appears

Debris from a Chinese-made ballistic missile found in Yemen could have inadvertently revealed a previously undisclosed addition to Saudi Arabia’s secretive ballistic missile arsenal. Imagery circulating online appears to show the wreckage of a Chinese DF-15A short-range ballistic missile (SRBM), potentially marking the first known Saudi combat use of a weapon in this class, although both the identification and ownership remain unconfirmed.

It is also unclear what happened to the missile itself. The debris suggests a stage separation or the missile broke apart or crashed before reaching its target. The Houthis are not known to possess any weapons that could have intercepted it.

The development comes amid a sharp escalation in the long-running Saudi-Houthi conflict. After years of relative de-escalation following the 2022 truce, fighting has intensified in recent weeks as Houthi forces have dramatically overrun Saudi-backed Yemeni government positions, including around strategically important Marib and Taiz. The Houthis have also escalated missile and drone attacks against southern Saudi Arabia, targeting military and energy infrastructure while threatening the kingdom’s ability to move oil through the Red Sea. The group has declared the Bab el-Mandeb closed to Saudi oil traffic, adding a direct threat to one of Riyadh’s critical energy-export routes.

You can catch up with our latest coverage of the fighting here.

As for the DF-15, also known by its NATO designation CSS-6, this is a road-mobile, solid-fueled SRBM developed by China during the 1980s. The system formed part of Beijing’s effort to develop a new generation of conventionally armed mobile ballistic missiles, including systems primarily intended for export.

As you can read about here, the DF-15 family has evolved through several variants, although open-source information concerning their capabilities remains inconsistent.

The DF-15A reportedly entered Chinese service in the mid-1990s. Estimates of these missiles’ maximum range vary substantially, from roughly 600 kilometers (373 miles) for the original DF-15 to as much as 900 kilometers (559 miles) for later versions.

China is the only confirmed operator of the DF-15 family. There have been longstanding reports of Chinese transfers of the DF-15 or the related M-9 export version to Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, and Syria, but in each case, the export record is heavily disputed, with some reports likely conflating the DF-15 with the broadly similar DF-11.

While Saudi Arabia has never publicly acknowledged operating the DF-15 family, it has a well-established history of acquiring Chinese ballistic missiles.

In 2013, Prince Fahd bin Abdullah bin Mohammed, Deputy Minister of Defense, visited the Strategic Missile Forces of Saudi Arabia, and was given this model. YEARS of speculation on the smaller missiles (The large is DF-3). Now we know – they are DF-15 and DF-15A. pic.twitter.com/oOn8qiCgye

— Tal Inbar (@inbarspace) September 14, 2026

Saudi Arabia imported Chinese ballistic missiles to expand its long-range strike options. Its desire for a land-based strategic deterrent was initially driven by concerns over Iran, regional missile proliferation, and nuclear hedging. More recently, however, it shifted toward fielding more accurate, mobile systems with greater conventional military utility.

Riyadh secretly obtained DF-3A missiles from China beginning in the late 1980s, establishing a strategic ballistic-missile capability that remained largely outside public view.

The kingdom has also subsequently been linked to the DF-21 family. Satellite imagery and other open-source intelligence have provided evidence of Chinese-designed ballistic-missile infrastructure in Saudi Arabia.

While the Houthis have their own ballistic-missile arsenal, this is principally associated with Iranian technology, captured Yemeni systems, and locally produced or modified weapons.

Saudi employment of an SRBM in the current fighting would represent a notable expansion of the kingdom’s response options. If Saudi Arabia did indeed do this, its main advantage would be speed and responsiveness. A solid-fueled ballistic missile could reach targets deep inside Yemen within minutes while keeping Saudi aircraft and crews out of the immediate engagement area, providing Riyadh with a rapid strike option against fixed Houthi targets. That could be particularly valuable as the conflict expands and Saudi forces face pressure to respond quickly to Houthi attacks on military and energy infrastructure.

