Combat

When it comes to what rifles, sidearms and optics work best in war, there is perhaps no better place to find out than Ukraine. During more than four years of intense defense of their homeland, Ukrainian troops have used an assortment of small arms and accessories, many foreign-made, others domestically produced, to fight the Russians.

To get a better sense of what Ukrainians are currently using on the front lines, what they like, and what they don’t, we reached out to the First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine. The unit is stationed in the bloody Dobropillia sector in the eastern Donetsk region and is in the middle of one of the toughest fights in Ukraine.

Five soldiers from different Azov units with a range of specialties offered their unique insights into the weapons, sights and scopes they like and the ones they don’t.

The soldiers are issued all their weapons exclusively through the brigade’s armament service, which obtains them from the Ukrainian Defense Ministry (MoD). Individuals, however, told us they sometimes purchase their own sights and scopes and other accessories, depending on the models.

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

Specifically, what rifles are the most coveted? And if they are AR-15s and AKs, which specific ones?

Tarantino, Chief Armorer, 12th Special Forces Brigade Azov, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine.

When it comes to light weapon systems, the most common is an assault rifle based on the AR-15 [chambered 5.56mm], either domestic production or the one given to us by partner countries.

Chill, Chief Tactical Training Instructor, 41st Unmanned Systems Regiment Pilum, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine.

So, in my personal opinion, the UAR-15 system is better for me because it’s lighter and it’s more reliable. I have worked with both platforms, both systems, and I can compare them based on my experience. And from my personal experience, the AR system is better.

The caliber is 5.56, and it’s also really convenient in terms of its modification and modernization because with the AK platform, you need to adapt it for further adjustments individually. But in the case of the UAR system, it’s really adaptable and you do not basically need anything in order to modernize it or modify it.

Made In Ukraine – The New Game-Changing UAR-15 Rifle

Khalepa, Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battery Commander, Air Defense Battalion Strazh, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine.

Well, in our case, we are using larger calibers starting from 12.7mm up to 35mm. So we do not actually use the standard rifles.

Chewie, Deputy Commander for Logistics, Separate Special Operations Detachment Tuman, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine.

When it comes to close combat, usually this is the UAR-15S of Ukrainian manufacturer called Zbroyar.

Barman, Tactical Training Instructor, Personnel Training Battalion, First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine.

So currently our key weapon platform is the UAR-15, but previously we also used the AK-74 and other modifications. The AK-74 fires 5.45mm rounds.

What is most conducive to fighting?

Tarantino

Well, the best weapon to work with is not the weapon itself, but the people we are working with. The weapon is only the instrument. But personally, the most reliable weapon is the one that has as few stoppages as possible because the last thing you want is to have a stoppage in the situation where you need to fire.

For me, that is the Heckler & Koch 416. But I am talking about my preferences and experience. That gun has a gas piston system that has proven itself the most efficient due to the fact that the movement of the piston back and forth is relatively short. That makes the weapon itself much more reliable.

Another system, called DI [direct impingement used in standard AR-15 pattern rifles], requires much more attention from the gunner who is shooting the rifle. Because in the conditions where the operator, the marksman, is sitting in the trench or in a bunker — especially now in autumn when the humidity is high — this DI system requires much more attention due to the wet weather around. The gas piston system has proven itself much more reliable and it doesn’t need that much attention.

Chill

We are using the Ukrainian-manufactured UAR-15 rifle, and you know, as they say, the best rifle is the one that you have.

Chewie

So the weapon system that I told you about, UAR-15, is indeed the most loved because, in addition to this weapon, we do possess small numbers of Beretta, Bren, and several other weapon systems.

The reason why we prefer the UAR-15 is, first of all, it is much lighter. Second, it’s shorter. Another reason is that, taking into account the combat warfare that we have right now, we have the manufacturer on the premises of our country. It means if something happens to the weapon, it doesn’t take much time to either send the request to the manufacturer for them to send us the spare details, or for us to send the weapon system to them for maintenance.

