CEO

As a keen reminder of the threats Ukraine is facing, Fire Point CEO Iryna Terekh had to stop a recent interview with TWZ to scramble to a shelter as Russian ballistic missiles were approaching. A 35-year-old architect by training, Terekh helped turn Fire Point from a Ukrainian start-up making weapons in a garage into a leading producer of indigenously made long-range strike drones and missiles, and we talked to her about the company’s weapons and future plans. 

Fire Point’s FP-1 and FP-2 drones have been striking Russian targets to devastating effect and its heavy-hitting Flamingo cruise missiles are adding a new level of long-range threat. 

Beyond these, Fire Point is developing the FP-9 ballistic missile to hit targets up to about 500 miles away and the FP-7.x ballistic missile interceptor, intended to provide a more plentiful and cheaper alternative to Patriot munitions.

Among the many topics discussed, Terekh talked about the status of the FP-9 ballistic missile program, roadblocks to fielding an indigenous Patriot interceptor alternative, how her firm is using AI, why the FP-2 drones were so successful against Russian ships in the Sea of Azov and the challenges of building complex weapons systems while under constant Russian fire. Some of the questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity.

Q: Tell me how Fire Point came to build drones and missiles.

A: Well, we started with the intention to win the war and destroy the Russian Empire, some knowledge in engineering, physics, mathematics, and industrial production, and we started with the FP-1 drone, which was basically the idea behind this. There were two ideas. First is to make an analog of the Shahed drone by technical characteristics, and the second was to utilize a huge stock of Fab 50 bombs. It’s an old Soviet aviation bomb. There was a rumor that there were dozens of thousands of these in Ukrainian stocks, so we decided to build a platform to carry this huge stock.

When we finished designing the aircraft, it turned out that this rumor was just a rumor about the huge stocks of Fab 50s. But anyway, this was a start for FP-1. And when we started to really scale up the production and design a model that would be fitting to be scaled at volume, then we were forced to build a lot of satellite productions around the main production because very soon we met all the possible bottlenecks. And while developing this huge satellite network of productions of the spare parts of different components, we understood that probably we now have enough missiles to go into missile design. That’s the short story.

Footage of the production and testing of the FP-1/2 attack UAVs and the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile

Q: The Flamingo ground-launched cruise missile, which broke cover last fall, has a claimed range of about 1,800 miles. It uses Ivchenko AI-25 turbofan engines that are commonly found on the L-39 Albatros jet trainer. How many of these engines still exist and how long can you sustain production with those surplus powerplants without switching to something that can be produced en masse cheaply today?

A: First of all, the AI-25 TL was the initial engine with which we started to fly, but this is just one of five different engines that we use on Flamingo. So it’s not the only engine, and Flamingo was initially designed to be flexible and to be able to work with different types of engines. So we can really widen up the stock of used engines. 

But at the same time, we started to develop our own turbojet engine with the same design bureau that designed the 25 TL many years ago, and we built it specifically for the purpose of UAV, not for aviation. And it took quite some time, more than a year and a half. And now we are assembling our first 10 prototypes of the future turbojet fan engines of our production.

The AI-25 turbofan engine, part 1

Q: And when will that be ready?

A: As soon as possible. Obviously it is harder to make a turbojet engine than it is to make a missile.

Q: What’s the timeline?

A: The goal is to finish testing all the samples and making all the improvements by the end of this year, and next year go into mass production. 

Q: Fire Point has said that it aims to increase Flamingo production to a daily rate of at least seven missiles by October of this year. This would translate to 2,555 built annually. How can you make this happen?

A: We did not increase the production to these numbers. This is the maximum capacity of our production that we built. Unfortunately, since Ukraine was waiting for the funds coming from the European Union loan, the orders did not match the maximum capacity of the production, so the production was lowered to a lower percentage of what it could possibly provide. We expect to ramp it up to the named number. Probably by the end of this year or beginning next year. It depends on how the contracts will arrive. 

Q: How does the Flamingo do its job? Can you run us through what mission preparation, launch, navigation, impact and after action activities look like? 

A: I personally place Flamingo in the drone category, despite the fact that it’s a big missile, because the process looks almost the same. 

Of course, there are nuances that we need to count on during mission planning, but the mission planning is on the side of Ukrainian armed forces. In terms of our company, as a manufacturer, we do a very detailed after-action review. After each mission, we understand how it reacted to electronic warfare. We were able to do a very effective countermeasure against on-ground air defense systems like Pantsir and Tor. So basically, there is just one threat that is really left for Flamingo, and this is aviation. Against this, we cannot really fight. Otherwise, it’s half of the technical perfection of the missile and half of the art of mission planning. So, to fly as low as possible to plan the mission correctly, to understand the altitudes, we cannot afford the luxury of doing the ramp up before the final attack, because then we would be visible to radars. 

Therefore, when you plan the ramp up picket, it is much easier than to plan a very smooth, almost horizontal few degrees attack. 

Anyway, our armed forces already mastered this as well, and from our side, it is important that we provide a navigation solution that is completely resistant towards electronic warfare, jamming, spoofing, any sort of interference, and this we did. So we see the improvements after each mission on both sides, both on our software part and on the mission planning part.

Q: What navigation and target package suites are available for Flamingo at this time? What about in the future?

A: I don’t want to name exact systems for obvious reasons, but it’s a combination of a [Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna] antenna, inertial navigation system, of specific software, of additional data sources, and sometimes it’s visual navigation as well.

Q: Olena Kryzhanivska, a defense fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, recently told the New York Times that the Flamingo missiles have shown “low effectiveness,” possibly because of accuracy problems and that the “results that we see are not the ones that Ukraine would like to have.” How do you respond?

A: Honestly, I don’t respond to such things at all because in the end, we are no magicians. If anybody could create a cruise missile in one year and then already pay back all of the money spent on this missile with the effect of the damage on the enemy’s territory, they can show better and more effective results.

Ukraine’s New FP-5 Missile Has Twice the Range of a Tomahawk | WSJ Equipped

Q: Let’s talk about the FP-9. Ukraine getting its own ballistic missile is a big deal. What went into developing it and what can you tell us about its design?

