating its longstanding stance on protecting cultural heritage,” Mitsotakis said, adding that historical heirlooms “cannot be treated as the spoils of war”.

Bulgaria is not the only country to have claims on Samuel. A huge statue of the czar stands in the North Macedonian capital of Skopje, with Macedonians claiming him as “their” ruler.

In 2022, a bilateral commission recommended presenting Samuel as the head of a state that “most contemporary historiographers consider to be the Bulgarian Empire”, based in what is currently North Macedonia.

A progressive move down the right gave Gloucester fly-half Charlie Atkinson – three days after he signed a new deal committing his long-term future with the club – the opportunity to find Ben Loader free on the left with a pinpoint kick, and the winger dotted down to open the scoring.

Harlequins, in their desperation to keep Gloucester out on their own try line, lost Will Evans to the sin bin and mere seconds later Wales flanker Morgan barged over in the left corner to extend Gloucester’s lead.

On the stroke of half hour, Morgan’s strong carry allowed Will Trenholm to force over Gloucester’s third try from close range before George Barton slotted the conversio superbly from touch.

A spectacular 50:22 from scrum-half Caolan Englefield then put Gloucester in another great position and Charlie Atkinson broke a tackle to go over next to the sticks, as Barton kicked an easy extra two to give the hosts a 24-point advantage at half-time.

The interval did not change the momentum as two short passes saw Seb Atkinson race to the line and power over Gloucester’s fifth of the evening and Quins’ day was perhaps summed up best when Connor Slevin’s poor restart failed to go 10 metres.

Gloucester ruthlessly made their visitors pay once more as with their next attack Will Joseph’s outstanding run and offload allowed Englefield to dive over.

Joseph then grabbed the try his own performance deserved, diving in to the right of the posts to claim Gloucester’s seventh try and third inside 12 minutes after half-time.

Another kick to the corner from Charlie Atkinson found Barton who juggled successfully and managed to extend over for Gloucester’s eighth.

Joseph thought he had scored his second with the final act of the match to take Gloucester past 50 points, but his try was chalked off for a knock-on in the build up.

Gloucester: Barton; Thorley, Joseph, S. Atkinson, Loader; C. Atkinson, Englefield; Rapava-Ruskin, Lake (capt), Fasogbon, Kleyn, Clark, Thomas, Morgan, Trenholm.

Replacements: Innard, Bleuler, C. Knight, Clement, Ludlow, Robson, W. Knight, Denny.

Harlequins: Furbank; Anderson, Beard, Bradley, Murley (capt); Slevin, Porter; Hobson, Walker, Delgado, Dun, Browne, Kenningham, Evans, Carr.

Sin-bin: Evans (17 mins)

Replacements: Riley, Wenger, Kerrod, Petti, Cunningham-South, Friday, Lang, Green.

Referee: Sara Cox.

Who: Portugal vs Norway
What: UEFA Nations League 2026-27, Group A4 match
Where: Estadio do Dragao, Porto, Portugal
When: Sunday, October 4, at 8:45pm local time (18:45 GMT)
How to follow: Al Jazeera Sport will bring you all the build-up and live updates from 15:45 GMT.

For the second time in a week, Portugal and Norway clash in the UEFA Nations League. But this time, things are not quite the same in the Selecao camp.

Sunday’s fixture in Porto will see the Nations League title holders play without their talisman, Cristiano Ronaldo, after the 41-year-old abruptly left their camp, raising questions about his international future.

Ronaldo’s dramatic exit and apparent rift with new coach Jorge Jesus have dominated headlines worldwide. Portuguese players have largely blocked the outside noise, however, maintaining a perfect record at the tournament where they are chasing a record-extending third crown.

Opponents Norway have won just one match, despite boasting a talented side that defied expectations with a historic quarterfinal finish at this year’s FIFA World Cup.

However, their striker Erling Haaland – one of Europe’s most lethal players – poses enough danger to put Portugal under pressure ahead of this weekend’s thrilling encounter.

What is the UEFA Nations League?

The UEFA Nations League was founded in 2018 to reduce the number of meaningless friendlies and give nations competitive matches against top-ranked teams.

In this competition, countries from across Europe participate in a league structure which features promotion and relegation.

What is the latest news on Cristiano Ronaldo?

Ronaldo left the squad late on Wednesday, shortly after a news conference in which coach Jesus confirmed the five-time Ballon d’Or winner would be left out of his starting line-up for a second consecutive Nations League game.

The 41-year-old’s decision to walk out came as a shock as he had been due to train with his teammates at the Parken Stadium in Copenhagen.

Portugal’s leading scorer with 146 goals had already spent the entirety of last weekend’s 2-1 Nations League win in Norway on the bench, having captained the side in the 1-0 home victory over Wales last Thursday.

He appeared to indicate that the reasons behind Jesus’s decision ran deeper and hinted at a departure from the national team he has graced for more than two decades.

“In due course, I will tell the truth to all the Portuguese people about my reasons for leaving the national team, to which I have always been dedicated,” Ronaldo said in a cryptic Instagram post, announcing his sudden exit from the camp.

Spanish sports daily Marca said that Jesus and Portuguese federation president Pedro Proenca followed Ronaldo to Copenhagen airport in an attempt to persuade him to stay with the squad, before the player boarded his private jet.

Jesus insisted earlier on Wednesday that there was no rift between them, although the 72-year-old, who was appointed in July, acknowledged that his captain was disappointed to remain on the bench against Norway.

How have Portugal and Norway played in the Nations League?

Portugal are on top of Group A4 on nine points, with three wins out of three. They started their campaign with a 1-0 home win over Wales, before adding a 2-1 victory over Norway in Oslo. In the last match, they thrashed Denmark 4-2 in Copenhagen.

Norway are second-bottom in the group, with only three points. They started their campaign with a 3-2 home win over fellow Scandinavians Denmark but suffered identical 2-1 defeats at home to Portugal and to Wales in Cardiff.

When did Portugal and Norway last meet?

They met in matchday two of this year’s Nations League, with Portugal beating Norway 2-1 in Oslo.

Joao Felix and Goncalo Ramos scored for Portugal, while Haaland struck the consolation goal for Norway.

Portugal vs Norway: Head-to-head

• Matches: 12
• Portugal wins: 9
• Norway wins: 1
• Draws: 2

Portugal vs Norway: Form guide

(Last five games, latest results first)

Portugal: W-W-W-L-W

Norway: L-L-W-L-W

Who are the top players to watch?

Joao Felix and Goncalo Ramos (Portugal): Al Nassr forward Felix has emerged as the reliable scorer in the Portugal setup, finding the net in each of the three games this term. Meanwhile, Ramos, playing in place of Ronaldo, has made up for CR7’s absence with goals in the last two matches.

Erling Haaland and Oscar Bobb (Norway): All of Norway’s goals in the ongoing competition have come through Haaland (three) and Bobb (two). While their partnership proved successful in the opening match, their goals were not enough in the following matches, as the Norwegians suffered back-to-back defeats. Norwegians will demand better from Haaland, especially after the Manchester City talisman’s incredible start to the club season that features seven goals in as many games.

Team news and predicted lineups

Portugal

Winger Francisco Conceicao is doubtful for the game due to a thigh injury.

Probable Portugal XI: Diogo Costa; Joao Cancelo, Ruben Dias, Renato Veiga, Nuno Mendes; Ruben Neves, Vitinha; Pedro Neto, Bruno Fernandes, Rafael Leao; Goncalo Ramos

Norway

Wing-back Julian Ryerson is doubtful with a muscle injury, while centre-back Torbjorn Heggem is suspended.

Probable Norway XI: Orjan Nyland; Julian Ryerson, Kristoffer Ajer, Torbjorn Heggem, David Moller Wolfe; Martin Odegaard, Sander Berge, Patrick Berg; Oscar Bobb, Erling Haaland, Antonio Nusa

Portugal vs Norway: TV channel, livestreaming

• Portugal
• Norway
• United Kingdom: ITV1
• United States: FOX Sports, FuboTV, ViX
• India: Sony Sports Network
• Middle East and North Africa: beIN SPORTS
• South Africa: DStv Stream

You can find your regional broadcaster on UEFA’s official broadcaster listing.

Washington, DC – Democrats have the momentum; Republicans are surging in defence and cash.

That narrative has emerged ahead of the United States midterm elections in November, as races across the country enter their final stretch.

With control of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate at stake, Democrats begin October with a surprisingly rosy outlook as more congressional seats are seen as in play.

Republicans, meanwhile, appear to be in damage control, pouring millions of dollars into races once seen as secure victories while injecting more funding into a handful of marquee showdowns.

The party’s standard bearer, President Donald Trump, who has embraced the notion of the election being a referendum on his leadership, enters the final month with staggeringly low approval ratings.

The most recent Associated Press-NORC polling, released on Thursday, showed Trump with 31 percent approval, the lowest during either of his two terms. Only 26 percent of respondents approved Trump’s handling of the economy, dipping two points below his predecessor, former President Joe Biden’s lowest rating on the topic.

Surveys continue to show voters rank the economy as their top issue, with topics like gas prices, made higher by the US-Israel war with Iran, dominating their concerns. Immigration and corruption have also regularly ranked high.