Barman

Our preference is of course the UAR-15, and we’re using the 5.56 UAR platforms because it’s more convenient to use, it’s easier to maintain, and it’s also more reliable. But we also need to understand that our enemy is using the AK platforms, the AK-12, the AK-74, and while of course we are carrying the 5.56 rounds, usually during the assault actions, we can take the AK rifles and the 5.45 rounds to be able to use our rifles in compatibly with the enemy’s rifles. We can use the AKs for the element of surprise and for deception. The way they look compared to the UAR rifles makes it easier to deceive the enemy.

Have you noticed any performance differences between the AR-15 piston and direct impingement (DI) versions?

Tarantino

Well, again, the biggest difference between this gas piston system and the DI system is that the gas piston system has a very short movement back and forth of the piston. It means that the chances of stoppage in this weapon are quite low, while the DI system is much more demanding because these exhaust gases go back into this tube that pushes the bolt carrier back. That means these gases make this tunnel much more dirty. And in a situation when the rotation of the soldier to the battlefield is for two weeks, and these are the two weeks of a very intensive fight, a soldier doesn’t always have the chance to disassemble a weapon and pull the bolt carrier out and clean it. 

Compared to the DI system, the Heckler & Koch quality of the barrel itself is exceptionally phenomenal. So the quality of the metal is good, and it allows you to shoot even four or five or even six magazines in a row without the barrel getting overheated.

Chill

Well, talking about the piston system, the only AR-15-based rifle which I know has the piston system is the Heckler & Koch 416. So I have some experience in using it, but unfortunately I do not have this rifle. But I would like to. It’s quite reliable based on my communication with other operators and service members. I also get really good feedback about that weapon. But that’s the only weapon system with this piston system that I know of, and yeah, it presents some advantages. 

The UAR-15 system that we are currently using within our unit is the DI-based weapon system, and the key difference is that they become contaminated quicker, and they require better and more frequent maintenance, which is not always possible to ensure in combat conditions.

Piston driven AR15 VS gas impingement

Khalepa

Well, I have served in the infantry since 2022, and I have had some experience with the piston systems, for instance, with the AK system, and I did not really notice any major differences.

Chewie

We use only the DI system.

Barman

Well, from my experience, the gas piston systems like the one that we can find on the HK 416, they are simpler to maintain. They are more efficient in terms of their principle of operation, and also they are more reliable, I would say.

But the key difference in the DI system is that, of course, it’s a little bit more difficult to maintain them. But at the same time, you can regulate the amount of gas that goes back into the receiver. So, both of these systems have their own advantages and disadvantages. 

If I were asked to choose between the two, I would use the gas piston system. It also has fewer parts that can be broken during intensive use.

Any bullpups, where the grip is forward of the breech, that have performed well?

Tarantino

I will tell you this: we have never received a foreign-made bullpup weapon. We have several domestic-made ones. One of them is called the Fort 221.

So for the short-term operations, when you have to fulfill a mission within a small and limited amount of time, and especially when you have to move around a lot, this forward bullpup configuration has proven itself quite good. But when it comes to long-term operations, when you have to, in addition to moving a lot, have to be out there in the field for quite a long time, this one is not the best option for this.

Chill

Well, I wouldn’t say that I would recommend any of the bullpups that I have used. So I have used the Fort 224, and my impressions of this weapon system are like 50-50.

I would say that the primary issue with these rifles is their ergonomic characteristics. So, especially while shooting from a prone position, it’s pretty difficult to handle these rifles. So maybe during some kind of assault actions, active offensive actions, these rifles could be usable. But in terms of ergonomics, the standard rifles are much more convenient to use.

Khalepa

We don’t use bullpups.

Chewie

We do not use any bullpups. One of the reasons is that a Ukrainian manufacturer used to produce these weapon systems with a 5.45mm, and that’s definitely not a reliable weapon at all.