A: The FP-9 is a missile that we planned would be able to reach Moscow with a range of 850 kilometers. It required building the whole new infrastructure specifically for casting solid rocket propellants in such a huge amount. The engine itself is 4.6 tons of solid rocket fuel, compared to FP-7, where it’s just one ton of solid rocket fuel, so a whole set of factories of preparation infrastructure. 

Anyway, as we are speaking now, the engines are being cast. Therefore, we expect test launches soon, as soon as possible. The navigation solution, everything else on this missile is already ready. So basically, it’s the last touch on the engine, and we are ready to start. 

Ukrainian FP-9 ballistics ready to strike! 800 km range – MOSCOW is now within reach!

Q: So when will it be operational? It hasn’t been used yet, right?

A: No, we are preparing for the first flight.

Q: When do you think that will be?

A: I understand the curiosity behind the question on when exactly this would happen, but we have our specific dates in mind where we are aiming. But I don’t like naming them because a lot of things could go wrong on the way, so my expectation is that this would be autumn. I would not specify better at this moment.

Q: For the FP-9 ballistic missile, Ukraine had to build a new solid-fuel engine casting facility. How difficult was that and what is the status of it?

A: Obviously, it was quite a challenge because we do have such a factory. Ukraine had such a factory in Pavlograd, but Pavlograd is under constant attack, and also they’re using a little bit different technology for that. We understand if we do not build an alternative to Pavlograd, then we will have no future for the missile program. 

So we built multiple factories in Ukraine and one in Denmark for the sake of solving this task. Of course, it’s extremely challenging. It’s equipment. It’s mixers for casting. It’s a specific post-curing process, casting process. This is a dangerous production, and we had to reinvent in a way this whole technology almost from scratch. Therefore, it was quite a challenge, but I like how it went out. Since we are already casting a lot of solid rocket fuel for smaller rockets, I like how it’s developing and how it’s going. 

Q: How difficult is it to put all this together from so many dispersed locations?

A: Well, the logistics are hell, to be frank (chuckles). But we do not have the luxury to have the factory in a classic way, with the walls and roof, we if when I say factory and we have 90 of them in the moment, when I say factory I mean this whole ecosystem with logistics, with warehouses, everything is hidden and dissolved in a way that the critical components are always duplicated, triplicated, quadruplicated. It’s a lot of additional investments and, of course, a lot of risks and a lot of additional time for logistics specifically, but again, we do not have any other choice. Therefore, the factory in this matter is a whole ecosystem.

Q: Fire Point claims that Ukraine can build missiles faster than Russia by building cheaper, less complex missiles. How would that work?

A: I personally believe that if you want to build something in volume, you need to think of this from day one of future product development, and this is probably a critical thing that we changed in this culture at Fire Point. So understanding how the production works is a very important thought to be established as a fundament of the future development. So in practice, how it looks when we start the R&D process, our chief designer has a lot of ideas. But I have the power to interrupt and to block any idea that will not be possible to mass produce later. Therefore, we are rethinking and rethinking until we get the solution that is possible to mass produce. 

And when you think of this in the design stage, then of course it is easier to do it. In fact, and also technological sovereignty is very important for all the critical components and processes. We have our own capabilities inside Fire Point, all the critical, even the machine production. So we do cover lots of things. We rely at least on subcontractors and contractors, and we try to set up the maximum control over the supply chain. 

Author’s note: At this point Terekh stops talking and looks at her phone.

Terekh: I am looking to see if this is a ballistic missile attack or not. Yeah, it’s ballistics. So, I would be glad to maybe talk more with you on this point, but I have to evacuate now to the shelter. The flight time is like two minutes.

Author’s note: A week later, we continued the conversation.

Q: Can you talk about the arrangement with Diehl Defense to build Flamingos in Germany? How does this help Fire Point and Ukraine? Can you provide any details about the new seeker Diehl is working to outfit the weapon with and any other details about how Diehl will improve the munition?

A: I cannot provide many details yet because the negotiations are ongoing. But basically, in terms of Germany, we are in negotiations with Diehl Defense, they initiated this discussion. We, I’m sure, can be a mutually interested industrial partner for each other. There is something that Diehl can bring to the table in terms of technology. There is definitely something that we could bring to the table in terms of technology and industrial knowledge.

So I consider such types of negotiations and cooperations very useful. Because the way big primes rethink their future by learning from Ukrainian companies and at the same time using their legacy knowledge for future development – I think is very fruitful for both sides. And of course, it all started by an initiative of the German government because everybody wants to have long-range capabilities of domestic production. 

Q: Let’s talk about the FP-1 drone. Created in 2023, it has been widely used in Ukrainian attacks on targets deep inside Russia. How did you ramp up production of this system and improve it to keep it effective against always adapting Russian defenses?

A: At the beginning, I thought that just constantly analyzing the feedback in a correct way, and then adapting and making changes would be enough. But from today’s point of view, I would say that’s definitely not enough. You have to be so deep in the context of what’s happening on the front line, and in general of the development of enemy tactics of electronic warfare. So you have to be able to make some sort of forecast and try to predict what will happen in the future, find a solution for this future problem, test it, validate it, and when the problem actually comes, you have to have something on your shelf already ready for solving this solution. 

So we are trying to trick the timelines a little bit, even if in some cases, my forecasts are not correct. Eighty percent of the time, they are correct, and that’s definitely enough to always keep up in this technological race. 

You can see video of an FP-1 drone being used in an attack below:

Q: There are now two configurations of this drone, one for longer range and one for a larger warhead. Can you talk about them and how they were adapted to be useful over such a wide range of target sets?

A: You know, when we just made the FP-1, it was just 700 kilometers, and then we found a way to increase the distance and increase the accuracy as well. The same logic happened with FP-2. It started as a middle strike of 200 kilometers, and now it’s up to 500 kilometers. So these are gentle improvements, or as I call them, nuanceful improvements. You can work with an engine. You can work with engine consumption. You can work with reassembling some part of the aircraft in a way that is more aerodynamically effective. So when you make a product that you are satisfied with, there is always room for improvement, to be frank. 