“The broad stroke is that Americans are disappointed, bordering on angry that President Trump hasn’t delivered on the core promises he made when he won re-election,” according to Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC.

House looking solid for Dems

Political trackers have long projected Democrats will take control of the US House of Representatives in the November 3 vote.

Winning a majority in the 435-member chamber from Republicans would give the party renewed legislative power to assert leverage over Trump, while launching investigations into his administration’s dealings. Top Democrats have already signalled that probes into Trump’s family business dealings would be top priorities.

Two election non-partisan prediction authorities, the Cook Political Report and the University of Virginia’s Sabato’s Crystal Ball, have recently assessed that the likelihood of Democrats taking the House has only increased.

The Cook Political Report recently shifted 15 House races in the direction of Democrats, moving some considered “toss-ups” to “leans Democrat” and some previously considered “lean Republican” to “toss-ups”.

One such shift was for a Texas border district represented by Republican Monica De La Cruz. Her district was emblematic of a wider Latino shift towards Trump in 2024. Once seen as holding the advantage over her challenger, Democrat Bobby Pulido, Cook now rates her race as a “toss-up”.

All told, the political analysis clearinghouse now predicts Democrats are on track to win 5 to 15 House seats.

Senate in play

With 30 days left to go, “there’s much more drama in the Senate than the House races”, according to Kyle Kondik, the managing editor at Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

Once considered a pipe dream for Democrats, who need a net gain of at least four seats to win a slim majority, the 100-member chamber has moved within a more comfortable striking distance.

Unlike in the House, where every seat is up for re-election, only 35 Senate seats are up for grabs in this cycle, creating a far narrower pathway to control.

“The trajectory of the polling since Labor Day (September 7) has generally been that a bad Republican environment is just getting worse,” Kondik said, adding that “the Senate just seems to get more and more competitive as the cycle has gone on”.

To be sure, the quality of polling can vary across the country, with Kondik cautioning that gauging the political temperature of the Midwest has been particularly challenging for pollsters.

Still, in North Carolina, former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper is expected to trounce former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Whatley in the race for a Senate seat currently held by Republicans. Top conservative donors have already begun to divert funds from the contest.

Surveys have consistently shown Democrats leading in three other races for seats currently held by Republicans: Democrat James Talarico against Republican Ken Paxton in Texas; Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown against Republican incumbent Senator John Husted in Ohio; and Democratic Mary Peltola against Republican Dan Sullivan in Alaska.

Races for Republican held seats in Iowa, between Republican Ashley Hinson and Democrat Josh Turek, and in Maine, between Republican incumbent Susan Collins and Democratic challenger Troy Jackson, remain separated by less than one point, according to Real Clear Politics polling averages.

Democrats, meanwhile, have consistently led in polling in Senate races in Georgia, New Hampshire and Michigan for seats the party currently holds.

Big money in the race

For Republicans, salvation could be in the spending, with this year’s race continuing a US phenomenon of small fortunes poured into politics.

All told, at least $4bn had been spent on gubernatorial and congressional midterm advertising buys as of September 17, putting the race on track to become “perhaps the most expensive midterm on record”, according to Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

Republicans entered September with a considerable funding edge. The Republican National Committee had $125.6m on hand, with the Democratic National Committee trailing far behind with $16.9m and $17.6m in debt.

When accounting for the three major committees associated with both groups, the Republican Party had $233.4m in cash, according to a CNBC analysis, while the Democratic Party had $130.4m.

Trip Yang, a Democrat strategist based in New York City, told Al Jazeera such spending can be deployed to help boost a candidate’s name recognition or to tear down a competitor.

According to AdImpact, Republicans and their allies were set to spend $888m on advertising from mid-September to election day, with Democrats and their supporters set to spend $666m.

The firm found pro-Republican ad spending would be particularly pronounced in the key Senate races in Ohio, Texas and Michigan, outpacing Democratic spending by at least $24m in each state.

Trump’s unpopularity, Yang said, means “Republicans spending millions or hundreds of millions of dollars improving their candidates’ images by itself may not be enough”.

“If you’re a little bit handicapped because your president is so toxic, you try to spend your hundreds of millions of dollars attacking the Democrats to make it more of a food fight,” he said.

A New York Times analysis estimated by the end of August at least $1bn in so-called “dark money” had been poured into the midterms. The term refers to spending where the donor’s identity is shielded, typically through nonprofit and shell-company donations to Super PACs.

Industry groups, including those supporting Crypto, AI and online betting firms, are expected to be top spenders in key races, although their support tends to cut across partisan lines.

Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to spend between $400m and $500m from his MAGA Inc Super PAC, though it has so far spent about $15m to support Paxton’s Senate bid in Texas.

Pro-Paxton ad reservations far outpaced Talarico in September, according to AdImpact data analysed by NPR, with $94m spent compared with $30m to support the Democrat.

The Trump factor

Trump has pledged to spend the final days before the election in non-stop campaign mode, after urging supporters during his Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas, to “vote like I’m on the ballot”.

His plan to criss-cross the country for rallies underscores a “base turnout” strategy meant to energise voters already loyal to the party, according to conservative analyst Olsen.

“But the Republican problem is a persuasion problem with people in the middle,” Olsen said. “[Trump’s campaigning] might help with some turnout … but their real problem is persuasion, and it’s not something that’s going to help with that in the slightest.”

Polls have spelt trouble for Republicans when it comes to swaying independents, with a PBS News, NPR and Marist poll from September 23 showing unaffiliated voters breaking for Democrats at 57 percent compared with 32 moving towards Republicans.

The scenario has created a dilemma for some top Republican candidates over whether to break from the president on his most controversial actions, according to Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist University Institute for Public Opinion.

Senate candidates Ashley Hinson in Iowa, Jon Husted in Ohio and Mike Rogers in Michigan all recently put daylight between themselves and Trump on the war with Iran.

One Republican House candidate, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar, has criticised Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies as she seeks to rally Latino voters in South Florida.

Trump, in turn, reposted a social media message calling Salazar a “backstabber”.

“You need to have, you know, something else going for you other than endorsement of Trump,” said Miringoff. “Some Republicans are starting to have self-preservation kick in because they’re concerned.”

What can change?

Achieving a wide-scale shift in public opinion remains a tall order for Republicans in the final stretch of the race.

Many of the defining issues are unlikely to change before November, with Trump signalling a possible escalation with Iran following the vote as he has downplayed the prospect of short-term affordability relief.

At the same time, the US president has also not ruled out actions that rights groups say could upend voter turnout. Most recently, he refused to commit to not invoking the Insurrection Act or declaring a state of emergency surrounding the vote during an interview with Time magazine.

Miringoff said he believed that the “potential for more than just a marginal shift is there”, as he assessed some Democratic candidates have struggled to present clear visions beyond opposition to Trump.

“The result isn’t formed in concrete,” he said, “to the degree that there’s going to be a lot of money still spent.”

Analyst Olsen saw less remaining wiggle room for the party.

“Republicans have the time and the resources to change the outcome with respect to a few close Senate races,” Olsen said. “But to change direction, they would need something that would be apocal.”

The multi-vehicle crash occurred in the Salama area, 90km southeast of Nairobi, killing mostly Catholic pilgrims.

At least 17 people, most of them Catholic pilgrims on the way to a prayer site, have been killed in a crash involving multiple vehicles on the highway to the Kenyan coastal city of Mombasa.

The crash in the Salama area, about 90 kilometres (about 55 miles) southeast of the capital Nairobi, happened after midnight, police said on Saturday.

The crash occurred when a truck driver tried and failed to overtake another truck; that caused a collision with vehicles including a van carrying pilgrims, police said.

Kenyan media reported that the pilgrims were travelling in a 14-seater minibus.

The van’s driver and 16 passengers, most of them women, died at the scene, police said.

The pilgrims were going to a prayer site in Nakuru County, west of Nairobi, said Martin Kivuva, archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Mombasa.

The archbishop said in a statement that he and others were “saddened with lots of grief” over the deaths.

President William Ruto offered condolences to the families, friends, parishioners and the entire Catholic community “who are mourning this painful loss”.

Kenya’s National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) launched an investigation into the crash.

The NTSA said it dispatched investigators “to establish the full circumstances leading to the collision”.

But it noted that the stretch of road where the crash occurred is a known “black spot” and that “recommendations have been made to address safety concerns” regarding the route.

Road accidents are a problem across Africa. In Kenya and elsewhere in the region, the accidents are often blamed on poorly maintained vehicles, excess speed and poor road conditions.

Kenya recorded 5,009 road traffic deaths last year, while 2,150 deaths were reported in the first six months of 2026, local media reported, citing numbers from the NTSA.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is set to spend $233 million to defeat candidates in this fall’s congressional midterm elections who speak out against the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warned US Senator Bernie Sanders, Anadolu reports.

The top pro-Israel lobbying firm in the US “plans to spend $233 million to defeat candidates who dare to speak out against Netanyahu’s extremist government,” Sanders said on US social media platform X on Friday.

“They spent $33 million to defeat Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan primary. They lost. They are going to keep losing,” he said.

