Combat

WASHINGTON — As Congress responds to President Trump’s attack on Iran, lawmakers who served on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan are making their voices heard in a war debate that has taken on intensely personal meaning.

Many admit mixed feelings, taking satisfaction in seeing vengeance taken on the leadership of an Iranian regime that has targeted U.S. service members for decades, yet fearful that another generation of soldiers could soon face the same combat experiences that they did.

“Do I take gratification? You know there’s the Marine side of me: Yeah, of course,” said Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego, whose company suffered some of the heaviest losses on the U.S. side during the Iraq War. “I know they killed a lot of American soldiers, American Marines. But do I also understand that I have a responsibility not to let my lust for revenge drive my country into another war?”

Experiences in the post 9/11 wars are also coloring the decisions of the Trump administration, given that top officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, were once deployed to Iraq.

Gallego, like others on Capitol Hill, leaned heavily on his firsthand experience of fighting in the wars after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as he assessed the Iran conflict. Lawmakers wore bracelets etched with the names of friends killed in battle, told stories of coming under attack from Iran-backed militant groups and reflected on their own life-changing injuries suffered during combat.

Veteran lawmakers are wary of war

While the initial votes on Iran saw Congress divide mostly along party lines, with Republicans backing Trump’s actions and Democrats warning of an extended conflict, veterans in both parties share deep reservations about entering the conflict.

“As somebody who knows a lot of friends that didn’t come home and a lot of Gold Star families, that’s why the week before the attack, I was actually one of the ones that was talking about caution and why we needed to avoid at all costs getting into another long, drawn-out Middle Eastern war,” said Republican Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona, a former Navy SEAL who left college to enlist the week after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Crane said his concerns were partially assuaged by briefings from the Trump administration that indicated to him the president is not planning a drawn-out war. He voted against a war powers resolution that would have halted attacks on Iran unless Trump got congressional approval.

But Crane said wars are never straightforward. “I’ve been on military operations that did not go to plan many times, and so I understand the nature,” he said, adding that he was calling for the Trump administration to approach the conflict with “humility and caution.”

Gallego and other Democrats worried that it was too late for that approach. They paid tribute to the six U.S. military members who were killed in a drone strike in Kuwait and worried that there could soon be more American casualties. A seventh service member died on Sunday from wounds suffered during a March 1 attack in Saudi Arabia.

“War is dirty, and mistakes happen,” Gallego said. The longer the conflict drags on, he added, the greater the chance there will be for U.S. military members to be killed. He experienced that firsthand in Iraq when friends would be killed by seemingly random shots from enemy combatants.

Still, many Republicans argued that it was necessary to attack Iran to stop a regime that for decades has helped train and arm militant groups throughout the Middle East. Republican Rep. Brian Mast, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, led the debate on the House floor against the war powers resolution.

Mast, who served as an Army bomb disposal expert, now uses prosthetic legs after receiving catastrophic injuries from an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan. “Me especially, many of my other colleagues, no one wants to see our military go into combat or war,” he said.

Then he added, “But Iran’s terror, which has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans, it has to stop.”

Trying to push soldiers to forefront of war debate

Important questions loom for Congress as the conflict with Iran unfolds and spreads to other parts of the Middle East. The price of the operation is already likely running into the billions of dollars, likely forcing the Trump administration to soon seek billions in funding from Congress. The outbreak of war has also scrambled global alliances and the future of U.S. foreign policy.

Shadowing it all is the potential of another drawn-out conflict. Lawmakers said they owe it to their fallen comrades to ensure that doesn’t happen.

“To me, it’s to speak out. It’s to say another generation should not go fight in an open-ended, ill-conceived regime change war in the Middle East,” said Democratic Rep. Pat Ryan, his hand moving to a bracelet etched with the names of friends who were killed during his two Army combat tours in Iraq.

Others remembered how frustrated they became with Washington during their service, especially as soldiers tried to fight with insufficiently armored vehicles and not enough troops.

“I know what it was like to be on the very end of the receiving line of the decisions made in Washington,” said Democratic Rep. Jason Crow, who entered the Army as a private before being promoted to a captain and deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Crow said that front-line soldiers often suffered “because people stopped asking tough questions. People stopped being held accountable. Congress stopped voting on it.”

Another veteran, Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, said that was one of the reasons she sought a congressional seat in the first place. As a Blackhawk helicopter pilot with the Illinois National Guard, Duckworth lost her legs when her helicopter was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq.