In the case of the longer-ranged version of FP-1, it is a little bit more complicated in production. So it’s not possible, at the moment, to make 300 of them per day, but it allows us to go such long distances. It has a different wing. This wing contains additional fuel tanks, and there are also some minor improvements here and there that provide this result.

Q: And the FP-2?

A: The same logic. It could be different changes, but the same logic.

Q: Can you provide any insights into the ongoing Sea of Azov campaign against Russian shipping that relies heavily on the FP-2 drone? What makes this a good weapon for such attacks?

A: It is controlled manually. There is additional AI assistance on that control. So basically, that makes it the best option to fight dynamic moving targets. Especially, it has multiple options for content streamline. I would explain it like this. So, in case one type of connectivity does not work, there are other options for this as well, and it is very effective when you are controlling your aircraft in real time. Then the pilot can target the most vulnerable part of the ship, and unfortunately, as far as I can see, these are the only sanctions that our enemy really understands.

Q: What other options are there when one type of connectivity doesn’t work?

A: I don’t really want to share exactly what the setup we use is because the more detailed I will explain it, the faster the enemy will find the countermeasures for this.

The following video shows Fire Point drones being used to attack Russian ships in the Sea of Azov:

Q: News reports state that you look to arm this drone with rockets to take on multiple ground targets at standoff ranges. Can you talk about this concept and how you aim to see it be used on the battlefield? 

A: Actually, the FP-1 and FP-2 are pretty universal platforms. There are so many versions of this that we didn’t announce it publicly yet, however these airplanes can make a lot of different side quests, and one of these side quests is of course carrying uncontrolled short-range missiles. We do have a huge stockpile of this missile in the Ukrainian army that is not largely used, and it is the way to utilize them with the most possible sense. It helps to counterattack the mobile interceptor groups, and when the aircraft is done with letting the missiles out, it can go further for the initial mission. So it’s really like a side quest. 

Q: What kind of rockets are you talking about?

A: Old Soviet 57mm S-5 rockets.

Soviet 57mm S-5KO High Explosive Anti-Tank FRAG Aircraft Rocket #military #coldwar #airforce #rocket

Q: How many S-5 rockets can it carry?

A: But it could be any, to be frank. But that does not matter much.

Q: But how many can the drone carry?

A: Eight.

You can see an FP-1 drone launching rockets in this video:

Q: How do you use AI in these drones and other weapons? Where is this headed in the future? 

A: Since we are using quite a big platform, our user experience with AI is slightly different from smaller FPV or reconnaissance drones. We use it for visual map-matching for final target corrections. But I do not say that it’s largely changing the narrative of how we’re using drones because I still believe there should be a person behind making a final decision. So we do use AI a lot in our daily work in software development, in technical consultancy, but in terms of directing the flight, it is still in the end a human who makes the final decision.

Q: Do you use man-in-the-loop or man-on-the-loop?

A: Both.

Q: Can you provide more details about how you use AI in the terminal phase of an attack?

A: There are multiple versions for this type of terminal work. At the moment, we are mostly at the point of collecting more precise data for more inertial platforms like ours. At the same time, it helps to correct and lead the aircraft if the connectivity is lost for quite some time because it has the target recognition possibility and the final targeting as well. But it should still be human-in-the-loop at this moment. 

Q: Where is this headed in the future? 

A: You know, AI companies are now hiring philosophers to decide on where it’s heading in the future. My perfect scenario would be that we will use AI for finding alternative deterrence options. What I mean is, instead of just relying on nukes as a deterrent, it could be that we will build some sort of drone walls, or we will operate the kill zones where the decision-making would be solely on AI. 

There are pros and cons to this as well. For example, we all knew of cases where Russians were infiltrating their agents in the governments of different countries, and when it came to making a fair response to barbarian actions, somebody sabotaged this fair response. So probably AI could be an instrument to provide an immediate response for aggressive actions in the future of whoever this could be, the aggressor. I don’t have a clear answer. Obviously, we are all thinking about this: to what point we can delegate the responsibility, and it’s still an open question.

Q: Satellite communications are also key to long-range strikes against dynamic targets like ships. How has the miniaturization of this technology changed how your products are used? 

A: Miniaturization is crucial, but that is all the detail I can share at this stage.

Q: Let’s talk about Project Freya and the FP-7.x interceptor missile you are developing. Who is providing the seeker to make this work? What is the timeline and what are the expected costs per interceptor? And how will it compare to PAC-3 Patriot?

A: We are working with two European and one Ukrainian company on secret development, and I don’t know which of the options would be the fastest out of this. The final goal is to make the whole interceptor cheaper than 1 million euros. I think with the expected price range of the seekers that we discussed with our partners, this is doable. Probably not from the first iterations, but definitely in serial production. 

Q: What seekers are you using, and from which companies?

A: It is [imaging infrared] seekers. One deal is public, so one option is from Diehl Defense that we are currently integrating. The other is – I don’t know if they’re comfortable with public disclosure yet, so I have to talk with them first.

Q: What’s the timeline for this?

A: Nobody can answer at this point. So the deep technical integration is happening right now. We expect, of course, it to be in the nearest months, because the seekers aside, we are on a good level of readiness. But nobody can answer this point. 

Q: What’s the major issue that still has to be overcome?

A: On technical integration?

Q: On being able to produce the interceptor at scale.

A: If we look at everything but the seeker, our production is already ready, even for mass production, and we finished all the tests on this matter. But the amount in which we will have seekers and their accuracy and the results of technical integration – it’s still something that we are cooking at the moment. Of course, we will be doing our best to maximize both the accuracy, the energy consumption, and the mass production in the future. But we have to understand that even the seeker manufacturers are doing this for the first time in such an integration. So it requires a lot of talent, a lot.

Q: How will it compare to PAC-3 Patriot interceptor?

A: The PAC-3 is a different missile designed for different consumption levels. I think FP-7.x is more comparable in the first iteration to the Patriot PAC-2 because we do not expect immediate success with hit-to-kill, and the first interception we expect to do with the blast interception. Hit-to-kill is the next iteration. So at the beginning we will have more the analog of the PAC-2, but more mass-produced and cheaper.