El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate in this year’s senatorial race in the state of Michigan, strongly opposes unconditional US military aid for Israel and has criticized the Netanyahu government’s policies in both Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

READ: Former Israeli premier accuses Netanyahu of preparing ground for war that could delay elections

Sanders added: “NO MORE U.S. MILITARY AID FOR ISRAEL.”

In the Nov. 3 US congressional midterms, polls show Democrats broadly favored to win the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate.

As the US electorate’s view of Israel has soured, especially in light of the genocide in Gaza, many Democrats running for office this year have taken a harder line against the policies of the Netanyahu government and what many see as its efforts to displace Palestinians and frustrate any hope for peace in the Middle East.

READ: US senator urges Congress to cut off funding for Iran war

After the Pivdennyi Bridge was attacked, passengers described how dust from a blast wave entered their carriage through the ventilation system.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Putin had decided that there were “no rules now” when attacking Ukraine.

In an interview with the Financial Times, he said: “The Russians have failed to occupy us. So now they are carrying out massive attacks and mass killings.”

He added: “They want to destroy our bridges… our data centres, the internet, mobile networks, hospitals, kindergartens, schools, universities – everything. They want people to flee their cities.”

Putin on Thursday insisted that Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian economic targets were a direct response to Ukraine’s strikes on Russia’s oil refineries and its ships in the Black Sea.

“Now from every direction we’re receiving calls ‘let’s stop’. But they started it,” Putin said after a wide-ranging speech at the Valdai foreign policy forum.

The Kremlin leader admitted Kyiv had “got some results” from its refinery attacks and Russia had lost about 1% of its GDP. Ukraine maintains it began attacking Russian oil infrastructure because it helps the Kremlin finance the war.

Russia has targeted Ukrainian energy infrastructure, ramping up attacks every winter since Putin launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Germany is moving ahead with plans to give its unusually large F125 frigates a medium-range air-defense capability, helping address one of the most conspicuous weaknesses of a four-ship class that has long attracted attention for having relatively little combat power for its size.

Diehl Defense and Germany’s Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw) have signed a contract to adapt and develop the IRIS-T SLM surface-to-air missile system for operational use aboard the German Navy’s F125 frigates. Under the agreement, Diehl will build prototypes and conduct comprehensive test firings intended to validate the system’s integration and performance within the existing F125 architecture. Each frigate will be fitted with two new launchers, each capable of holding 16 missiles, for a total of 32.

“The aim is to make the system mission-capable on the German Navy’s F125 frigates,” Diehl said in today’s announcement. The company described the prototype construction and test-firing phase as necessary to ensure “the seamless integration and maximum performance” of IRIS-T SLM within the frigate’s existing architecture.

The program has moved notably quickly, reflecting the urgency of the requirement.

Germany began examining the feasibility of integrating IRIS-T SLM with the F125 in 2024, with BAAINBw and Diehl studying the technical risks and requirements of adapting the normally land-based system for shipboard use. That effort led to the development of a navalized demonstrator in 2025. In October of that year, the F125 frigate Baden-Württemberg took part in a German Navy Maritime Firing Exercise off Andøya, Norway, carrying an experimental anti-air warfare module based on IRIS-T SLM. Diehl says the module went from concept to firing in less than 10 months and met all established test and evaluation objectives.

The Bundeswehr subsequently reported that Baden-Württemberg fired three live IRIS-T SLM missiles during the exercise. The ship’s radar supplied target data to the missile system, demonstrating the basic integration between the F125’s sensors and the navalized air defense architecture.

The exercise established that the concept could work at sea; the contract signed now is intended to turn that demonstration into a qualified fleet capability.

The German parliament’s Budget Committee approved the adaptation effort on September 23, with the German Defense Ministry describing it as a means of expanding the F125’s self-defense capabilities in response to the current air threat. The ministry also pointed to IRIS-T SLM’s combat experience in Ukraine.

The effort needs to be seen in the context of why the F125 has been such a controversial warship in the first place.

As TWZ examined in 2017, the F125 is a roughly 7,200-ton, 490-foot warship with an unusually small core crew and a concept of operations centered on long-duration deployments, stabilization missions, crisis management, conflict prevention, and international intervention rather than high-end fleet combat. The class was designed to spend long periods away from Germany and operate with relatively modest manpower requirements.

But its armament does not remotely match the size and sophistication of the hull. A completed, the ships were equipped with eight RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, a 127mm gun, remotely operated guns and, for close-quarters air defense, two RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launchers. The F125 has no medium- or long-range surface-to-air missile capability and no organic sonar or dedicated anti-submarine warfare weapon system.

At the same time, the TRS-4D/NR radar and other sensors can see far beyond the engagement envelope of the close-in air-defense weapons, but there is little the ship itself can do with that information against an aircraft or incoming missile at medium range.

Nearly a decade later, IRIS-T SLM is emerging as an answer to at least part of that problem.

Even with IRIS-T SLM, the F125 is well short of being an air warfare destroyer. It also still lacks an organic anti-submarine warfare capability or the kind of large vertical-launch missile battery found on Germany’s F124 frigates.

However, it does fill a gap between the F125’s originl short-range defenses and the capabilities of other ships or aircraft operating around it.

IRIS-T SLM is designed as a medium-range surface-to-air system, with an engagement range of around 25 miles and an altitude envelope of approximately 65,000 feet. As shown in the 2025 demonstration, the F125’s radar can feed information directly into the missile system, exploiting the ship’s existing sensor capabilities.

IRIS-T SLM (Medium Range Ground-Based Air Defence)

Rather than rely heavily on escorts for protection against airborne threats outside the short range of RAM, an IRIS-T-equipped F125 could at least contribute to its own medium-range air defense. Recent operations in the Middle East hve underscored the importance of this in contested maritime environments.

It also gives the ships a more useful role in a task group. The threat environment has changed substantially since the F125’s original concept was drafted. Cruise missiles, drones, loitering munitions, and increasingly sophisticated aircraft mean that even ships operating away from a major naval war can face threats well beyond the range of their existing close-in defenses.

In November 2024, Germany confirmed that the F125 frigate Baden-Württemberg, returning from an Indo-Pacific deployment, would avoid the Red Sea and sail around Africa because of the Houthi missile and drone threat. The German Defense Ministry explicitly cited the ship’s limited air defense capability and its inability to provide an effective air-defense umbrella for itself or its accompanying replenishment ship.

Ironically, the F125’s large hull, extensive electrical power, sophisticated radar, substantial aviation facilities, long endurance and relatively spacious mission areas were always supposed to provide room for a flexible approach to future missions. Yet the class’s original weight and integration constraints made adding major weapons difficult, a concern TWZ also highlighted in 2017.

IRIS-T SLM offers Germany a way to add a meaningful capability without undertaking the much more invasive redesign associated with installing a conventional vertical-launch system. The 2025 demonstration used an AAW module mounted on the ship’s deck rather than a conventional VLS installation, and today’s program is focused on adapting the system to the F125 architecture.

Once IRIS-T SLM is installed, the F125 will still be an unusual frigate. It is enormous by the standards of its mission, optimized for endurance, and lacks some of the weapons traditionally associated with a high-end surface combatant. But it will bring more to a contested fight.

The program should give the class a credible medium-range air-defense role, and provide Germany with a way to get considerably more utility out of four ships whose original design philosophy was always somewhat controversial.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

A Flydubai co-pilot accused of attacking the captain of a flight bound for Israel has been identified as an Omani national previously barred from flying in his home country over concerns about alleged extremist views, according to media reports.

There has been no official confirmation of the pilot’s identity or his beliefs.

The United Arab Emirates on Saturday described Wednesday’s incident on board Flight FZ1073 as an attempted “terrorist operation”, saying the co-pilot attacked Captain Smit Machchhar, an Indian national, with an emergency axe and attempted to take control of the aircraft.

But investigators are still working to establish the motive and whether anyone else was connected to the attack, which has raised concerns about pilot vetting and aviation security.

Here is what we know:

What do we know about the accused pilot?

The co-pilot suspected of attacking the captain of the Dubai-Tel Aviv flight carrying 174 people has been identified as Hamam al-Hammami, an Omani national, three people with knowledge of the situation, including a Gulf diplomat and a Western diplomat, told AP news agency.

All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media. The Gulf diplomat said investigations are under way to establish whether he acted as a “lone wolf or had any connection with any extremist groups”.

US media outlet CNN, quoting a source and an Israeli official, reported that al-Hammami is an Omani citizen who was born in the UAE to a Syrian mother and spent several years in the Emirates.

Questions have emerged about his previous aviation career and whether warning signs had been raised before he joined the Dubai-based low-cost carrier.

The Wall Street Journal, quoting unnamed sources, reported on Friday that Omani authorities had previously barred the accused co-pilot from flying in the country because of concerns that he had held extremist views.

Nevertheless, it remains unclear what those alleged views were or whether Oman informed other countries or airlines about its concerns.

CNN separately quoted a regional diplomatic source as saying that al-Hammami had been removed from flight training over similar concerns and was subsequently reassigned to another position.

The US-based network also reported that a LinkedIn profile bearing al-Hammami’s name said he had spent seven years at Oman Air before leaving in February 2025. The profile said he joined Royal Air Maroc in June 2025 and left in January 2026.