“I ran for Congress so that when the drums of war started beating once again, I’d be in a position to make sure that our elected officials fully considered the true cost of the war,” she said. “Not just in dollars and cents but in human lives.”

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

March 5 (Asia Today) — A South Korean lawmaker said Wednesday that the country’s Cheongung-II surface-to-air missile system demonstrated high effectiveness in real combat conditions in the Middle East, citing reports of a 96% interception rate during recent missile attacks on the United Arab Emirates.

Rep. Yoo Yong-won of the conservative People Power Party, who serves on the National Assembly’s Defense Committee, said the result showed the strength of South Korea’s defense technology.

“The fact that Cheongung-II achieved an interception rate exceeding 90% in an intense real-world combat environment in the Middle East is a great victory for South Korea’s defense science and technology,” Yoo said.

According to information Yoo said he confirmed with sources familiar with the United Arab Emirates air defense operations, two Cheongung-II missile batteries deployed in the UAE fired more than 60 interceptor missiles during recent attacks.

About 96% of those missiles successfully intercepted their targets, the sources said.

Cheongung-II is a medium-range surface-to-air interceptor missile system developed by South Korea to defend against aircraft and ballistic missile threats.

Yoo said the reported interception rate was notable even compared with leading Western air defense systems.

“A 96% real combat interception rate is a figure that even the U.S. Patriot system would find difficult to achieve,” he said, referring to the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 system widely used in missile defense operations.

The lawmaker said the performance of the Cheongung-II system could strengthen confidence in South Korea’s Korean Air and Missile Defense architecture, which is designed to counter potential missile threats from North Korea.

“The Cheongung-II deployed by the UAE is the same model currently operated by the South Korean military,” Yoo said. “Its success in neutralizing Iranian missile attacks increases the credibility of our missile defense system.”

The remarks come amid escalating tensions in the Middle East following U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran and subsequent missile retaliation across the region.

The United Arab Emirates reportedly used a multi-layered air defense network during the attacks, combining U.S.-made THAAD and Patriot systems with South Korea’s Cheongung-II and Israeli air defense systems including Arrow and Barak-8.

Despite large-scale missile and drone attacks, the UAE is reported to have achieved an overall interception rate exceeding 90%, limiting damage.

Yoo said South Korea’s parliament would support further development and exports of the missile system.

“We will provide strong legislative and policy support so that Cheongung-II, whose performance has been proven in real operations, can expand exports across the Middle East and global defense markets,” he said.

— 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=20260305010001399

Today’s sinking of an Iranian warship by a U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarine is a hugely significant event in the annals of military history. After all, you have to go back to the final days of World War II to find the last time a U.S. submarine sank an enemy vessel. Since then, however, submarines under the flags of different navies have sunk vessels in combat.

You can catch up with our coverage of the sinking of the Iranian warship here.

In fact, there are some varying accounts as to which U.S. Navy submarine was the last to sink an enemy vessel. The situation at sea as World War II was drawing to a close in the Pacific was a chaotic one, with an increasingly deadly U.S. Navy submarine force tearing through the remnants of Japanese shipping, with subs racking up multiple victories in a short space of time.

With the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) in disarray and with Japan still reeling from the two atomic bombs dropped on it, what was left of its seagoing force provided relatively easy pickings for U.S. submarine commanders.

As such, it was on VJ-Day, or Victory over Japan Day, that U.S. subs claimed their last victims before today’s action.

According to available records, on August 14, 1945, the same day that saw President Harry S. Truman announce Japan’s unconditional surrender, two U.S. submarines sank three Japanese warships.

The first victim — a Japanese submarine — appears to have fallen to the USS Spikefish (SS-404).

Commissioned in June 1944, the Spikefish was a Balao class submarine, the Navy’s largest submarine class, with 120 boats completed. With a surfaced displacement of 1,526 tons, the Balao was around 311 feet long and had a speed of 20 knots surfaced, reduced to 8.75 knots submerged. Moving on the surface at a speed of 10 knots, the boats could cover 11,000 nautical miles.