Q: How many do you think you will be able to make?

A: From our side, we are ready to make almost an infinite amount. So we are targeting to do at least 2,000 a year as a starter, and then develop the production. Right now, we are solving the bottlenecks again, especially on the seeker part of this. But everything that is dependent on Fire Point, we can scale these numbers up.

Q: What do you think about the Patriot interceptor licensing deal Presidents Trump and Zelensky discussed before the American leader backed away from that? Would this affect anything you are doing?

A: No, it could be a good addition to what we are already doing.

Q: Why?

A: Because, in my opinion, every industrial corporation is like the greatest university of all. And the more you cooperate with different companies – there are not that many companies in the world who can produce anti-ballistic capabilities, and we have to kind of stay together on solving massive threats.

Q: On his last day as defense minister, Mykhalio Fedorov wrote that “a successful ballistics test was conducted, which was developed within the Ministry of Defense’s area of responsibility. We significantly changed the technical specifications and demonstrated maximum accuracy. We reduced the price by 30%. Ukraine will enter a new league.” Is this something you are working on or is it the government-run Sapsan program? What can you tell me about this?

A: I don’t know what exactly his words meant to be about because around the same time we were both testing our missiles and Pivdenne was testing theirs [the Sapsan], but from what I know, Sapsan also got a big improvement, and they had recently one of their first big successes with accuracy and technologically. So I think probably he meant both of us or just Sapsan. I don’t know.

🚀 Moscow has a new reason to worry. Ukraine has tested a new ballistic missile

In his farewell post, Mykhailo Fedorov revealed that successful tests of a Ukrainian ballistic missile took place on the very day the government stepped down. He did not specify which missile it was.… pic.twitter.com/PoprVjAUx8

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) July 16, 2026

Q: A little more than six months after naming the tech-savvy Fedorov defense minister, Zelensky fired him, ultimately replacing him with Major General Yevhen Khmara, who now serves as acting defense minister. How has the change in command in the Ministry of Defense affected Fire Point and Ukrainian domestic weapons development in general?

A: I think in general, our president has a big vision on why he’s doing specific things. The team of Mykhailo Fedorov helped a lot to develop Ukrainian industry, specifically with removing a lot of bureaucracy from the process. I think this initiative alone was the reason why Ukrainian industry is looking like this today. It was back in 2023. But the new minister is a war person. He is deep in the knowledge of asymmetric actions. So we expect a positive future.

Q: Fire Point has talked about the need for a Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance (MALE) UAS armed with a 30mm cannon that can intercept glide bombs before they hit their targets. What details can you provide about that?

A: There is a version of this, like an interceptor. We have multiple versions for interceptors on the platform of FP-1. One is with a gun, the other with small interceptors, like the ones that are popular now, the [General Cherry] Bullet interceptors. And there are also a few other options. As I mentioned at the beginning, it’s a pretty universal platform that can do a side quest. 

Q: What kind of gun are you talking about?

A: Honestly, it was created to intercept Shaheds. I think for intercepting the glide bombs, it’s almost impossible to do so after the glide bomb has left the aircraft. It looks unrealistic to me, to be frank. Maybe, there would be a way, for example, to try and catch the aircraft before it launches. But the most effective way to fight glide bombs is to destroy Russian aviation, and I don’t know yet a more effective way to do this. 

⚡ Russia may have brought back UMPB-5R jet-powered glide bombs. Recent strikes suggest the weapons can reach targets about 150 km away.https://t.co/xiZ6Nf0H1X

— Militarnyi (@militarnyi) August 2, 2026

Q: What else is on the horizon for Fire Point? What new capabilities and platforms are you looking at developing and what battlefield realities are driving those developments?

A: Aside from everything that is well known, we are also focusing on creating our own satellite constellation, so we have an independent connectivity for the drones. So this is one of the focuses, and of course we are working on improving the autonomous flight for the drones, so there are many small and big developments, but the biggest one is probably satcom.

Q: Tell me about this. Are you actually going to launch your own satellites? Are you building satellites for someone else to launch?

A: We are working together with a company that produces satellites, and we are also starting to develop our future possibility to deliver satellites. We are far from that yet, but we already have the equipment, and we already are experimenting with the bigger rocket engines. So this development had already started. It’s not the main focus at the moment, of course, because at the moment we have to win the war first. But this is something we are preparing for the future. 

Q: What company are you working with?

A: Again, I have to talk with them whether or not they want to be public.

Q: Finally, what about Fire Point as a weapons exporter? Where do you see the company as a global arms provider in the near future and after the war hopefully ends?

A: We have a big interest from a majority of European countries to have Fire Point products in their armies, and we already started to work on that because they all saw the threat that may potentially come from Russia. Of course, we also have other negotiations, but now we have to be more careful how we ensure that our products do not wind up with the bad guys. So every export movement would be treated with the maximum cautiousness.

Q: How could your weapons land in the hands of the bad guys?

A: Ah, that’s a good question, how these deals could be possibly secured from being redirected to the wrong place? We have a huge level of trust with our partners, but those countries that are new to us, we do not yet have this relationship and this level of trust.

Q: Are you selling any weapons right now to either the U.S. or, say, some of the Gulf Arab nations, given what’s going on there? 

A: Not at the moment.

Q: Are you in negotiations with the U.S. and/or Gulf Arab nations?

A: Yeah, we have a lot of negotiations and discussions going on in parallel. I will comment once the negotiations are successful.

Q: Are there any weapons or products that you’re developing that I haven’t asked about?

A: I think it is important to understand that we will soon consider all the weapons more in terms of security subscription rather than actual hardware product.

Q: What do you mean?

A: I mean the amount of updates that we make, even on the software side, is huge and happens so often. It kinda reminds me of how you update your smartphone. This does not mean that you have to buy each new smartphone every month, but the software updates quite fast, and also could be that in a year or two you will need a new smartphone. So Ukraine is rethinking the weaponry more in the possibility of how the company can ensure that the army will always have a capability, and how this capability is provided is now a headache of the company. 