What happened on flight FZ1073?

At 7:05am (03:05 GMT) on Wednesday, Flight FZ1073 departed Dubai for Tel Aviv, climbing to 34,000ft (more than 10,000 metres), according to Flightradar24. A little more than two hours later, it suddenly began to descend, plunging before rising and then descending again.

Flight-tracking data showed the plane plunging more than 17,000 feet in about two minutes, before climbing and descending again.

Meanwhile, a fight had begun in the cockpit between the two pilots. The co-pilot had attacked the Indian captain of the plane, Smit Machchhar, by stabbing him.

Machchhar later described finding himself seriously wounded on the cockpit floor as the aircraft descended.

“When I was down, I could feel that the aircraft was plummeting, and I knew this is the last chance to do something,” he told Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi from a hospital in Abu Dhabi.

“I knew that the aircraft was going down … I had fallen to the ground. I told myself that the door is right there, just open it. I managed to do it and people entered,” he said.

Passengers and crew members entered the cabin and overpowered the co-pilot. The aircraft eventually levelled out at about 15,000 feet. Its transponder was subsequently switched to code 7500, signalling unlawful interference.

Two reserve pilots who were on board took control of the jet and landed it in Tabuk, northwestern Saudi Arabia. The plane landed safely at 9:45am (06:45 GMT) local time. Saudi authorities said both pilots were taken to hospital. They were later transferred to Abu Dhabi after being medically cleared.

What has the UAE said about the attack?

UAE Attorney General Hamad Saif al-Shamsi said on Saturday that investigators had determined that the co-pilot had begun carrying out what he described as a “terrorist act”.

According to al-Shamsi, the co-pilot attacked the captain inside the cockpit using the aircraft’s emergency crash axe and “attempted to take control of the aircraft’s controls”.

A crash axe is a tool kept in a cockpit to help pilots cut through the plane in emergencies.

On Thursday, al-Shamsi had ordered investigators to determine whether the incident was connected to “terrorist activity or intent” or involved prior planning or direction.

The UAE has not yet publicly established a motive or announced whether investigators believe al-Hammami acted alone.

UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash on Saturday said that the latest ‘terrorist’ attack is new warning that region’s fight against extremism is not over.

“This underscores the importance of the UAE’s early and firm stance: no tolerance for extremism and no leniency towards its rhetoric. Security begins with confronting hatred and drying up the sources of extremism,” he posted on X

What is the latest in the investigation?

Abu Dhabi is now leading the investigation, with prosecutors examining the circumstances of the attack, its motive and any possible connections to others.

Previously, al-Shamsi said UAE judicial authorities have jurisdiction over the incident because the aircraft is registered in the UAE and flies under its flag, adding that UAE law applies to crimes committed on board “even if they occur outside the country’s territory”.

On Saturday, al-Shamsi said investigators are working “to uncover all the circumstances of the incident, its motives, and related connections, in addition to completing technical examinations and examining physical and digital evidence”.

The final results will be announced as soon as the necessary procedures are completed, he said.

Meanwhile, Flydubai flights to Israel remain ⁠suspended amid the investigations.

Government forces close a key crossing connecting Houthi-held al-Houban to government-held Taiz city.

Yemen’s internationally recognised government forces have carried out nearly 500 military operations, killing or wounding 1,540 Houthi rebels in the past 24 hours, according to the army.

Warplanes, drones, artillery, missiles and rocket launchers were used to target Houthi positions in various parts of Yemen, military spokesman Colonel Majed Abdullah al-Nazili said on Friday evening.

Most of the casualties came in the governorate of Taiz where the operations halted the Houthi advance, al-Nazili said. The government-held city of Taiz has become a focal point of the renewed fighting.

The army spokesman did not mention any casualties among government forces.

Key border crossing closed

On Saturday, the army’s media official Ammar al-Sami’i told Al Jazeera that the government had closed the al-Houban crossing in Taiz.

The crossing had previously been closed for nine years and was later reopened to civilians in 2024 for “humanitarian reasons”, Sami’i said, as the road is one of Yemen’s most important connections between territory held by the opposing sides. It connects Houthi-held al-Houban to government-held Taiz city.

Sami’i said security reasons are behind the closure, following an attempt by the Houthis to infiltrate Taiz via the road, attacks in the vicinity and a general military buildup.

A fragile truce struck between the government and the Houthis in 2022 collapsed in July this year, and fighting in Yemen has escalated significantly since then.

In mid-September, the Houthis swept across parts of western Yemen, seizing the port city of Mocha and key strategic islands in the Bab al-Mandeb strait.

Since then, anti-Houthi forces have largely stabilised the front lines.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced since the fighting restarted.

Yemen has been embroiled in civil war since the Houthis seized the capital of Sanaa in 2014, forcing the internationally recognised government to retreat to Aden.

Portadown, Northern Ireland – When the summer holidays arrived, Chris Nelson worried about his mother.

At night, he lay awake waiting for her to return. During the day, he rang family members to ask if she was safe. There were threats and letters through the door.

“I was afraid to leave the house,” he told Al Jazeera.

His mother, Rosemary Nelson, was a lawyer representing the Catholic residents opposing the Protestant Orange Order parade along Portadown’s Garvaghy Road in Northern Ireland in the late 1990s.

Every July, as marching season approached, there was a standoff.

Orangemen sought to return from Drumcree church along what they regarded as their traditional route. Residents opposed the passage of the anti-Catholic organisation through a majority Catholic street. In some years, police forced the parade through. In later years, it was blocked.

Rosemary would spend summer evenings alongside the residents on Garvaghy Road. Before leaving home each evening, she told her son that she was going to look after families and make sure their children were okay. She compared them to his friends at primary school.

“She was a big believer in helping the underdog,” said Chris, now 39. “She did a lot of work for free.”

His mother helped people from both sides of the community. When work allowed, the family went to Bundoran, across the border, and for a day the fear would pass.

But one night, during a standoff in 1997 when the state police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), used batons to clear Catholic locals from the road, “she was beaten by the police”, said Chris. “She was spat on”, bruised and bloodied.

“That was very traumatic. I was always thinking something was going to happen to my mum.”

On a Monday in March 1999, nearly a year after the Good Friday Agreement brought an end to the conflict, Rosemary drove away from her home in Lurgan.

As she braked at a nearby junction, a bomb beneath her car exploded. Her eight-year-old daughter, Sarah, was at primary school nearby and heard the blast. The family had spent the previous weekend in Bundoran together.

Chris, 11 at the time, and his older brother were away on a school ski trip when they received a phone call with the news of her death.

“That was hard”, he said, his voice tailing off.

A legacy of loss

Nearly three decades later, another standoff has recast these childhood memories into fears for the next generation, with a renewed attempt by the Protestant Orange Order to march through the Catholic neighbourhood, threatening to unravel a fragile peace.

The Troubles began in the late 1960s as protests by Catholics against discrimination were met by repression and violence. Republican paramilitaries fought for a united Ireland as loyalists and the army battled to preserve British rule, in a conflict that killed more than 3,500 people.

The 1998 Good Friday Agreement established a framework for peace and power-sharing.

Under the agreement, the people of Portadown have lived in relative peace for the past 28 years.

But this was suddenly unsettled by a last-minute decision by the High Court to allow the march. In response, Catholic residents blocked the road. Many camped out as Orange men gathered at the top of the road, awaiting police permission to pass – an image of division that never truly left.

Many of the Garvaghy Road residents are now parents, and fear what their children might inherit from a dispute they hoped had been left behind.

Paul O’Connor, of the Pat Finucane Centre human rights group in Northern Ireland, said Rosemary Nelson is among 21 people whose deaths were linked to the Drumcree dispute.

Many are still being investigated, with families continuing to seek justice and pressing for public inquiries amid concerns about collusion between the British state and loyalist paramilitaries, many of which were members of the Orange Order.

“These murders encompass LVF (Loyal Volunteer Force) killings at that time, and are all linked to the Drumcree disputes. They were responsible for many of the killings around the Mid Ulster area at that time. They were trying to destabilise the peace process, with many riots spreading around, including into Derry,” O’Connor told Al Jazeera.

He worked with Rosemary Nelson and is now seeking a public inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown, another Drumcree-linked case, he believes. The 61-year-old father of six from Bellaghy, County Derry, was abducted and murdered in May 1997.

The following year, the three Quinn brothers – Richard, 10, Mark, nine, and Jason, eight – died after loyalists petrol-bombed their home in Ballymoney, County Antrim, as they slept. Their deaths, during the unrest surrounding Drumcree, brought widespread calls for the Orange Order to end its standoff.

Fear and loathing in Mid Ulster

In Portadown town centre, a Union flag flies among plinths dedicated to the Ulster Defence Regiment, a locally recruited unit of the British army and the Ulster Covenant – a document signed when nearly 500,000 people opposed a form of self-government for Ireland in 1912.

Around the corner, in the Edgarstown housing estate, Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) flags hang from lampposts, and the kerbs are painted red, white and blue, alongside a mural of a Rangers FC badge.