Barman

I had some experience in using bullpup rifles, namely the Tavor, also the Ukrainian-manufactured Malyuk, and I think that’s it with bullpup assault rifles. But also I have used Turkish-manufactured bullpup type shotguns.

In my experience, the bullpup systems function seamlessly, but I’m just more used to the classic configuration of the assault rifles.

But the bullpup rifles have their own advantages. For example, they are more compact, so they can have the same length of the barrel. The ballistics will be the same, but the rifle will be more compact. At the same time, the bullpup configurations require more practice at the shooting range. So you just need to get used to reloading the bullpup rifle because the magazine is located in the rear part of the weapon. I wouldn’t say that this is much more difficult than reloading a weapon with the classical configuration, but it just feels unusual. This is why you just need more practice to get used to it.

Are you using suppressors and, if so, what kind?

Tarantino

When it comes to silencers and these suppressors, this very gap is not yet filled, so there is still a lot of room for maneuver and for somebody to enter this field. We do use them. We use several of them. One of them is called Ase Utra, but this one has the option of what’s called a gas release function.

Another one we have is called Ukrop FAST (Fast-Attach Suppressor Tactical) suppressor. This can be easily attached and detached. But when it comes to active combat and when it comes to automatic mode of firing, these very suppressors lose their resources quite fast, so the wear and tear comes quite fast.

Chill

Personally, I do not use any suppressors, any sound moderators, because I do not have the tasks that require such equipment. But of course, the other service members who have the appropriate tasks, they use those.

Khalepa

No, we do not use any kind of those because we are located far from settlements and towns, which is why we do not need any kind of suppressors.

Chewie

So when it comes to the UAR system, they go in a set with the manufacturer-issued suppressors. So we do use them because they go in a set. And another one that we use is the one called Ase Utra.

The reason why we prefer this suppressor that goes in a set with UAR-15 is that it has a function of quick removal. It means that to install it on the gun and to take it out from the gun, it doesn’t need much time and it doesn’t require any additional fixing of the aiming point. It means that a person can shoot if at some point he or she needs to put on the suppressor, they put on the suppressor and keeps shooting, so there is no need to do another kind of manipulations with the aiming device. 

Ase Ultra doesn’t have this function. It means that after putting on the suppressor, you still have to adjust the aiming point a little bit. There is only one exception with Ase Ultra suppressors, for the caliber .308, which is the UAR-10. This one has shown its efficiency quite well, and the preciseness of shooting for the distance of approximately 900 yards remains the same with the suppressor and without the suppressor. But that’s the only exception. In the past we used to use the UAR-10 much more often, both modifications, the short barrel and long barrel. But right now it’s more and more rare to use it.

Barman

I have used some of the sound moderators, mostly manufactured by the Ukrainian company Zbroyar. Also, some of the American manufactured sound moderators, SureFire RC2, and also the Ukrainian manufactured Mystic Medusa sound moderators. So all of them were used in the automatic fire mode, and they have demonstrated quite a high level of efficiency.

But I would say that the Zbroyar-manufactured sound moderators have a slight disadvantage in terms of how the gases are channeled. So, if you fire a weapon like the Heckler & Koch, sometimes while shooting automatic fire bursts, you can have some problems with the gas from firing.

It all depends on whether you can regulate the gas block in the weapon system or not. So, for instance, in the UAR systems, there is a possibility to regulate the gas block, and this is why you can adjust your shooting depending on what you’re using. But with some of the weapons, you cannot adjust this, and part of the gas just returns to the receiver, causing problems.

What about personal defense weapons and submachine guns?

Tarantino

Yes, we do use some submachineguns. One of them is Heckler & Koch MP5, which has proven itself quite good because this one is quite comfortable to work with, and this one is quite a mobile weapon system and easy to operate.