So in the old model, when a defense contractor delivers the contract, that’s it. Maybe after some time he will be called for maintenance. But our responsibility isn’t finished on the day that we deploy the weapon, but after I finally receive the post-flight analysis and I’m happy with this. So the whole logistic services, software updates, up-training, any changes that are happening on the way we do by ourselves. The end user can focus on launching and planning the missions, and of course we work shoulder to shoulder to ensure that we will use the battlefield data to a maximum level of usefulness.

The post-Cold War order was built on assumptions russia never shared.

Today’s queues at the Fire Point stand suggest Europe has understood the assignment.

Exceptional second day at Eurosatory. pic.twitter.com/hwMLEMcZXN

— terekh (@iraterekh) June 16, 2026

Q: What can the U.S. learn from Fire Point?

A: Make the market more transparent and attractive to younger startups. Remove bureaucracy as much as possible, share the risks with the contractors to make everybody more flexible, and probably that’s it. 

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison isn’t waving a white flag.

After Paramount agreed Friday to delay its proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery to battle a stiffer-than-anticipated antitrust challenge from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other state attorneys general, Ellison is resetting expectations. In a Monday memo to employees, Ellison wrote that he still believes his mammoth merger will be consummated in the coming months.

Paramount stock has lost about 20% of its value since the beginning of July amid concerns that the company will have to shoulder higher costs to get its $111-billion Warner Bros. acquisition across the finish line. Friday’s agreement with the state attorneys general to delay the merger’s close until after an antitrust trial, which will likely be held in 2027, also was unsettling to shareholders and some employees.

Paramount Skydance shares closed at $8.03, down 2.19% Monday afternoon.

“Let me be clear: we remain highly confident that this transaction does not pose any legal issues, and we will complete it and bring these two companies together,” Ellison wrote in the memo shared with media outlets.

Paramount’s internal teams and Warner Bros. have been diligently working to lay the groundwork for the two rival companies to integrate their operations. The rush had been on because Ellison wanted to close the deal this week — or at least by the end of September — to avoid a higher payout to Warner shareholders.

However, Paramount suspended such ambitions on Friday, agreeing to delay the merger until after a trial to litigate the merits of the antitrust case brought by Bonta and the other Democrats. Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey and New York are among the states joining California in the fight.

The Writers Guild of America separately sued this month, alleging the merger would harm writers. Over the weekend, SAG-AFTRA announced that it supports the state attorneys general as they try to beat back the merger.

“Our members have every right to expect that the government will do thorough regulatory oversight when a deal of this magnitude takes place,” SAG-AFTRA President Sean Astin said in a statement.

“The workers in this industry should not have to rely on promises and aspirational statements,” he added. “This isn’t a conversation about shareholder value, it’s about the survival of the entertainment business in America.”

Teamsters already have spoken out against the deal.

Bonta and fellow attorneys general from Democrat-led states have argued the deal would violate the century-old Clayton Antitrust Act in three markets: wide-release theatrical films, potential blockbuster movies and cable television channel concentration.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, who is overseeing the antitrust suit filed by Bonta two weeks ago, wrote in an order last week that the plaintiff states had presented “compelling evidence” that the proposed merger may violate U.S. antitrust law.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is leading an effort of 12 state attorneys general attempting to block Paramount Skydance’s $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Paramount disputes that. The firm, controlled by the Larry Ellison family, has pointed to regulatory approvals it has already garnered, including from the U.S. Department of Justice, which found its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery would not harm competition.

The deal also won clearances from regulators representing 65 jurisdictions, including Australia, China, the European Commission, Germany, France, Spain and Canada. Paramount has pointed to those approvals as proof that the law is on its side.

In his memo, Ellison said delaying the deal until after a trial before Martínez-Olguín made sense.

“We believe this is the right path because the facts and the law are on our side, and a full hearing will demonstrate why the plaintiffs’ arguments should not prevail,” Ellison wrote.

Mangione would face lighter sentencing if jury accepts he was in a state of ‘extreme emotional disturbance’ during act.

Luigi Mangione, the man suspected of fatally shooting United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City, will argue a psychiatric defence during his trial.

Judge Gregory Carro said on Wednesday that Mangione’s lawyers informed him that they will assert that their client was in a state of “extreme emotional disturbance” when he allegedly carried out the shooting in December 2024.

New York state allows murder defendants to make the case that they cannot be held fully responsible for their actions because they were in a state of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the killing.

Thompson’s slaying, which took place outside a hotel in midtown Manhattan, shocked the United States public. Grainy footage of the act quickly spread across social media.

It also drew attention to the widespread anger over sky-high healthcare prices. Police have said that the terms “delay”, “deny”, and “depose” were written on the suspect’s ammunition, a reference to how health insurance companies avoid paying claims.

If the jury concludes that Mangione was emotionally disturbed at the time of the alleged act, it could move to convict him of manslaughter rather than murder. Such a conviction generally results in a lighter sentence.

Relying on a claim of emotional disturbance means that Mangione would effectively admit that he carried out the act, but that he did so under circumstances of impaired judgement. It differs from an insanity plea, which would allow Mangione to serve his sentence in a psychiatric facility rather than a prison.

Mangione, who sat between two of his lawyers dressed in a blue suit, is set to go to state trial on September 8. The 28-year-old has previously pleaded not guilty to state and federal charges in connection to the killing.

His federal trial, which includes stalking charges, is set to begin on October 13. He faces a potential life in prison if convicted in either case.

US District Judge Margaret Garnett, who is overseeing the federal case, threw out murder and weapons charges against Mangione on technical grounds in January. That ruling eliminated the possibility of Mangione facing the death penalty.

The saga of the Constellation class frigate is emblematic of so many chronic issues with the Navy’s way of procuring warships. The vessel that was supposed to make the wrongs of the Littoral Combat Ship debacle right failed spectacularly and the timing couldn’t have been worse. Now Constellation is dead and the Trump administration is building a different frigate from a different yard. While the Navy has said why it is moving on, we wanted the other side of the story. We recently had a conversation with George Moutafis, CEO of Fincantieri Marine Group, to get exactly that.