The area is one of the heartlands of unionism. The Orange Order was founded in 1795 in the village of Loughgall, a few miles from Drumcree.

The Orangemen say they have marched the route through Garvaghy Road since 1807. The parade has been blocked from Garvaghy Road since 1998, but the Orangemen have continued submitting requests to march.

The latest Parades Commission decision permitted 35 men to walk without music. Since then, Orangemen have repeatedly approached the police line before returning to the church.

Irish nationalists have criticised the police assessment underpinning the decision to allow the march, while unionists have denounced police for failing to forcibly remove protesters blocking the route.

Al Jazeera contacted the three main unionist parties – the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) – for comment but received no response.

Addressing around 200 supporters in Portadown, loyalist activist Jamie Bryson described protesters as “an unlawful snarling mob”.

He has called for the First Minister, Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill, and police Chief Constable Jon Boutcher to resign, and demands that the Orange men must be allowed to walk the Garvaghy Road.

O’Neill has faced criticism for standing beside the protesters.

At Drumcree Church, the Orangemen were not marching, but sitting down drinking tea and eating crisps. Around six men, one wearing his sash, huddled under a gazebo in the cold.

“We are waiting patiently for the chief constable to apply the law of the land,” Nigel Dawson, the Portadown Orange Order district master, told Al Jazeera.

“Portadown District has never in its history stopped a parade down the road to have a confrontation with its neighbours, ever. So I don’t know where the fear and trepidation comes from.”

Another Orangeman, who requested anonymity, added: “We are determined to get home after Sunday service … We just want to go home.”

Around a mile further down the Garvaghy Road, Irish folk band the Mary Wallopers performed to hundreds of residents and supporters.

Children danced and slid down the embankment, as parents watched from above. Palestine and Ireland flags flew in the wind.

Linda O’Neill, 51, a Garvaghy Road resident, told Al Jazeera the scene would have been unimaginable 30 years ago.

“It was horrendous growing up as a teenager. We stayed in our own community. We didn’t access the town centre … This community was a ghetto. And that was deliberate.”

Another resident, Ciaran O Ferghail, remembered summers spent surrounded by British forces.

“This community was turned into a war zone. There were tanks and British Army everywhere, thousands of RUC. This community was completely under siege every summer, by the Orange Order, the British military, the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries. We were surrounded on every road and in every direction.”

O’Neill said the confrontation changed as residents began asserting their rights.

In 1995, hundreds sat down on Garvaghy Road to block the parade. The ensuing violent standoff between security forces and Orangemen and their loyalist supporters ended in a compromise allowing the march through. Residents say they understood it would be the last.

But the following summer, the parade returned. Police initially blocked it, then reversed course after five days of widespread loyalist attacks. Officers forced residents off the road and beat them, sparking riots in Catholic communities.

In 1997, security forces sealed off the Catholic neighbourhood before dawn and allowed the parade through at midday amid loyalist threats to kill Catholics if it was stopped. Nationalist protests and violence followed. From 1998, the march was banned from Garvaghy Road. But for residents, summers remained marked by the army’s steel barricades until 2000.

Lessons from the past

Chris Nelson, almost 40, is around the same age his mother was when she was killed.

The Garvaghy Road protests mark the first time he has chosen to speak publicly about his mother.

He went on to study law at university, but says his life would have followed a different trajectory if she were still here.

The public inquiry into his mother’s death found no evidence that state security agencies had “directly facilitated” her murder, but it “could not exclude the possibility” that individual members of those agencies had helped the perpetrators.

The inquiry brought the past back repeatedly as he tried to get on with his life. But seeing photographs of families linking arms on Garvaghy Road brought back unavoidable memories of his mother.

“If she were here, that’s where she would be,” he said, “standing with the people of the Garvaghy Road”.

While there has been no violence in Portadown, in Derry’s Waterside, two recent nights of disorder saw petrol bombs and masonry thrown at police. Officers described the crowd on the second night as mostly young people.

The renewed attempt to bring the Orange Order parade through Garvaghy Road risks leaving its mark on children on both sides. With some schools closed, Chris Nelson worries about parents having to explain to their kids what is happening.

“Children don’t forget things“, he said. “They absorb everything.”

He remembers how it felt waiting for his mother each night, and how that worry followed him through the summer holidays. He wants something different for the children growing up now.

“Children shouldn’t grow up knowing the difference between Catholic and Protestant.

“It isn’t something that should be brought into the mind of a child.”

When it comes to the future of Tail 844, the SR-71 Blackbird that mysteriously disappeared from NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center, few people have more insights than Tim Conners. When he worked at NASA in the 1990s, Conners was the lead propulsion engineer for the agency’s Blackbird program. He worked extensively on 844 and has an intimate knowledge of what made the iconic aircraft tick. Now, he brings an insider perspective on NASA’s secretive work to get the Blackbird back in the air and speculates on what it would take to do so, as well as the famed jet’s possible flight test role for the agency after 27 years of dormancy.

Late last month, we wrote about how satellite imagery taken over Armstrong showed that Tail 844 had been missing since at least May. The revelation was first made by Steve Trimble, Aviation Week‘s defense editor and friend of TWZ. It came after NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman cryptically teased plans for a new high- and fast-flying X-plane with a silhouette of an aircraft that immediately drew comparisons to the Blackbird. Trimble reported just this week that NASA had been talking to ex-SR-71 program personnel about coming back to work on the aircraft. This confluence of events has led to rampant speculation about whether NASA was planning to resurrect the Blackbird and for what purpose?

In an exclusive interview with TWZ, Conners, now technical director for advanced weapons systems at Tiberius Aerospace, gave us his take on NASA’s Blackbird revelations and insights into what NASA is working on and how far along they are in the process.

Some of the questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity.

Q: Tell me about your background with the SR-71 program. How did it begin? How long did it last? And what did you do?

A: So that basically fell in my lap when I was an engineer at NASA’s Dryden [Flight Research Center] back in the early ’90s when NASA took delivery of three of the airframes when the Air Force was retiring the fleet. So NASA got two A models and a trainer. Obviously, tail number 844, which is NASA’s designation, is the one that’s getting all of the attention right now. But those came to Dryden in the early ’90s. 

By luck of the draw, I was in the propulsion group. We were short-staffed for a number of reasons, and they needed an engineer on Blackbird. And I had been with NASA for about three or four years at that point, and I got tapped to prepare the NASA side of the mission for the upcoming research flights. So I had a few years to get familiar. That was a part-time job, by the way. I also owned the F-15 fleet at NASA as a propulsion engineer, and that was occupying a lot of my time, but it did give me an adequate amount of time to get familiar with the way that the airplane operated, at least from the propulsion standpoint. And then we began doing research missions in ’96. I left NASA in ’98, but I was able to support the program through two years of flight testing and all the years of preparation for those two years.

Q: Tell me more about your role with the Blackbirds.

A: I was lead propulsion engineer on the NASA side. So what NASA would do is they would assign disciplinary leads across from their industry and government counterparts. So Dryden’s disciplinary leads, their job was basically to make sure that any experimental packages were integrated safely with the airframe, and that we could execute the proposed test missions safely and successfully. I owned propulsion and I also owned performance. So if you recall the Lockheed Linear Aerospike rocket engine activity, that package weighed 20,000 to 25,000 pounds and was mounted externally on the back of the SR-71. That was a drag issue, obviously. So part of my role was to make sure that we could actually accelerate through the transonic drag rise with that package and get out to the target test conditions. 

Q: There is a tremendous amount of interest in seeing the Blackbird fly again. The biggest question seems to be why? What kinds of experiments or research would an SR-71 provide that couldn’t be done more effectively with a modern aircraft, rocket or unmanned vehicle? Can you walk us through some of the reasons NASA would like to see it in the skies again?

A: Yeah, that’s a question that everybody’s been asking. Why? I’m speculating, although I do have a good feel for where this is going. So bear with me. 

They probably are not going to do this for — or trying to do this — for aerodynamic reasons. You can do CFD [computational fluid dynamics]-based modeling in this speed regime all day long and very accurately in this day and age. It does not take a lot of time or money to do that. What you cannot do is an accurate representation of a new type of engine integrated into a high-speed airframe. You can do the conceptual modeling of it. Of course, it’s difficult to get the final installed answer, especially if it involves an engine that operates at long duration. That is where I think they’re going with this. I believe that they’re developing basically a high-speed engine test bed. That would make the most sense to me.

Q: That’s something you couldn’t do with a more modern aircraft or rocket or unmanned vehicle?

A: That’s a good question. But you know, probably two-thirds of that battle is just developing the airframe. It does depend on the size of the engine that you’re after. 

Obviously, if this were a Williams engine or that size class, you could get by with probably a bespoke drone to do your testing. That wouldn’t be that expensive. If your goal is to test something that’s man-rated or very large, like a J58-size engine, what better way to do it than use an airframe that’s already proven to fly at that speed?

Q: Were you asked to join a team at NASA tasked with getting a jet back in the air? Who else was asked, and what kind of team were they building?

A: I did not receive an offer. There was a tongue-in-cheek text that I got earlier in the year that said, ‘Hey, Conners, how would you like to help get the Blackbirds flying again?’ And that was from somebody who was positioned with inside information. That is where I first heard of this. This was back in spring, but nobody formally reached out to me.