Saudi F-15 Eagles Live Missile Firing in Pakistan | Naseem Al-Bahr 13 Exercise

Previous losses at the hands of Houthi ground-based air defenses could also dissuade Riyadh from relying on crewed aircraft to strike targets on the ground deep inside Yemen. Houthi air defenses, while pathed together in many ways, are capable enough to give even U.S. airpower a serious run for their money.

At the same time, a conventional SRBM like the DF-15A can deliver a large warhead at very high speed, imparting significant kinetic energy, making it particularly useful against fixed, high-value, or hardened targets.

Use of an SRBM would also be in line with the current pattern of escalation, with the Houthis conducting missile and drone attacks against Saudi military and energy targets while Saudi-backed Yemeni forces are engaged in renewed ground fighting. Riyadh’s demonstration of an SRBM capability in this campaign would also signal that it is is willing to draw more heavily on its strategic missile inventory as the conflict intensifies, potentially further raising the stakes of the confrontation.

Such a move would carry a message beyond Yemen. Using a previously unacknowledged ballistic missile capability in combat would signal to Iran that Riyadh is now willing to employ this arsenal, after decades of keeping it very much in the shadows.

If the evidence ultimately points to a Saudi DF-15A launch, the discovery would offer a rare look at the operational use of an extremely secretive part of the kingdom’s arsenal, and add a significant new dimension to the rapidly escalating Saudi-Houthi war.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Zoe Ball appeared on Wednesday’s Celebrity MasterChef as a guest judge, where she set the contestants a food challenge

Celebrity MasterChef welcomed Zoe Ball on Wednesday’s episode.

During the latest instalment, the second round of heats continued, with five celebrities facing two more culinary challenges as they battled for a place in this week’s quarter-final.

First up, it was the return of the mystery box before the Who’s Coming to Dinner? round, where each week, a special guest sets a culinary brief for the celebrities. On Wednesday’s episode, Zoe, 55, entered the MasterChef kitchen as a guest judge, asking the celebrities to create the ultimate pudding. It comes as Zoe recently admitted fears for her new radio job.

Hosts, Grace Dent and Giorgio Locatelli, were delighted over Zoe’s appearance in the kitchen with Grace calling her a ‘hero’ of hers.

Talking in a VT about appearing on the show, Zoe joked: “I am so honoured to be in the MasterChef kitchen, but I am a terrible cook. I mentioned to my kids that I might be visiting the studio and the looks of horror.

“[They said] ‘What? They’ve allowed you in?’ So the only way I could ever come here was to be a guest judge. So I’m thrilled and I’m ready to be impressed.”

Talking about setting the ultimate pudding task, Zoe quipped: “A meal is not complete without a pudding. It’s a little bit of naughtiness, a bit of indulgence. I will often order pudding before I’ve even thought about the main.”

She added: “I’ve always been a pudding kind of girl. My family are pudding people. A meal is not finished until you’ve had pudding.

“Puddings make me happy. They’re creamy, they’re rich, they’re a little bit naughty and things that are naughty are good for you, in my opinion.”

Taking to Twitter, now X, viewers were all quick to say the same thing about Zoe’s appearance on the show. One person said: “Zoe’s like a breath of fresh air! Best celeb judge! #MasterChefUK #CelebrityMasterChef.”

A different account wrote: “Loving Zoe’s positivity giving encouragement. She realises these celebs are not professional chefs. #CelebrityMasterChef!” while another viewer said: “Zoe Ball seems really nice. #celebritymasterchef.”

Another fan commented: “Seeing #zoeball on #celebritymasterchef just made me think, #zoeball should have been one of the new presenters of #strictlycomedancing!” while a different viewer added: “Zoe Ball feels like a natural presenter for this show #CelebrityMasterchef!”

At the end of Wednesday’s episode, it was sadly comedian and influencer Tom Simons aka TommyInnit who left the kitchen.

Celebrity MasterChef continues on BBC One and BBC iPlayer

In an intriguing development, Poland has been named among the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers covered by a massive new U.S. contract with Boeing for the F-15 program. This has prompted renewed speculation that Warsaw could eventually acquire the F-15EX Eagle II. Poland’s Ministry of National Defense, however, says there is currently no such plan, but there is a precedent here, with the Polish order for AH-64E Apache Guardian attack helicopters following a very similar path.