The only drawback of such a weapon is that you can only use it in a few situations. So the variety of usage of this weapon is too narrow. So it’s quite irrational to use this weapon system in modern combat warfare. The best example where it definitely will serve you well? I’d say the drivers of the vehicles use them, or the tank drivers use them, due to the fact that they have to fulfill other missions. The weapon itself is relatively small, so this comes handy for drivers and the tank drivers.

Chill

Well, usually the only self-defense gun which has been used is the handgun, so the pistol. As for the submachine guns, we almost do not use them at all because of their form factors. So the most standard self-defense weapon is either the rifle for every service member, or when there is an opportunity to use a pistol. But submachine guns are not widely used.

Khalepa

The Fort 20 is the model of the pistol that we are using for personal defense weapons in our unit. And as for the personal weapons, we also use the UAR-15 rifles.

Chewie

We do not use submachine guns. What our soldiers do use, because they are issued out, are sidearms. It’s either Glock 17 or the Fort 20.

Barman

In terms of submachine guns, I have only used those at shooting ranges, so I do not have any real experience with them. But our sidearms are usually Glock 17 or Fort 20, and also we had some experience with Berettas.

What about optics? What red dots and scopes are most used? What works best and what do soldiers see as the positives and negatives of different brands and types, like EOTECH holographic sights versus Holosun or Aimpoint red dots?

Tarantino

There is one optic that’s called Aimpoint, third generation. When it comes to red dot sights, we take what is available commercially. So what has proven its efficiency is the one red dot called Holosun. This one out of everything that is on the market has also proved its efficiency. But we are talking about relatively cheap options right now. Other brands that are quite popular are the EOTECH, Vortex, and Vector Optics.

Chill

I have been using the Holosun red dot scope for over three years, and I cannot say that I have any complaints regarding that. It performs its function, and the rest of the possible manufacturers of these devices depend on the unit and depend on their personal budgets as well. So, of course, there are some differences between them. For instance, the Aimpoint has proven itself really reliable. The EOTECH as well. There are some drawbacks related to its dimension. It’s pretty large, and it is not appropriate for all the operators.

Holosun, I would say that this is the device that shows the best cost-to-quality ratio. So it all depends on the unit. For instance, when we are talking about the service members that are involved in some direct action, for instance, in assault actions, then they might use the EOTECH or the Aimpoint devices. But other service members might as well use the Holosun devices and other brands that are also available on the market. So, as usual, everything is operator-dependent. I wouldn’t say that there are any particular problems with them, but maybe the price, the high price, can be called just one of the problems.

The baseline is that everyone is using the rifles with iron sights. But then, if, for instance, the additional optical devices are not provided for by the unit, then the fighters can choose to buy their own optics. It all depends on the unit and the operator.

Khalepa

In the unit that I’m currently serving in, we do not use any kind of these optical devices because we are located very far from the front line. Basically, our positions are in the rear, and since we are concerned with shooting down aerial targets, we do not need to use any of these devices.

Chewie

So we do use Aimpoint. We use the modifications M5, M4, and also we use the EOTECH.

So when it comes to EOTECH, it has one big advantage. It has quite a big screen or quite a big window that allows the operator to see a much wider spectrum, and this allows him to make much more precise aim. But the drawback of this one is that it doesn’t have this kind of underbarrel option of having the grenade launcher under the barrel. When it comes to Aimpoint, the aim itself is quite small, but this one is capable of withstanding the launching of the underbarrel grenade launcher. When the grenade is leaving the barrel, the Aimpoint still can remain on the barrel and not be lost.

The peculiarity of this EOTECH is the following: when you shoot two or three grenades from the underbarrel grenade launcher, after two or three shots, the aiming stops working correctly. The recoil from the grenade launcher impacts the work of this aiming device, and it’s no longer correct.