Before we get to the questions and answers, however, here is the backstory.

The U.S. Navy needed the Constellation class frigate, badly, and the program to construct it seemed built to deliver. Rather than a clean-sheet design, the service chose the proven Franco-Italian FREMM as its parent design, betting that adapting an existing platform would be far faster and cheaper, and overall less risky than starting from scratch.

It wasn’t. Among the issues plaguing the program, constant change orders pushed the design far from its origins. Two years into construction, the first ship was barely 10% complete while its design was still being finalized. Meanwhile, costs and schedules blew well past original projections.

As a result of these issues, the Navy late last year cancelled the program. That left Fincantieri’s Wisconsin yard sidelined while a contract to replace the Constellation class frigate went to rival Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula.

In the wake of the program’s implosion, the Navy created the Vessel Construction Manager (VCM) system. It uses a hired manager to hold the prime contract and run the show, overseeing shipyard performance, controlling subcontracts, and acting as a buffer between the service and the builder to keep costs and schedules on track.

In a wide-ranging, hour-long exclusive interview, Moutafis – appointed CEO on July 1, 2025 as the wheels were already falling off this project – gave us unique insights into Fincantieri’s version of how Constellation turned into a debacle and what needs to change as a result. He also touched on an array of other topics, which we will address in future installments.

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

Q: Why was the Constellation class frigate cancelled from your point of view? What happened that caused the program – which was seen as a must-succeed endeavor, and hugely promising – to get to the point where it was shuttered?

A: It’s for sure a tricky situation. On one hand, the way the Constellation class program was initially laid out and envisioned – potentially a lot of the things that were driving it may have been ahead of its time.

So, while you’re saying you want to attempt to do one thing, but at the same time you’re not evolving the way you execute can lead you to an undesired effect. And I say this because in my eyes, some of those lessons learned out of Constellation are being manifested in the things that the Navy has been rolling out the past few months – a new approach that empowers PAEs [Navy Portfolio Acquisition Executives] to make decisions, to minimize change, to embrace innovation and new technologies. All these elements that we see now being rolled out, I think to a certain degree, connect back to lessons that have been learned out of the Constellation class journey.

Q: What lessons, specifically?

A: Figure out what you want to prioritize, to what extent you want to prioritize schedule, and what’s the best way to say this. When you know when you need something delivered and at what pace, then enable the right level of decision-making. Because otherwise – I don’t want to sound this the wrong way – but perfection sometimes is the enemy of more than good enough.

Going beyond the Constellation class, now the needs are for vessels to be out there for the warfighter as soon as possible. For sure, we will see many cases where it will be considered that a vessel with these capabilities – even though potentially, in some areas, it may not have enough tons of steel on its sides, or whatever – it will be good enough to assist the warfighter as they head into harm’s way.

Those trade-offs are now being placed at the PAE level, allowing Navy leaders at that level to make the right decisions – figuring out whether to continue going down a design spiral versus just moving out with production and enabling us to have the right capabilities on time for the warfighter.

You can see former Navy Secretary John Phelan announce the cancellation of the Constellation class in the following video.

Q: Could the Constellation class have been salvaged? What would have needed to change to get it to a place where it was affordable, on time and efficient?

A: I think the initial and envisioned approach was a healthy one. Had we kept on track with what was, back then, the principles that led to the selection – but also how it was originally set up – we probably would have kept closer to the original design. And thus allowing [us] to be closer to the original schedule. And thus allowing [us] also to build the vessel that was desired, without delays or major changes.

On our end, from day one or day two – let me say that once the Navy decided their shift, we opted to consciously become a true partner and showcase that we are a true partner to the Navy and the nation. We said, ‘Okay, we will adjust, we will move forward.’ And it’s a clear reality that what we have in Wisconsin is an asset for the Navy, especially in a time like this that leaves all of us eager to serve the way you would need us to serve – whether it’s today through serial production of landing ships and/or icebreakers or others. And in the future, should the small surface combatant segment have additional needs, it’s obvious that the infrastructure [in Wisconsin] has been built to ideally serve that type of vessel, so we’re ready to answer the calling.

Q: Why didn’t the Navy just take the base class and do minimal modifications to it? It became what seemed like a totally new ship.

A: That’s a great question, Howard, but I would need to speculate to answer that one, and I wouldn’t want to do that, because you’re right. But at the same time – what’s the saying? Hindsight is 20/20. It’s probably one of those occasions at this point. But it’s a great question. I’d love to be with you when we pose it to the right folks.

Q: But what do you think is the answer to that question, from your point of view?

A: From our point of view – from the get-go, when the award was made, it was made because there was a review of the requirements, a review of the design, and a review of all the elements that led to recognition that the parent design possessed exactly the right features to represent the path forward. So collectively, we had marched on that path. We might find ourselves in a different situation right now, but like I said, it’s one thing asking somebody to change their M.O. and adopt a new approach without fully empowering them or doing something drastic to signal that type of transformation. And it’s another where we said ‘we will try this new approach.’ But there was a lot of follow-through that was needed.

Everybody has developed experiences in certain ways, and everybody – especially when you have folks that have been doing it for decades – has developed their own rules of thumb and approaches to dealing with certain situations. It’s not easy to pivot an entire structure to a new idea or a new approach. So like I said, probably it was the right idea, but a little bit ahead of its time.

Q: What do you think of the lessons that should be learned from the Constellation class’s story?

A: I want to be a glass-half-full type of guy, so that’s why I connected back the things that I’ve been seeing being rolled out by our Navy the last few months as indeed adopting some of those lessons learned. So I’ll go back to the fact that they’ve decided to find new ways to apply the principle that schedule is king. And those new ways include changes that are not just at the leadership level, not just at the level following that, but indeed of restructuring and reorganizing the teams that are there to implement those guidelines – because that’s key in order to be able to change your ways and adopt lessons learned.

So I’m hopeful that this new approach of the PAE setup will be an enabler to adopt the lessons learned: of how to move fast, of how not to mess with a design especially when it’s meeting and exceeding requirements, of how to manage change – not in the rollout of a change, but in the decision-making of whether to adopt change or not. So a lot of those new ideas that they’ve been trying to apply are promising to that effect.