The U.S. Department of War announced Monday that Boeing had received an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a ceiling value of $131.23 billion for the “F-15 Eagle Crest” program. The agreement covers production, systems integration, modernization, upgrades, retrofits, sustainment and the establishment of depot-level maintenance capabilities for F-15 aircraft. Work is expected to continue through August 2037, with orders initially permitted through August 2031 and an option to extend that period to 2036.

The distinction is significant. An IDIQ contract establishes a mechanism through which orders can subsequently be placed; it does not itself constitute an aircraft purchase by every country named within it. The $131.23 billion figure is therefore a maximum contractual ceiling for the wider F-15 program, rather than the value of aircraft already ordered by the United States and its foreign customers.

Importantly, the contract also covers Foreign Military Sales customers. The Pentagon specifically lists Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, and Poland.

Of these, it should be noted that Indonesia was once in line to be the first export operator of the F-15EX, but, earlier this year, Boeing confirmed the country had abandoned its plans to buy the jets. The deal had been in stasis for the previous two years.

Poland, however, had never formally announced plans to order the F-15EX, although Boeing eyes the country as a potential customer for the aircraft.

Boeing has actively promoted the F-15EX to Warsaw, while Polish military officials have previously visited the company’s facilities in the United States. In 2025, then-Inspector of the Polish Air Force Gen. Ireneusz Nowak flew an F-15EX at Boeing’s facilities.

The aircraft has frequently appeared in discussions about Poland’s requirement for additional fourth-generation fighters. Warsaw has already committed to a large expansion of its fifth-generation F-35 fleet, with Polish officials confirming plans for another 32 F-35As in addition to the 32 aircraft already ordered.

F35 – HUSARZ

As we have discussed in the past, the F-15EX could provide a compelling complement to the F-35, providing a large weapons payload, long range, and a substantial air-to-air weapons capacity. But there is currently no indication from Poland that such a procurement has entered a formal acquisition phase.

Poland’s Ministry of National Defence told Defence24 that the Polish Armed Forces “do not plan to acquire F-15EX aircraft” and that the country’s inclusion in the U.S. framework contract does not mean a decision has been made or that a procurement process has begun.

As it is, the wording of the U.S. announcement is best understood as identifying countries that can potentially participate in F-15 Foreign Military Sales under the new contractual framework.

For Poland, Washington has established a long-term contractual vehicle that could facilitate a future F-15EX purchase, even though Warsaw says it has no current plan to acquire the aircraft.

Whether that changes in the future remains a separate question. However, as Gareth Jennings, aviation desk editor at Janes, has pointed out, in 2017 the U.S. Department of Defense denied that Poland had selected the AH-64 after it was named in a similar contract, for sensors. Not long after, Warsaw became the largest international customer for the Apache, buying 96 examples of the attack helicopter.

Boeing today told Jennings that Poland has not yet made a decision about the F-15EX.

As for the Apache buy, this is just one part of an extraordinary military expansion underway since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Warsaw has pursued major acquisitions across nearly every part of its armed forces, including 48 FA-50 light combat aircraft, 180 K2 tanks and 250 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tanks, alongside its 32-aircraft F-35 order. Its existing fleet of F-16 fighters is also set for a major upgrade.

With the FMS case for Indonesia having expired earlier this year, an F-15EX sale to Indonesia now looks far less likely.

For now, there is no Polish F-15EX deal, and Warsaw is clear that no procurement process has begun. But the country’s inclusion in the U.S. framework, combined with Boeing’s continued interest and the Apache precedent, means the possibility is worth watching.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

California Supreme Court justices hammered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco over his seizure of hundreds of thousands of Proposition 50 ballots in a pair of back-to-back hearings on Monday, appearing poised to order the ballots returned and sharply limit the sheriff’s power to snatch similar election materials in the future.

Bianco, a Republican who came in fourth in this spring’s crowded California gubernatorial primary, carted off truckloads of ballots from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters in February, after securing a warrant based on claims that the office allowed fraudulent votes in the special election to redraw California’s congressional districts last fall.