As of the night of August 13, 1945, the IJN transport submarine I-373 was surfaced in the East China Sea, southeast of Shanghai. Transport submarines of this type were used by the Japanese to transport troops and supplies between mainland Japan and remote islands. Spikefish sighted the Japanese sub on its radar at 8:10 p.m. and also detected emissions from its air-search radar. Spikefish got closer before losing visual contact, after which the I-373 disappeared below the waves. Just after midnight, Spikefish regained radar contact. At 4:24 a.m., Spikefish fired a spread of six Mk 14 torpedoes at a range of 1,300 yards. Two of the torpedoes hit I-373, sinking it. Spikefish surfaced and found five survivors in the water, all of whom refused rescue, a grim reflection of the bitter fighting at this late stage of the Pacific conflict. One IJN crew member was forcibly brought aboard the U.S. sub; his 84 compatriots died.

In previous days, the USS Torsk, a Tench class submarine, commissioned in December 1944, had been marauding in and around the Tsushima Strait, which lies between Korea and Japan. Here, the boat had been picking off Japanese merchant vessels and warships.

The Tench class was essentially an improvement of the earlier Balao and Gato classes, moderately bigger but more strongly built and with more fuel. These boats had a surfaced displacement of 1,570 tons, were also around 311 feet long, and had similar surfaced and submerged speeds to the Balao. Thanks to their additional fuel capacity, the Tench boats had a range of around 16,000 nautical miles.

On August 14, Torsk encountered a medium-sized Japanese cargo ship accompanied by the Japanese Type C escort vessel CD-47, off Maizuru in the Sea of Japan. At 10:35 a.m., Torsk launched a Mk 28 torpedo, an experimental type with acoustic homing. The torpedo smashed a hole in the stern of the escort, which quickly went below the waves. An attempt was made to sink the cargo ship, too, as it entered harbor, but the torpedoes missed.

At around midday, a second Type C escort vessel, CD-13, arrived, apparently in pursuit of Torsk. After firing off a Mk 28 torpedo, Torsk dived for safety. From a depth of 400 feet, Torsk launched a Mk 27 torpedo, a weapon known as “CUTIE,” this time with passive homing. The hydrophone operator on the Torsk then detected a large explosion, indicating the Mk 28 had found its target. The Mk 27 impacted moments later.

While the timings are not entirely clear, CD-13 is widely identified as being the last Japanese warship to be sunk in World War II, and therefore the last enemy vessel to have been sunk by a U.S. submarine until today.

The war still wasn’t over for Torsk, however. With more patrol vessels arriving, plus patrol aircraft, the submarine had to remain submerged for more than seven hours after CD-13 went under. After this date, other Japanese vessels would continue to be sunk by mines that had been laid earlier, including by submarines.

Torsk received two battle stars for its World War II service and is today preserved in the Historic Ships collection in Baltimore.

At a press conference today, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that the sinking of an Iranian warship by an as-yet unidentified U.S. submarine marked the “first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War II.”

This is not true.

The Torsk may have been the last U.S. submarine to have sunk an enemy ship prior to today, but other navies have achieved the same feat.

Back in 1971, during the Indo-Pakistan War, the Indian Navy frigate INS Khukri was sunk by the Pakistan Navy submarine PNS Hangor. The Khukri, with a displacement of around 1,200 tons, became the first warship anywhere to fall prey to a submarine since the end of World War II.

The Falklands War, fought in the South Atlantic in 1982, between the United Kingdom and Argentina, saw the first instance of a nuclear-powered submarine sinking an enemy vessel.

On May 2, 1982, in a somewhat controversial incident, the Argentine Navy cruiser ARA General Belgrano was sunk by a torpedo launched by the British nuclear-powered attack submarine HMS Conqueror, with the loss of over 300 crew.

The controversy around the incident centers upon the fact that General Belgrano was targeted when it was outside a so-called ‘total exclusion zone,’ covering a 200-nautical-mile radius from the Falklands. While there were subsequent protests about the legality of the action, the fact remains that the British had previously warned Argentina that any ships that posed a potential threat to its own task force would be sunk.

Until the sinking of the Russian Navy’s Slava class cruiser Moskva by Ukrainian anti-ship missiles in 2022, the sinking of the General Belgrano was the last time a cruiser was fully destroyed by enemy action.

Another disputed incident occurred in 2010, with the sinking of the South Korean warship ROKS Cheonan.