Q: The Navy adopted the new VCM program to oversee construction of the new Landing Ship Medium (LSM) vessels you are working on. This is a direct result of what happened with the Constellation class, right?

A: I would definitely think so, because it indicates the whole idea that the Navy is recognizing – instead of applying the typical layers of full team presence in the shipbuilder’s yard, additional layers of engineering design, etc. – we’re saying, ‘Okay, in a case where we want to go fast, let’s make our decisions ahead of time, select the design, check it quickly ahead of time, and assign it as a production-related design in the hands of that VCM, and allow an industry set of characters between the VCM and the shipbuilder to deliver.’

Q: What does Fincantieri have to give up in this VCM approach?

A: Thinking on this – Fincantieri, as a global group, likes to be end-to-end with the end customer. Our strategy is to develop the design according to the needs and requirements, move forward all through construction, and even post-construction to provide full support throughout almost the entire lifecycle of a vessel. That’s the Fincantieri model around the globe.

In this case, we’re looking to adjust to the approach that the Navy is looking to apply – and we can view it as a benefit. We can take it on as a build-to-print: be the shipbuilder that respects this design, doesn’t try to mess with it, just works out all the kinks to ensure producibility, and then moves swiftly into quick serial production.

From that perspective, we’re not really giving up something – we’re just placing at the disposal of the nation the assets that are already in place, and looking to produce as many vessels as quickly as possible.

Q: How will this speed up U.S. shipbuilding?

A: How I interpret this strategy is the Navy saying: in programs that work, find an approach that allows them to almost get out of the picture. They recognize schedule is priority number one and a quality vessel is priority number two. In order to enable that ‘build more and build fast’ approach, they’re seeking to place somebody – the VCM – to take on the construction, provide them with a mature, production-ready design with no changes to it, and enable the kind of interaction you’ve seen in commercial shipbuilding. That allows those two parties – the VCM and the shipbuilder – to work fast through daily decision-making in a way that favors schedule without compromising quality.

They’re seeking to equip the VCM with a design that will not be touched – a build-to-print situation – and empower them to make these types of decisions daily, so that at the end of the day they simply deliver a vessel to the Navy, minimizing the Navy’s need or propensity to intervene.

It’s an innovative approach, and it definitely requires all parties to give up habits and practices that have taken hold in the past. As long as parties stick with this new approach, it has a great chance of success. On our end, we’re trying to be disciplined in respecting it and pushing forward.

Our next installment of this interview focuses on how Fincantieri is planning to help build Trump’s Golden Fleet and the challenges ahead.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The looming impact of federal Medicaid cuts has reignited a long-simmering, costly battle between California’s medical industry and one of its largest health worker unions.

SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, with about 120,000 members, has put forward two ballot initiatives to cap the pay of medical executives and require community clinics to spend the bulk of their revenues on patient care.

The California Hospital Assn. has responded with its own ballot proposal that would make it tougher for unions to spend money on political initiatives in the future. It would require approval by a union’s rank-and-file membership for any spending of $1 million or more on statewide measures, or $100,000 or more on local ones.

The competing measures, which have drawn enough verified signatures to qualify for the November ballot, come at a time when the rising cost of healthcare is emerging as a top voter concern.

The Service Employees International Union affiliate has seized upon affordability angst to resurrect a proposal for a cap on healthcare executive compensation, which it has failed to achieve multiple times before. The proposed measure garnered more than 1 million petition signatures.

“This initiative reflects the serious crisis we face and that affordability is a real thing,” said Vikas Saini, president of the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts-based healthcare think tank. “I think it also reflects grassroots anger and a desire to do something.”

Mikey Vaughn, a certified nursing assistant at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said the hospital often lacks supplies and staffing levels that he and his colleagues need in order to do their jobs effectively and without undue stress, despite its reputation as the go-to place for the rich and famous.

“The executive pay initiative would, I hope, be used to hire staff and to actually provide better resources for our patients,” he said. Vaughn is also a member of SEIU-UHW’s executive board and political committee.

Thomas Priselac, then-president and CEO of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, made $8.8 million in fiscal year 2024, according to the organization’s most recent available federal tax filing. Kaiser Permanente’s CEO, Gregory Adams, made nearly $13 million in 2024. Warner Thomas, head of Sutter Health, made just under $12 million.

Cedars-Sinai spokesperson Duke Helfand said the hospital would be unable to recruit and retain physicians, nurses, and specialists if the measure passed, dramatically impairing its ability to provide healthcare.

“Such a scenario would be disastrous not only for Cedars-Sinai but for hospitals across Los Angeles and California,” Helfand said.

The union wants to cap compensation at $450,000 a year for senior hospital and medical group executives, as well as other administrative and managerial staff. However, the initiative does not stipulate how dollars diverted from payroll must be spent.

The union has dubbed the latest proposal the Health Care Executive Compensation Act of 2026. A coalition of medical industry heavyweights opposing it — hospitals, physicians, and clinics, among others — has rebranded it the Health Care Endangerment Act.

Carmela Coyle, CEO of the hospital association, called the measure a cynical political ploy.

“It’s bad policy and it’s going to have bad consequences across California,” she said.

Glenn Melnick, a healthcare economist at the University of Southern California, said even if the initiative were fully implemented and pay cuts enacted, he doubts it would reduce the cost of healthcare for patients.

SEIU-UHW does not have an estimated total amount the initiative would claw back from pay packages that exceed the limit.

Opponents of the initiative note that it doesn’t just target executive pay; it would affect medical practitioners who are also managers. That could include chief medical officers and chief nursing officers, as well as heads of surgery, emergency rooms, oncology, obstetrics, cardiology and other specialties, they say.

It would be up to each hospital, health system and physician group to report which staff members exceed the cap and by how much.

Ultimately, who is subject to the pay cap “probably will have to be battled out in court,” Coyle said . “That’s why we are throwing everything we can at it.”