Barman

I have worked both with red dot sights and optical scopes. In terms of the red dot sights, I have experience in using the EOTECH 553 and the EOTECH XPS3. I’ve used them with the 3x magnifier, also manufactured by the EOTECH company, and also I have some experience in using the Aimpoint T2 red dot sights, also in combination with the EOTech magnifier. Also, I have used the Vortex Crossfire red dot sight. It’s similar to the Aimpoint T2, but it’s a little bit cheaper and it is intended to be used by sportsmen.

All of these models have their own advantages. In terms of the EOTECH and Aimpoint, they have the mil-spec certification, which is why they can be more resilient than the other brands. If I were to choose, then I would definitely choose the Aimpoint T2 red dot sight because this is like the classical red dot sight, not the holographic sight, like the EOTECH XPS3. So this means that even with the partial damage of the sight, with the partial damage of the lens, it still gives you the red dot, and you are still able to efficiently shoot with it.

Partially we buy them ourselves. Partially we are issued those sights by the state. For instance, in this unit, I was issued the Aimpoint T2 micro kit. So in another unit that we have served before joining this unit, we were issued ACOG sights for the M4A1 rifles, so it really depends.

What about scopes?

Tarantino

When it comes to the scopes, the ones that we use are the ones that zoom in at the 3x or 5x magnification, no more, because 3X and 5x are exactly the ranges that are good enough for you to operate your weapon in an efficient way and to cover that area of responsibility each marksman has.

Chill

We do not have any organic standard-issue scopes within our unit, but from what I have seen among the operators in our subunits, I have seen the Vortex scopes. So these are the ones that can be used with the AR systems.

As for magnification, it’s either 1-8x or 1-16x. Usually, our operators are using the scopes with variable magnification, and it all depends on the task. But mostly, these scopes are not used for firing, but rather for observation.

Khalepa

We don’t use scopes.

Chewie

We do use them. We use mostly four different modification brands. One of them is called Nightforce. Another one is called Schmidt & Bender. Another one is called Kahles, and the last one that we use is called Leupold. 

So roughly speaking, Kahles and Leupold are equals and they work quite similar. The differences are that in the Kahles, the aiming matrix is different, but when it comes to Leupold, I would say that the lens is quite clean, so that makes this one very, very much loved. So I do possess the Leupold scopes. This is my main scope I use. It has been through a lot, and it has withstood a lot of explosions, and it’s still up and running. It’s still functioning.

When it comes to this Kahles, again, roughly speaking, it has shown its efficiency quite well. Some modifications to these Kahles scopes allow it to provide a view called parallax. That’s one of the settings. So if a soldier doesn’t know how to properly use it, it’s not possible to set this scope correctly.

We do buy a lot of those scopes. Back in the past, volunteers used to help us a lot, and other companies used to buy them for us and simply deliver them to us, but right now the system is such that we do receive from the government from the official line of sustainment very efficient scopes.

Barman

So currently I’m using the Sig Sauer scope. I need to look up the exact model, but its magnification is one to six. Its ballistics are honed for the 5.56 caliber exactly for the M855 cartridge. This is the scope which is most optimal for the usage with the assault rifle. But previously, I also used the Elcan Specter scope and also the EOTECH Vudu.

I cannot just select only one scope. One of my favorites is the Elcan Specter. It’s quite compact, and its magnification is one to four. At the level of one, it can be used as a red dot sight, and then it can also be used as the classical optical sight to magnify the image. And for shooting at longer ranges, well, I would say that the Sig Sauer is my favorite. So it’s pretty convenient to be used for shooting at ranges of several hundred meters.

How prevalent are thermal scopes? Is there a difference in quality between those used by the Russians and Ukrainians that gives an upper hand?

Tarantino

When it comes to thermal optics, the one that we use quite often is called Archer. That’s a Ukrainian domestic production thermal vision device, and this one is quite efficient and quite comfortable to use. And when it comes to the night operations, that’s definitely a must-have that each soldier is supposed to have. But when it comes to what the enemy is using, what kind of thermals the enemy is using, I cannot give you the clear answer because, in all honesty, I do not know.