On March 26, 2010, the Cheonan, a Pohang class corvette, sank in the Yellow Sea, off the country’s west coast, killing 46 of the 104 personnel on board. Exactly why the warship sank remains a matter of conjecture, although a South Korean-led investigation concluded that the vessel was sunk by a North Korean torpedo fired by a midget submarine. The U.S. Navy also stated that the sinking was caused by a non-contact homing torpedo that exploded near the ship. North Korea denied responsibility.

The manner of the sinking certainly appears consistent with a torpedo hit, with an explosion reported near the stern of the ship that caused it to break in half soon afterward.

Since then, the closest we have come to seeing submarines destroying other vessels has been sinking exercises (SINKEX) and similar tests. At times, these have also provided a rare glimpse into the effects of potential adversaries’ submarine weapons capabilities. Case in point, the sinking of a decommissioned Chinese amphibious landing ship by a People’s Liberation Army Navy submarine, seen in the video below: 

The cloak-and-dagger nature of submarine operations means that many details about their use in combat remain closely guarded secrets. In the case of the Cheonan, we may never exactly know what happened to it. For the time being, we also await more information about today’s sinking of the Iranian frigate. What is certain, however, is that this was an unprecedented event, at least as far as the modern U.S. Navy is concerned, and a truly rare action by any standards.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The U.S. military has employed new Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) short-range ballistic missiles as part of ongoing operations against Iran. This looks to be the first combat use of the PrSM, which only began entering service roughly two years ago. The operational debut of the new missiles showcases the significantly greater range they offer compared to their predecessors, the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), and much expanded target areas that American units can now hold at risk as a result.

Overnight, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) released a video montage of still pictures documenting the “first 24 hours of Operation Epic Fury.” This is the nickname American authorities have given to their component of ongoing U.S.-Israeli operations targeting Iran. Included in that montage, seen in the social media post below, is an image clearly showing the launch of a PrSM from a wheeled M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launcher.

Defense and security columnist Colby Badhwar looks to have been the first to spot the PrSM image in the CENTCOM montage. The new missile is distinctly different, especially when it comes to the shape and configuration of its tail fins, from ATACMS.

There is also a picture of an M142 loaded with what looks to be a two-cell ammunition ‘pod,’ which is also in line with PrSM. The M142, as well as the tracked M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), fires munitions from pods with standardized dimensions. ATACMS pods only contain a single missile. M142 and M270 launcher vehicles can also fire 227mm artillery rockets, including guided variants, all of which come in six-round pods.

Yesterday, CENTCOM also released a montage of video clips showing HIMARS launchers firing short-range ballistic missiles. That footage – which came along with the caption “The Iranian regime was warned. CENTCOM is now delivering swift and decisive action as directed.” – may also show at least one PrSM launch, as well as ATACMS being fired.

As already noted, PrSM offers a major boost in range over ATACMS. The baseline PrSM variant, also known as Increment 1, has demonstrated its ability to hit targets at least around 310 miles (500 kilometers) away. The U.S. Army, the service in charge of the PrSM program, has a stated goal to eventually stretch that out to around 400 miles (650 kilometers), if that has not already been achieved. The service is also working toward an even longer-range version able to fly out to at least 620 miles (1,000 kilometers), if not further.

The longest ranged variants of ATACMS can hit targets out to around 186 miles (300 kilometers).

Where PrSMs or ATACMS have been fired from during strikes on Iran as part of Operation Epic Fury is unclear. Regardless, PrSM offering roughly twice as much reach would substantially increase the total breadth of targets that could be held at risk from any location in the region.

In turn, this would allow U.S. forces to hit more targets where the unique benefits offered by ballistic missiles could be advantageous. Ballistic missiles, in general, fly at relatively high speeds, especially as they come down in the terminal phase of flight. This makes them especially well-suited for employment against time-sensitive targets, like Iranian missile launchers and air defense assets, which have been a focal point of strikes in the conflict so far, in general. Using short-range ballistic missiles to help neutralize air defense nodes, shore radar sites, and similar assets would have made particular sense in the opening stages of the conflict to help clear the way for follow-on strikes.

High speed also creates additional challenges for enemy air defenses attempting to engage them compared to other kinds of missiles, including some subsonic air-breathing cruise missiles. How fast ballistic missiles are going when they impact inherently enables ballistic missiles to burrow deeper into hardened targets, which are commonplace in Iran, as well.