The second SEIU-UHW ballot initiative, on community clinics, is already in court. The California Primary Care Assn., which represents clinics, filed a federal lawsuit in April seeking to invalidate it before it reaches the November ballot.

The proposed measure would require federally designated community clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenues on activities directly related to their mission of providing care for low-income populations. If it were to pass, more than 90% of those clinic organizations would be on the hook for penalties totaling $1.7 billion in the first year alone and “would face similarly crippling penalties every year,” according to a report commissioned by the primary care association and conducted by the Berkeley Research Group, an international consulting company.

Louise McCarthy, president and CEO of the Community Clinic Assn. of Los Angeles County, said many pivotal services the clinics provide — such as translation and transportation — would likely not be counted toward the spending requirement.

“They are targeting a group of what they see as employers and we see as the safety net,” she said.

The lawsuit cites the harm to clinics and claims the proposed spending requirement would interfere with federal authority.

Renée Saldaña, a spokesperson for SEIU-UHW, characterized the lawsuit against the initiative as “a really desperate attempt by the clinic industry to try and avoid accountability.”

SEIU-UHW, proud of its political activism, is also behind a controversial billionaire tax proposal that would impose a one-time 5% levy on California residents with fortunes over $1 billion to backfill the funding gap created by federal cuts coming down the pike under Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The law, passed last July and signed by President Trump, is projected to squeeze nearly $1 trillion from the Medicaid health coverage program for low-income people by 2034, including as much as $30 billion annually in California.

The hospital association, the community clinic group and the California Medical Assn., which represents physicians, are neutral on the wealth tax proposal thus far. But Saldaña said all three of the union’s ballot proposals tie into an overarching strategy to counter the widening healthcare disparities caused by the federal law.

“We believe the primary concern of healthcare providers, including executives, should be to serve the community, heal patients, and not be in healthcare just to enrich themselves,” she said on the proposed pay cap.

Over the years, the union has submitted dozens of local and statewide ballot initiatives, including ones to cap the pay of hospital executives, regulate dialysis clinics, and raise the minimum wage of healthcare workers.

The hospital association calculates that SEIU-UHW has spent nearly $125 million on local and statewide initiatives since 2012. But healthcare industry groups have spent far more opposing them. The hospital association data shows that the union spent nearly $36 million on three ballot proposals to regulate the dialysis industry, but dialysis companies poured in $302 million to defeat them, according to state campaign finance records.

The union’s ongoing political efforts “threaten patient access to quality health care,” according to the hospital association’s ballot initiative, which could limit how much unions spend on future ballot measures.

Saldaña hinted at a possible lawsuit should that measure pass, saying “we don’t see the legal viability” of it. The proposal, she said, is an attempt “to silence the front-line healthcare workers.”

Ultimately, a ballot initiative won’t cure the ills that plague healthcare in the United States, said the Lown Institute’s Saini. What’s needed, he said, is “an evaluation and reimagination of healthcare.”

Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

June 1 (UPI) — Florida’s attorney general announced Monday that the state is suing OpenAI and its founder and CEO, Sam Altman, saying the company chose “profits over public safety” in creating a dangerous product in the form of ChatGPT. It is the first state to sue the company over these design and safety concerns.

“The rise of OpenAI is attributable to a web of deceit and the exploitation of users (including Floridians), leveraging their data and safety to boost OpenAI’s market value at unacceptable costs,” the complaint filed by Attorney General James Uthmeier said, NBC News reported.

The lawsuit claims that OpenAI violated Florida’s rules on deceptive business practices and knew that its chatbot could be dangerous to children and others through actions such as providing “harmful information such as tips on eating disorders, self-harm and mass murder,” The New York Times reported. It says OpenAI presents “a great danger of addiction, cognitive decline, suicide, violence and related harms.”

The civil suit is separate from Florida’s ongoing criminal investigation into OpenAI, which Uthmeier openedin April. It includes multiple counts of deceptive and unfair trade practices, negligence, violations of product liability laws, fraudulent misrepresentation and causing a public nuisance.

OpenAI representatives have not yet commented on this lawsuit. Representatives have said in response to past claims that the company designs its systems with safety in mind and that there are “safeguards in placeto help people, especially teens, when conversations turn sensitive.”

“We continue improving ChatGPT’s training to recognize and respond to signs of mental and emotional distress, de-escalate conversations and guide people toward real-world support,” the company said in a prior statement.

The lawsuits also mentions OpenAI’s connections to a mass shooting at Florida State University and killings at the University of South Florida. In both cases, suspects asked ChatGPT for information connected to the attacks.

June 2 (Asia Today) — Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang visited the SK hynix booth at Computex 2026 in Taipei on Tuesday, meeting SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won for a second straight day as the companies deepen their artificial intelligence partnership.

Huang, who met privately with Chey on Monday, examined SK hynix’s major memory products and wrote “Please Make More” on an HBM4E wafer displayed at the booth.

Chey also signaled that SK plans to expand production. He said the group aims to double wafer production capacity within five years as demand for memory chips is expected to surge.

Huang toured the booth with Chey and SK hynix executives. He signed the HBM4E wafer with the message “Please Make More” and wrote “LOVE SOCAMM” on a 192GB SOCAMM product.

SK hynix currently supplies Nvidia with its latest high-bandwidth memory, including sixth-generation HBM4, as well as high-performance low-power LPDDR5X memory. Huang said in his GTC Taipei keynote Monday that Nvidia will begin full-scale production of its next-generation AI accelerator, Vera Rubin, in the second half of this year.

As AI demand increases and memory supply shortages deepen, Chey said SK is moving quickly to expand production.

“The memory bottleneck is expected to continue until 2030,” Chey told reporters at the SK hynix booth. “We are pushing forward at full speed to expand production capacity.”

“Building new memory fabs requires enormous investment and takes at least three years,” he said. “Despite these challenges, we plan to double wafer production capacity over the next five years.”

It was the first time SK Group publicly presented a specific goal of doubling its overall production capacity within five years. SK hynix is making large-scale investments to strengthen production capacity, including projects at its M15X and P&T7 facilities in Cheongju, the Yongin semiconductor cluster and an advanced packaging plant in the United States.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260602010000823