Chill

Within our unit, we do not use thermal scopes, but I know guys who do, and well, it’s quite a useful thing if your tasks and if your unit imply using the thermal vision scopes. Since we are an unmanned systems regiment, we do not have the kind of tasks that require the use of the thermal scopes.

Chewie

We do use the thermal scopes and additional adapters to them. But when it comes to Russian thermals and what kind of thermals they use, I will be honest with you. I have never had any chance to get a hold of them and hold them in my hands, so I cannot compare them. 

I can only tell you about Ukrainian manufacturers. But when it comes to long-range guns, we use the Archer 7 for this very purpose. When it comes to the .338 caliber, we use guns by Accuracy International, and Sako TRG 42. When it comes to the .375 caliber, we use the Cadex 40 Shadow. 

When it comes to UAR-15 5.56, usually we use the Archer 10 for this very purpose. When it comes to simply observational functions, we use either Archer 55 or Archer 8. And I also know about some other units that use thermals called Safran because they have the peculiarity of having coolant inside.

Barman

I’ve used thermal vision scopes. First of all, in terms of the Russian thermal vision scopes, unfortunately, I haven’t had any experience of using those, but I have some experience with the Archer manufacturer with the Archer thermal vision scopes. Usually, the TSA-7 models have proven to be quite good, and also I had some experience with the Chinese-manufactured AGM thermal vision scopes, and they are also quite good.

My favorite is Archer, the TSA-7. We have used it for the longest periods of time, and we are really used to operating with it. So it has the ballistic suggested for every type of ammunition. It has a laser rangefinder. It has a ballistic calculator. So it’s quite a useful thing, and it’s easy and convenient to use.

What about night vision? Are most troops using night vision goggles and need to set their rifles up for that?

Tarantino

We use a classical one called the PVS-7. We attach it to our helmets.

Chill

Night vision devices on assault rifles and other weapons are primarily used by reconnaissance and assault units — particularly during clearing operations. As for the drone component, NVDs are used by drivers for safe and concealed delivery of crews to the positions during the night, as well as the operators themselvs for nighttime work and launches.

Khalepa

We have some night vision devices, namely Archer 10, but these devices were just issued to the guys to monitor their perimeter during nighttime. We have no need for that because we are located in the rear and we are more concerned with the sky than with what’s on the ground.

Chewie

We do not use the night vision devices installed on the weapon system. We do use them installed on the soldiers’ helmets, but not on the weapon system. Sometimes our soldiers do use the laser point night vision devices, but they use it only when they use the infrared spectrum. When it comes to installing the aim on the gun, usually the soldier does a zeroing, and if the zeroing is done properly, the efficient range of such a weapon to operate in this infrared spectrum is up to 200 meters.

Barman

We don’t use the night vision devices on the weapons systems themselves. We use them attached to the camera, to the helmets, and out of those we use the PVS-14 L3Harris. That’s a monocular. Also, we use the PVS-32. That’s a binocular. The most widely used is the PVS-14.

In my personal opinion, the PVS-14 is simply much more comfortable. I love this one simply because this is a monocular and I use it with my left eye because the right eye I mostly use for the red dot or with the laser beam aiming device. But that’s very much an individual opinion because a lot of people in my unit prefer the PVS-32.

How much leeway do troops have for customizing their rifles?

Tarantino

Well, before using any kind of modifiers on any weapon system, the way we deal with that is the following: Before doing that, each soldier is supposed to master how to handle a weapon without any additional modifiers, meaning the default setting of the weapon that he or she receives.

He or she is supposed to first get a feel for this and receive some kind of qualification with this one without any additional modifier. Only after a soldier gets used to, and is quite good at, handling the weapon with the mechanical optics that the weapon goes with, can a soldier go to another level. But this is done only if sergeants and commanders see that the soldier has reached some kind of efficiency level, and only after that, the commander or sergeant can give permission to install any kind of additional modifiers on the weapon.