I believe that the only one that’s been tagged so far, as far as a retiree, was Mike Relja. Mike was a crew chief on the Blackbird, and that makes sense that they would potentially want to pull on him. But there was no formal offer, and I tell you what: If somebody approached me to work it, I don’t think I could turn them down.

Q: Do you know where the idea for this project came from and who is in charge?

A: I don’t have an answer. I’d love to know as well.

Q: What can you tell me about this effort? What are the latest developments in this project that you know of?

A: So what I’m hearing is that they’re looking at doing power-on testing fairly soon. That’s pretty big. So of course that’s not engine power on. That’s external power applied to the airframe, seeing which systems still live, which ones don’t, and then moving from there. So that would be an expected first step. 

It’s an encouraging step. That means NASA would have gotten beyond cracking open all the bays, inspecting the interior, making sure that the thing at least passes visual inspection for airworthiness from that standpoint. 

Q: Have they actually gotten any systems working?

A: No, they’ve done the visual inspection, actually, putting electrons on the airframe. [To get systems working] would be the next step, but it is forthcoming, from what I understand.

Q: What is the timeline?

A: That’s supposed to happen within the next couple weeks.

Q: Really? Where is this work taking place?

A: That I do not know for sure. Although I assume it’s happening at [NASA’s] Armstrong [Flight Research Center].

Q: So what is going to happen?

A: That’s a good question. Let me tell you about what I heard more recently, and then you can begin to connect the dots. JP-7. People ask about the fuel. I think it’s pretty well known that NASA had a huge amount of JP-7 stockpiled that they received from the Air Force back in the early ’90s. So much that it was in a dedicated tank, like one of the giant jet fuel tanks at Edwards Air Force Base. You know, the tanks up on the ridge.

From what I understand, that supply unfortunately was discarded about 20 years ago, and JP-7 is a unique fuel. Obviously, low volatility. When I poked at what might be the way forward there, it didn’t sound like that was a showstopper. I got the impression that there’s been dialogue underway with refineries for a replacement or a surrogate that would work. So I went from being deflated, hearing that the fuel was gone, to being encouraged that potentially there was a surrogate workaround.

But that led to the question regarding the engines themselves, so the feedback there was more discouraging in that it looks like the engines are indeed unserviceable. I don’t believe that is based on an actual attempt to run them. It is based on inspection. Probably no surprise. They’ve sat idle, you know, for 27 years. That is what led to questions going back and forth regarding how the airframe would be powered. And that’s what led into where, if you connect the dots, that’s where the airframe would be used as an engine test bed. 

So different engines, they would have to be high-Mach bypass systems. We can speculate on which engine company might be developing those systems, but yeah, I don’t want to give it too much away because I don’t want us to lose the inside information that we got.

Q: Are they working on a completely different engine to power Blackbird?

A: I don’t know that for sure. I think if the J58s are not an option for powering the Blackbird, you either button it back up and walk away from it, or you go bring in engines that are already under development that we’re not privy to at this point in time. But there’s no other option. So what are we going to use? It’s not like we can slap in F100s or F110s. They’re not going to cut it.

The Pratt & Whitney J58 – The Engine of the SR-71 Blackbird

Q: Obviously, restoring an aircraft sitting out in the elements for years into one able to withstand the rigors of Mach 3 flight is one hell of an undertaking. In your mind, what are the biggest hurdles to this endeavor?

A: Number one would be the engines for sure. Number two would be anything that’s made of elastomerics. Plastics, wiring. Covering connectors. All that stuff degrades and oxidizes with time. You can imagine what frayed wiring and broken wiring insulation – what kind of havoc that would create. What Blackbird has going for it is that all those casings and connectors were built for the rigor of sustained Mach 3.2 flight for an hour, an hour plus, so they are not going to deteriorate quickly. The question is: Have they deteriorated in 27 years? So, if the answer is not a significant amount, then we’ve probably addressed one of the biggest questions – other than the engines – regarding reviving the airplane. 

Q: Do you think NASA is going to attempt to just fly Tail 844 largely in its original configuration, or will they deeply modify it or build something new based on it?

A: Completely unknown. They definitely have the ability to modify the airframe, right? They did it before in the ’90s to carry the Linear Aerospike package. That was a huge undertaking on the airframe itself. They did it successfully. Armstrong still has a pretty deep bench in that area, so if they wanted to take on modifying the titanium structure, I think they could do it. 

But it’s a good question. Again, that would probably point to aerodynamic studies, and if it were me and my dollar as a taxpayer, I would lean on computational studies to get those answers. That’s what I tend to do in my day job is forego testing in lieu of computational when it involves external aero, but it’s when you do the integrated propulsion in this speed regime, that’s really when you need test data from the actual operating conditions. 

Q: As opposed to digital modeling?

A: Yes. For instance, say the aerodynamic databases for Blackbird are gone, which they might be. I know there are simple aerodynamic models that still exist, but like a true high-fidelity model that would go into a piloted simulator, that could probably be regenerated fairly quickly. Probably on the order of months computationally in this day and age. So I think simulation capability could be stood up in fairly short order. That, of course, will be foundational for the pilot training task.

Q: We’ll talk more about pilot training later, but first I want to ask about modernization. If NASA were to inject modernized features into the SR-71, what would you like to see? And what makes the most sense in terms of material science, avionics, propulsion and so on?

A: I’m not a materials expert. I think it would be really interesting to see how the airframe could be optimized using adaptive flight control capabilities. So, if the flight control system could be digitized, I think that would lead to some very interesting in-flight experiments. I doubt that that would be. I could be wrong, but if the goal is to get the airframe back up as a propulsion test bed, you don’t need to cut out the hydromechanical flight control system and replace it with a digital one. 

That all said, what I would like to see is what we talked about a few minutes ago, and that’s basically modern high-speed engine technology. So what could be done? The J58s were low operating pressure ratio systems. What could be done with a modern, digitally controlled, multistream, high-Mach engine, I think, would be truly trailblazing. 

One of the reasons why there’s interest in this speed regime, it was neglected for a number of years. The focus was on hypersonics. If you proposed anything going back, say, 15 years in the Mach 3.5 speed regime, it was ignored. The glitz and glamor was on hypersonics. Hypersonics is great tactically for certain scenarios, but the weaknesses of hypersonics are now becoming apparent. 

And as far as countermeasures, hypersonics still has a place. Don’t get me wrong, but every system cannot be hypersonic from an affordability standpoint. So, now you’ve seen it over the last, say, five years. A lot of systems are coming back on the scene that operate in the Mach 2 to Mach 4 regime, and there’s a reason they’re all fitting in there, right? You stay below the speed limit that requires more exotic metallics. You stay in the titanium regime. You can fly, of course, up to [Mach] 3.5 with brief excursions up to about [Mach] 4, so that is tactically relevant against a lot of military targets and defensive systems. So here it is. You know we now have a potential flying test bed that can carry engines in the J58 size class.

The Mighty J58 – The SR-71’s Secret Powerhouse

Q: How much could a project like this cost, and is it really economically feasible? How long do you think it could take?

A: I’ve been thinking that over, and I think it depends on who does it. I don’t want to disparage my former government brethren. I had great respect for the folks at NASA when I worked with them, but one of the reasons why I left the agency is because it was becoming so risk-averse. That was adding bloat to everything. And what we used to do quickly, we no longer could do quickly or cheaply at what was Dryden Flight Research Center, so that is what concerns me. 

If NASA could operate with the agility that it had, if Dryden/Armstrong could operate with the agility it had 30 years ago, they could do this work in probably a few years. I would say again, it would depend on what exactly they need to do to the airframe. If it’s to resurrect the airframe and bolt in new engines using existing interface hardpoints, that would go much, much more quickly than doing extensive airframe modifications.

Q: Given that 844 has been sitting idle since 1999, what would be the very first thing you would want to inspect or test before even considering putting it back in the air?

A: Exactly what I’m hearing the rumor is that they’re doing this. What is the condition of all the components in the airplane that are flowing electrons? Because if the entire airframe is shorted out, you know how it is. 

If you have a car where you’ve hooked up the battery cables backwards – I had a car once where somebody jumped in and did that. It ruined the car because I was chasing shorts constantly, constantly breaking down in the months that followed because the wiring was compromised, melted, bubbled all over the vehicle. And then it would get wet. You get shorts. That, I believe, is what one of the objectives of power-on testing is. To make sure continuity still exists, reliable continuity throughout the airframe. So that’s exactly the first step. 

I would say the second would be hydraulics. That vehicle is hydromechanical. So what is the state of the actuators and whatnot?

Q: And you said that work is taking place now?

A: It’s certainly being inspected. That was one of the reasons why they pulled it off of the display pad at Armstrong. But that work has been going on for a couple of months, and it certainly seems that there was at least reason to be encouraged and to go forward with this next step. Otherwise, they would have just towed it back to the parking spot.

Q: And the next step is testing the systems?

A: That is correct.

Q: We touched on this a little before, but how realistic is it to get an SR-71’s J58 engines operational again after nearly three decades of inactivity? What would worry you most about those engines? How many are left?