According to a sworn declaration by one of Bianco’s sergeants, armed deputies from Riverside County’s Special Investigations Bureau, Emergency Response Team and SWAT unit were sent to sweep up pallets of sealed votes and bring them to the Moreno Valley Sheriff’s Station on Feb. 26 — a day after California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber ordered Bianco to stand down.

In the days that followed, deputies began their own ad hoc recount — an activity they’d never been trained for, and which state officials and civil liberties groups say flies in the face of the plain language of the state’s election law that says “in no event shall ballots be moved.”

Voters sued. So did Bonta. In oral arguments on both cases Monday morning, California‘s seven Supreme Court justices appeared at times flabbergasted by claims that the move was not only permitted but blessed under state law — and that California’s top cop had no power to block it.

“I’m just wondering … why didn’t the sheriff’s office contemplate the available routes under the elections code for resolving the alleged disparity?” asked Associate Justice Goodwin H. Liu. “Isn’t there a procedure for resolving this?”

“Certainly there are other paths,” said Bianco’s attorney, Bradley W. Hertz.

Hertz, who argued the sheriff’s case after Riverside’s county counsel largely sided with the plaintiffs, said Bianco simply exercised his legal discretion.

“This wasn’t come in with guns blaring and take the documents,” Hertz said.

The dispute began over handwritten notes made as part of an experimental program to increase voter confidence in the county’s election procedures. That informal tally fell about 46,000 votes short of the official count, prompting accusations of fraud.

Officials contend the discrepancy between the computer count and the paper tally is “a good deed that went punished” — the result of exhausted officials being handed an extra-credit project they couldn’t quite execute.

“It was a pilot program that the registrar implemented at the request of the public, on top of all their other duties, to do these handwritten logs to try to track 350,000 pieces of mail that come in,” said Dale Larson, who represented Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco at the hearing.

Both times it was attempted, the hand tally produced a significant undercount, prompting officials to cancel the pilot, Larson said.

Bianco and his allies insist the difference is evidence of maleficence, and that criminal law authorizes the sheriff to sidestep the state’s detailed election code and the attorney general’s sweeping authority to get to the bottom of it.

The justices repeatedly pressed on Hertz to explain how the general authority conferred to the sheriff under criminal law could trump the specificity of the state’s election rules — a position that would seem to upend foundational rules of American law.

They also cast doubt on Bianco’s “counterintuitive” claim that Bonta’s “supervisory” role over the state’s elected sheriffs was merely advisory and did not carry the authority of law.

“It’s not just counterintiitive — again, we’ve said a million times, we’ve got to just look at the plain language,” said Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban. “Nobody would think that’s what ‘supervised’ means, so why should we think that here?”

The court battle has played out with the UCLA Voting Rights Project bringing the suit on behalf of voters, and the Riverside County district attorney’s Office and the California State Sheriffs’ Assn. backing many of Bianco’s claims.
But it has also pitted the sheriff against the registrar, who was named as a co-defendent in the UCLA suit despite siding with plaintiffs in all but a narrow subset of its claims.

In court filings, Riverside County Counsel Minh C. Tran co-signed claims that Bonta and the voters had it right, carving out a narrow disagreement over whether Tinoco should have ignored the sealed warrant and faced arrest rather than allow ballots to be taken. They also questioned whether he was obligated to go to court himself to stop the seizure.

UCLA hit back at that claim, saying it was “the responsibility of the registrar to go to jail rather than hand over the ballots.”

“I know that’s strong medicine,” said Chad W. Dunn of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “The registrar has a duty to announce publicly and get into court immediately, or at least allow the public to get into court immediately to contest the movement of ballots before it occurs.”

The decision looms as the Trump administration has moved to restrict mail-in voting and signaled it could contest results of the upcoming midterms — partisan flash points UCLA urged the court to address.

“This is bound to be repeated again,” Dunn said. “These are the public’s ballots, that’s why the election code is crafted the way it is, so that the public have a right to weigh in.”