Demonstrating PrSM in real combat against Iran could also send signals to other American opponents. The importance of PrSM’s extended reach is often discussed in the context of a potential high-end fight in the Pacific against China, where launch points, at least on land, are much more limited. An anti-ship version of PrSM, also referred to as Increment 2, which features an additional seeker and is capable of hitting moving targets, is also now under development. Another version of PrSM is also in the works that could dispense payloads consisting of kamikaze drones or small precision-guided bombs, as you can read more about here.

We still have more to learn about how PrSM (as well as ATACMS) is being employed as part of Operation Epic Fury. Whatever the case, America’s newest ballistic missile is now a combat-proven weapon, and its use against Iran puts a spotlight on the immense value its greater range, in particular, brings to the table.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. has used LUCAS kamikaze drones for the first time in combat, U.S. Central Command acknowledged on Saturday. The drones, based on the Iranian Shahed-136, were launched from the ground by Task Force Scorpion Strike (TFSS). The task force was set up in December “to flip the script on Iran,” a U.S. official told us at the time. The launch of LUCAS drones marks a rare instance when the U.S. adopted Iran’s drone playbook and used it against them.

Today’s strikes were part of Operation Epic Fury, an attack the U.S. launched along with Israel on targets across Iran. You can read more about that in our initial story here.

The War Zone has advocated for the procurement of this exact class of drone by the American military.

The LUCAS drones are designed to be a far less expensive strike weapon than missiles, which not only cost more, but are far more difficult and time-consuming to produce.

“Costing approximately $35,000 per platform, LUCAS is a low-cost, scalable system that provides cutting-edge capabilities at a fraction of the cost of traditional long-range U.S. systems that can deliver similar effects,” Navy Capt. Tim Hawkins, a CENTCOM spokesperson, told TWZ back in December. “The drone system has an extensive range and the ability to operate beyond line of sight, providing significant capability across CENTCOM’s vast operating area.”

In addition, the LUCAS design includes features that allow for “autonomous coordination, making them suitable for swarm tactics and network-centric strikes,” a U.S. official told us. As we have explained in detail in the past, the swarming capabilities combined with some of the drones being equipped with Starlink terminals, means extremely advanced cooperative tactics and dynamic targeting are possible, all while keeping humans in the loop.

The LUCAS drones have “an extensive range and are designed to operate autonomously,” CENTCOM said in a press release announcing the creation of Task Force Scorpion Strike. “They can be launched with different mechanisms to include catapults, rocket-assisted takeoff, and mobile ground and vehicle systems.”

Though the LUCAS drones fired against Iran were ground-launched, U.S. Navy personnel in the Middle East test-fired one from the Independence class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) USS Santa Barbara. This came two weeks after the U.S. military announced the formation of Task Force Scorpion Strike.

Overall, the LUCAS drone’s core design was based directly on the Shahed-136, a U.S. official told us.

“The U.S. military got hold of an Iranian Shahed,” according to the U.S. official in December. “We took a look and reverse-engineered it. We are working with a number of U.S. companies in the innovation space.”

“The LUCAS drone is the product of that [reverse-engineering] effort,” the official added. “It pretty much follows the Shahed design.”

As we have explained for years, the Shahed was based on an Israel concept, which also has roots in a German concept. So it is a complicated lineage for sure.

The LUCAS was designed by SpektreWorks. Its website provides basic specifications for a related target drone design called the FLM 136, which has a stated maximum range of 444 miles and can stay aloft for up to six hours. Its total payload capacity, not counting fuel, is 40 pounds, and it cruises at a speed of around 74 knots (with a dash speed of up to 105 knots). Whether these details reflect the capabilities of the operationalized LUCAS design is unclear.

In contrast, the baseline Shahed-136, which is powered by a small 50-horsepower internal combustion engine, has a top speed of around 100 knots (185 kilometers per hour) and a maximum range of approximately 1,242 miles (2,000 kilometers) while carrying an 88-pound (40-kilogram) warhead, according to the U.S. Army’s Operational Environment Data Integration Network (ODIN) training portal. It was designed to strike static targets based on targeting data programmed in before launch.

Iran has shown additional versions over the years. The Shahed-238 has new guidance systems, with radar and electro-optical/infrared guidance and jet power. Earlier Shahed versions primarily employed a combination of inertial and GPS navigation to hit fixed targets.