A: Well, that’s a good point. As far as [engines] that are readily available, there are several that are at the [Air Force Flight Test (AFFT) Museum at Edwards AFB]. I believe they’ve been stored outside. But if you consider all the museums around the world with Blackbirds on display, almost all of them have installed J58s, and there’s usually one sitting alongside the airframe on display, so there are plenty of engines. Whether or not they’re serviceable, that of course is the question. 

But probably the biggest problem with an engine – well, there are several with a gas turbine that sits unmoved for decades – it’s going to be that you’re going to flatten the bearings. Probably not visible to the eye, but rotating turbo machinery doesn’t like flats on the bearings. So for obvious vibration reasons, you got that. And you’ve got the seals. Seals are going to crack. Trapped fuel is going to turn to gunk and clog up lines. That engine was all hydromechanical, of course, or no digital controls on that because of the heat involved. So fuel hydraulics played a big role in that engine. 

There is likely a lot of goo in those lines. I believe that’s why they’ve essentially been written off as unserviceable. I was discouraged because one of the questions I asked that I didn’t get an answer to was: Did anybody try to run the engines or pull them apart? But I don’t even know if the instructions exist to unstack a J58 at this point. I’m sure it could be figured out with the right people, but you know how it is. Pulling something apart is a lot easier than putting it back together. 

Q: So there’s no manual for that anymore?

A: I don’t know if there’s a manual specific to that. Like I told Steve [Trimble] at Aviation Week, there certainly are operating manuals. You’ve probably seen the pilot’s manual for the SR-71A. It’s a beauty. There are a lot of copies online. You can get PDFs of those. They are very well-written, huge manuals. I know prints exist for the airplane. Those were in the keeping of the Edwards Museum. I believe those have been handed back over to NASA. So, it’s not like there’s a complete dearth of information.

When I was at NASA, I was the person who received everything that Pratt & Whitney had left on the J58s when the Air Force decommissioned the program, and that information was in two or three smallish boxes and consisted of hard copy code printout or printout of numerical data, along with some magnetic reels of code. It was not much. And I was told at the time the only reason I received that information was somebody missed it when the Air Force gave the destruct notice. It was under somebody’s desk, so it was not much in the way of knowledge transfer, unfortunately.

Q: What did you do with all that?

A: I left it behind in 1998 when I left NASA.

Q: What happened to it?

A: I have no idea. Hopefully, somebody scanned it. But again, that was J58 info, right? So if they’re going with a new engine, they’ll have the full digital models for those new systems. And I do believe that recreating the aerodynamic database, including inlet performance, that kind of data can all be regenerated fairly quickly with computational tools.

Q: We touched on this a little bit before, but how difficult would it be to reproduce the JP-7 fuel that powered the Blackbird? It would need designated tankers too, correct? 

A: So that was one of the questions I asked is whether or not that formulation exists still. The answer I got back was that essentially a refinery should be able to recreate a suitable surrogate. If you think about it, JP-7 was unique in that it had a very low volatility characteristic. 

What I’ve learned about Jet A from some of the ramjet work that I’ve been doing is that it has a ridiculously low volatility too, of course, by design. So I don’t know that JP-7 is that far apart from the chemical characteristics of a Jet A-class fuel, JP-8-type fuel. JP-8 was a significant change from JP-4, so the Air Force was using JP-4 in their fleet, and then moved to JP-8 to be consistent in the ’90s with the Navy with their formulations. That’s a lower volatility fuel, and at NASA we had to recharacterize the flight performance of all of our jets with JP-8, but it worked fine. 

We were concerned about operability – that we were going to have flameouts and engine relight and flight relay problems. Those did not materialize, so I don’t want to oversimplify it, but I am thinking that you might be able to take an existing Jet A and with the right additives knock down the volatility to a level that’s safe for flying in the Blackbird. 

Q: What would need to happen to have aerial refueling jets be able to handle fuel for the Blackbird?

A: There were dedicated JP-7 tankers for the Blackbird. I don’t know if they can take an existing system and flush it. It would depend on the formulation, right? JP-7 was notorious for its unseemly characteristics. It was toxic. 

I had a shirt that got dripped on when I was standing under the wing of the Blackbird once, and I had to throw it out. I could not get the stink out of that shirt from the JP-7. It was a weird fuel. So if you can get one that’s more aligned with the fuels used in the service, then I don’t believe that’s going to be a showstopper as far as tanker support, but you do know tanker support is going to be required for that airplane. 

Q: You said the JP-7 fuel stank. What did it smell like?

A: I just remember it turning my stomach. Like I kept smelling something as the day went on, and I reached over and saw a stain on my shoulder. I don’t recall what happened the rest of the day, but I just remember being repulsed by the odor and then not being able to get it out when I washed the shirt. 

Q: Beyond the fuel, the SR-71 depended on a huge ecosystem of specialized equipment, fluids, personnel and procedures. Which parts of that infrastructure would be hardest to recreate today?

A: That was something that Mike Relja pointed out when he talked to Steve Trimble. That’s a good one. You probably heard that the J58s were started with a start cart that was basically a bank of Buick 12-cylinder engines, all next to each other. It’s a beautiful-sounding system, but very unique. But what is starting, you know, other than you’re either doing a power takeoff via shaft, or you’re using compressed air. It depends on what the engine demands. So I think the start cart development would be fairly straightforward. 

But there is a lot of specialized equipment, like Mike pointed out, the wings when they’re split up, they are held in place by a specific scaffolding. The way the engines were craned out of the wing required special equipment. Pulling the inlet spike off that required a special cradle. Those are not insurmountable, but you don’t want to wait till the last minute to realize you need unique equipment. So it’s all got to be taken into consideration.

Q: Could existing SR-71s in museums realistically be used as sources of spare parts for 844, or would cannibalizing those aircraft create more problems than it solves? Were those airframes left structurally intact? 

A: I believe that was the agreement with the Blackbirds. If a museum were to put one on display, there was a certain expectation regarding care and maintenance. Not so much maintenance, but care and preservation. If you think about it, many of them are under [a] roof in climate-controlled facilities. I know several of them that are preserved like that, including one here in Tucson. That, of course, is the best place for preserving anything with elastomerics and plastic. So I think it’s encouraging that so many of them have been so well cared for. Again, it’s going to come down to which components, regardless of whether or not they’re indoor or outdoor, which components are going to fail first, and I believe that’s the exercise NASA is looking at. 

Then you’ve got to start beating down, chasing supply chain sources for some of this, and you know the nightmare that’s out there with supply chain and aerospace. So it’s not going to be an easy task. I don’t want to act like it is. I don’t think it’s insurmountable though.

Q: So these aircraft can be used as sources of spare parts?

A: Sure, absolutely.

Q: Is anyone with a Blackbird already contributing parts?

A: I know that the Edwards Air Museum is contributing what they can as far as spares and prints. I don’t know who else, although I believe the second NASA SR-71A went to the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum in Oregon. I would expect them to be in the loop. 

(TWZ reached out to the Evergreen to find out what, if anything, it is contributing to this effort.)

Q: How difficult will it be for modern test pilots to fly Tail 844, or whatever aircraft is created from this project? What would actually be the hardest part of training a pilot to fly the aircraft today? Do you think they will convert it into an unmanned configuration?

A: Well, that would be a difficult airplane to convert to unmanned, unless it went with a digital backbone, and like I said, I think that would be an enormous undertaking. It’s not unheard of. NASA, along with McDonnell Douglas, converted a couple of F-15s to all-digital backbones before the F-15E program began. It can be done. It’s just expensive. It’s not easy. 

But the piloting task starts with a good simulator, right? The piloting task is absolutely a big deal. I saw it firsthand at Dryden. That said, it took a couple years, probably two. I would say that’s about right for the Dryden pilots, who are pretty good at what they do, to learn to fly the Blackbird safely, and that was with the use of the two-seat trainer, which we’re not going to have this time.

So I think the key to this happening is getting a digital sim together very quickly, and it wouldn’t surprise me if NASA has begun this process already. Getting that together, plus getting the former pilots who are still with us in the seat to make sure that it aligns with what they recall as far as the unique features of the airplane. 

I have 100 hours of stick time on the Air Force Blackbird simulator. I’m not a pilot, but I used to pre-fly the maneuvers for the pilots and NASA on the high-drag missions, so I’m familiar with the way the airplane flies up and away, and it is a bear to fly. It is not easy. So training is not insurmountable. Like I said, it takes a good, high-fidelity sim. NASA is expert at building those kinds of simulators, modular simulators quickly. In this day and age, we should be able to put a high-fidelity sim together fairly quickly for training. 

If you recall, the cockpit is an analog nightmare on a Blackbird. Breakers everywhere. Dials everywhere. I doubt that somebody suggested that we go with an all-digital cockpit. That would be so much work to do. But if we go for it with just a pure analog cockpit that we used previously, that’s going to require a lot of familiarity. I do believe that the training systems might still exist for that. It would just be for that airplane. It would just be getting them all cobbled back together.

SR-71 Cockpit Checkout

Q: What made the Blackbird so difficult to fly?

A: It’s a low-G airframe, so you got to baby it. It’s easy to get an angle of attack out of range. And then with those chined surfaces, it’s easy to get a pitch-up with the airplane. That’s how I always managed to wreck it in the sim. I would let alpha get away from me.

Q: Do you know if any of the pilots have been recalled for this effort to get this thing flying again?

A: No, I don’t know.

Q: It has been close to 70 years since the A-12 Oxcart first flew. There had to have been other high-speed aircraft that at least came and went in the classified test environment. Considering all the work in hypersonics today, it isn’t hard to believe new platforms exist. Why would the SR-71 still have relevance here, and why not use one of those aircraft instead, if they exist? If they do, is it because the SR-71 is declassified? 

A: Yeah, that could very well be what we’re looking at here. I’ve had friends ask that question this week. We were talking about the SR-72. Where is that at? I don’t know. I know people who went to work on it years ago. I’ve never heard anything since. So it could be that that’s so deep black that there’s no way that platform could be used as a test asset. So I think it’s precisely what you said. The Blackbird’s no longer classified, and that it’s possible that the engines that might be used in Blackbird wouldn’t be classified either.

Q: Would any of those engines be applicable for this SR-71 reboot?

A: Certainly.

Q: Do you know if they exist anywhere?

A: No. But from what was leaked or hinted at regarding the size of the vehicle, it would seem that whatever was the power plant for that aircraft, it would be about the right size.

Q: What do you think generally about the renaissance of sorts in high-speed aerospace capabilities in recent years?

A: I worked on HAWC [Hypersonic Airbreathing Weapon Concept] at Raytheon, which became HACM [Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile]. One of the systems that I helped design was the inlet isolator used on HACM, which is not operational yet, but it will be. But it’s an air breather by Raytheon. That gave me a lot of exposure to the level of exquisite technology that’s required to field a system like that.

It is expensive. It’s difficult. Supply chain is a challenge. There’s a reason why they cost what they do per unit. So you see the push to develop lower-cost hypersonic systems like Castelion’s Blackbeard [lower-cost hypersonic missile]. It’s not an air breather. So I think it’s an easier problem than what we dealt with at Raytheon with an air breather. But nevertheless, it’s impressive that they’ve gotten a price point down to what they’ve gotten, so you see that happening in hypersonics. 

You’re kind of stuck in the same block of speed, but the price is dropping. And then meanwhile, you’ve got this massive group of munitions that are setting up camp in a Mach 2 to Mach 4 speed regime for reasons I mentioned. Those are running much cheaper per shot and per effect, which is why that’s happening. So that you give up something on survivability by pulling down into that speed range, but the price point allows you to volley at such a level that you overwhelm the defensive systems.

Q: If an SR-71 took to the skies again, would it not be one of the highest-profile aviation moments in a generation? It would certainly capture the imagination of many young and old. What do you think about the social aspect of all this?

A: I have yet to find anybody who isn’t excited by the prospect. Certainly, everybody within aviation thinks it’s cool. Some of my family who don’t know much about airplanes – they all think it’s cool. Everybody thinks it’s just super. That said, everybody also wonders why we’re doing it. But what’s funny is everybody still says, ‘Let’s do it anyway because it’s such an iconic airplane, beautiful airplane, an inspiration.’ Hopefully, there would be a good reason to spend the money. But I think even if it’s a bad reason, everybody wants it to take to the skies again.

Q: If you were a betting man, Tim, what would you say are the odds of this thing flying again?

A: I would give it a 25% chance.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The volume of munitions expended in the course of U.S. operations against Iran this year has been and continues to be a hot topic of discussion, and there has been relatively little official data provided on this front. However, now we know that the F/A-18F Super Hornets of the U.S. Navy’s Strike Fighter Squadron 41 (VFA-41), the “Black Aces,” launched 421 missiles and bombs during their time supporting Operation Epic Fury.

This new insight into VFA-41’s role in the conflict with Iran comes from a photo of a large board listing the squadron’s weapons expenditures during Epic Fury, via Jeff Rojas, who goes by the handle @jro_photography on Instagram. Rojas also shared pictures recently taken of VFA-41’s Super Hornets. The Black Aces were one of the squadrons assigned to the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which has been on a marathon deployment since last year. The carrier only left the Middle East region last month and is now set to formally return home to San Diego, California, within days. Per the Pentagon’s official timeline, Operation Epic Fury began on February 28 and concluded on May 5, though U.S. forces have continued to conduct strikes on Iran, on and off, since then.

The complete tally of munitions employed as shown on the board, broken down by type, from greatest to fewest, is as follows:

The total cost of all of these munitions, using available data from U.S. military budget documents, is very roughly $43,646,000, at least. Unit costs fluctuate regularly due to a variety of factors. Furthermore, the exact price tag for different JDAMs can be somewhat difficult to calculate given how the individual components are budgeted.

The JDAM is really a family of kits that turn standard unguided ‘iron bombs,’ which can vary significantly in the kinds of effects they are designed to produce, into warheads for precision-guided munitions. This is exemplified by the (V)2 and (V)4 subvariants of the GBU-31/B mentioned here, which are built using standard high-explosive and bunker-buster bombs, respectively. No specific subvariants of the GBU-32, GBU-38, or GBU-54 were mentioned in the information provided. Standard JDAMs can also only be employed against static target coordinates. The LJDAM kits add a laser guidance component (akin to what is found on Paveway-series bombs) that enables strikes against moving targets.

No specific version of AGM-154 is mentioned, either, but the C and C-1 types, which have multi-stage bunker-busting warheads, are the only ones understood to be in service today. Remaining A variants, which were loaded with 145 small bomblets, were removed from U.S. service in 2008 as a result of new guidelines on cluster munitions issued under President George W. Bush. A planned AGM-154B, which would have contained six “smart” Sensor Fuzed Munition bomblets, was never produced. You can read more about the full JSOW family here.

We do not know exactly what targets any of these munitions were employed against. However, a picture that Jeff Rojas grabbed of one of VFA-41’s Super Hornets, seen toward the top of this story and in part below, shows a very interesting broken submarine kill marking, with the added text “Sub Buster.” The jet also has a number of more typical bomb-shaped kill marks.

Iranian naval vessels, including the country’s Russian-made Kilo class and other submarines, were top priority targets during Epic Fury. The U.S. military has previously confirmed that air-launched AGM-114 Hellfire laser-guided missiles (likely fired from MQ-9 Reaper drones) and ground-launched Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missiles were employed against submarines, specifically.

The video montage in the social media post below includes a clip, starting at 0:13 in the runtime, of a Hellfire missile hitting what looks to be a Ghadir class diesel-electric midget submarine in port.

U.S. forces are degrading the Iranian regime’s ability to project power at sea and harass international shipping. For years, Iranian forces have threatened freedom of navigation in waters essential to American, regional and global security and prosperity. pic.twitter.com/gIBN02mowh

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) March 10, 2026

Bunker-busting JDAMs are also known to have been key munitions employed during strikes on targets in Iran during Epic Fury. TWZ previously called explicit attention to the employment of JSOW in the opening phases of the operation, as well. Navy strike fighter squadrons made significant use of SLAM-ERs in strikes against Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen last year, too.

It is extremely likely that the AIM-9Xs and AIM-120s were fired at Iranian drones, though they could have been launched at incoming cruise missiles, as well. At the time of writing, there are no known or reported instances of U.S. military jets engaging crewed Iranian aircraft in the course of the conflict to date. In 2024, the Navy carried out a crash program that increased the total number of AIM-9Xs that F/A-18E/Fs could carry per sortie, specifically in response to Houthi drone threats. Super Hornets loaded with nine air-to-air missiles are now referred to as “Murder Hornets.”

Notably absent in VFA-41’s tally is any mention of 70mm laser-guided Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rockets. Air-to-air optimized versions of the APKWS II are now part of the arsenal available to U.S. Air Force F-16C Vipers, F-15E Strike Eagles, and A-10 Warthogs, and have become the service’s go-to aerial weapon for engaging drones. In February, the U.S. Marine Corps disclosed that it was working to integrate this capability onto its legacy F/A-18C/D Hornets. Whether the Navy has any such plans for the Super Hornet is unclear.

It is also important to remember that this is a discussion of the munitions expended by just one Navy strike fighter squadron. Lincoln‘s air wing includes four strike squadrons, three with Super Hornets and one with F-35Cs, as well as units flying other types of aircraft and helicopters. The carrier was just one part of a much larger array of air, naval, and ground forces that participated in Operation Epic Fury and subsequent operations against Iran. For additional context, consider that the entire Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, including its entire air wing and escorting ships, fired off 770 munitions in total, by the official count, during very active combat operations in and around the Red Sea between November 2023 and June 2024.

All of this speaks to the larger matter of how many munitions the U.S. military has expended in the course of operations against Iran this year, which is now fueling concerns about the sufficiency of remaining stockpiles and what it will take to replenish them.

As such, the tally of munitions launched from VFA-41 Super Hornets offers a very interesting view into that squadron’s contributions to Operation Epic Fury, as well as the full scale and scope of the conflict with Iran.

Special thanks again to Jeff Rojas for sharing the details about VFA-41’s participation in Operation Epic Fury and his pictures with us.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com