از موشک کروز ابرفراصوت فتاح2 و پهباد شاهد 147 با حضور رهبر انقلاب رونمایی شد

Russia also now produces a still-expanding array of variants and derivatives of this design, referred to locally as the Geran. Iran and Russia have both been notably working to integrate more dynamic targeting capabilities into their respective versions of the drone.

The use of the LUCAS comes as Iran has launched its Shahed-136 drones against targets across the Middle East and highlights the limitations of air defenses. Even IDF’s multi-tier integrated air defense system, the most advanced one on Earth, and U.S. ground- and sea-based air defense systems around the Middle East do not offer complete protection against these and other weapons.

Iran used Shahed-136s to successfully strike the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Manama, Bahrain.

US President Donald Trump says American forces have begun “major combat operations” in Iran alongside Israel, aiming to eliminate what he described as imminent threats from the Iranian regime and defend the American people.

The U.S. Air Force has given us our first look at one of Anduril’s YFQ-44 Fury ‘fighter drone’ prototypes carrying an inert AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

“The Air Force has entered the next phase of developmental testing for its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, initiating disciplined weapons integration and captive carry evaluations using inert test munitions to validate airworthiness, safety, and systems performance,” according to an Air Force press release put out this evening. “This milestone represents a deliberate step forward in integrating CCA into the Air Force’s future force design.”

“CCA program officials emphasized that this phase remains developmental and focused on safe systems integration — not operational employment,” the release also noted. “The use of inert test weapons allows engineers and test pilots to evaluate performance characteristics and separation safety in a controlled environment without live ordnance.”

“Throughout development and testing, a human retains authority over weapons release decisions,” the Air Force has also stressed. “CCA is designed to operate within established command structures and legal frameworks that govern all Air Force weapons systems.”

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach first announced this new development at the Air & Space Forces Association’s annual Warfare Symposium, at which TWZ is attendence. The YFQ-44 is one of two designs now under development as part of the first phase, or Increment 1, of the service’s CCA program. The other is General Atomics’ YFQ-42A Dark Merlin. No images have yet been released of the YFQ-42A carrying inert munitions.

Renderings have previously been shown of Fury carrying AIM-120s under its wings. The design, at least as it exists now, does not have an internal munitions bay. Anduril has also talked about weapons testing as part of its larger plans for the ongoing development of the YQ-44A in the past.

“We are following the same detailed approach used in every other aircraft developmental test program to validate structural performance, flight characteristics and safe separation,” Wilsbach said in a statement accompanying the release. “This ensures the CCA can safely integrate inert weapons before future employment.”

“CCA is a critical part of a larger, integrated system-of-systems that will give our warfighters the overwhelming advantage,” Wilsbach added. “This program is about delivering a network of effects that will sense, strike, and shield our forces in contested environments. We are empowering our teams to take smart risks and deliver this capability faster, ensuring we can deter, and if necessary, defeat any adversary.”

What other munitions beyond the AIM-120 may be included in the weapons integration and captive carry test plan remains to be seen. The Air Force has said in the past that future operational CCA drones are expected to be armed with AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missiles (JATM). JATM, which is still in development, is the planned successor to the AMRAAM.

The Air Force is not the first to fly a CCA-type drone with an AIM-120. Australian authorities, together with Boeing, announced the first live test shot of an AMRAAM from an MQ-28 Ghost Bat drone in December. You can read more about that milestone here.

Uncrewed MQ-28 Ghost Bat showcases its combat capability

In November, Turkish drone-maker Baykar had also announced a similar test involving its fighter-like Kizilelma. The drone fired a Turkish-made radar-guided Gökdoğan air-to-air missile in that instance.

Bayraktar #KIZILELMA | GÖKDOĞAN Füzesi Atış Testi

The beginning of weapons integration and captive carry testing is still an important development for the U.S. Air Force CCA program, and Increment 1 more specifically. Both the YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A only made their first flights in the second half of last year.

Carrying air-to-air missiles is exactly what these drones were intended to do, at least to start. CCAs will also help increase the sensor reach of crewed fighters they’re teamed with. Overall, the Air Force sees CCAs as providing critical combat mass while helping to reduce risk and providing new tactical possibilities, especially potential high-end fights against opponents such as China.

The Air Force has yet to decide which Increment 1 CCA, or both, it wants to buy in larger numbers. Whatever the Air Force chooses will be set to become its first operational ‘fighter drones’ intended to carry live munitions into real combat alongside crewed companions.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com