Chill

The first thing that we always emphasize and that we try to popularize among our personnel is the installment of the red dot sights. We try to explain the advantages of using red dot sights on the weapons.

Then, if the weapon does not have the ambidextrous safety, we try to persuade people to install those safety levers that can be switched from both sides ambidextrously, and then the third thing is the buttstock, the pistol grip. So these things are usually not convenient due to the specificities of every person’s ergonomics.

Khalepa

Apart from just standard procedures like zeroing with the weapon, adjusting the iron sight and so on, we do not customize our weapon. We do not conduct any additional modifications.

Chewie

We do have some additional modifications when it comes to magazines, when it comes to magnifiers, when it comes to the grasp handles. Some of the soldiers do use the forward grasp handle. Some of the soldiers do use the flashlights that they put underneath the barrel. But it’s not about sport modification. The primary reason is to make the weapon more comfortable for you, and to make you a much better operator of this weapon.

Barman

I need to separate it into two parts. The first part is about the insides of the weapon systems. Mostly, we do not change the insides of the weapon systems. There might be some changes with a bolt carriage, but that’s mostly the exception. We can work with the suppressors, with the heavy buffer suppressors and optics, red dots, and handles for a better grip.

What about sidearms? What sidearms are most prevalent and in what caliber?

Tarantino

When it comes to the pistols, the most used one is the Fort 20. That’s domestic production. Also Glock. Also the one called Sig Sauer, and the last one that is the CZ. These are all 9mm weapons.

🇺🇦Ukrainian soldier with modern 🇨🇿CZ P-10 F pistol made by ČZUB.

ČZUB supplied Ukraine with a large number of weapons from its stocks, in addition to the CZ P-10 C/F, also CZ Bren 807 or CZ Bren BR. Whether these were a gift from ČZUB or the weapons were donated by the Czech… pic.twitter.com/U8nsFSN92d

— 𝕻𝖗𝖆𝖎𝖘𝖊 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕾𝖙𝖊𝖕𝖍 (@praisethesteph) October 31, 2024

Chill

Well, previously we used to use Makarov pistols, but now we’re using the Fort 20 Ukrainian manufactured sidearms, and also I have previously used the Glock pistols. So basically, these are the most common, most widespread pistols that you can come across in Ukraine.

Khalepa

Currently the Fort 20 and the Glock 17 are the most commonly used pistols.

Chewie

So as I have already mentioned, the sidearms that we are using are the Glock 17 and the Fort 20.

Barman

So the main caliber is 9x19mm. That’s the most widely used caliber. When it comes to sidearm brands, the most widely used ones are Fort 20, Glock 17, and this Czech CZ.

What are considered the best and most reliable and what has been disappointing or considered not as reliable?

Tarantino

When it comes to these small arms and guns, a lot depends on the anthropometric characteristics of each individual – the size of the palm, the grasp that each individual has. But when it comes to reliability, in my experience, the Fort 20 is number one, and when it comes to comfort and efficiency, I would say that Sig Sauer is the best one.

I cannot give you a very clear answer about which is the most disappointing, because all of these four weapon systems will be able to fulfill their mission in the hands of a very skilled operator. So those small differences, these are the differences that each individual has as preferences only. But when it comes to functions and functionality, they all will do a good job.

When it comes to my favorite weapon systems, it’s definitely gonna be the Sig Sauer, but I really struggle with the idea of finding the most disappointing one.

At some point, Glock might be called one, but Glock is also quite a reliable weapon, and I cannot even tell you assuredly that Glock is the worst.

Chill

As for my favorite type of pistol, it’s the Glock, of course. But as for those that do not live up to my expectations, I do not think that I can choose one. Previously, we had some Soviet manufactured sidearm models. For instance, we used the TT Soviet manufactured pistol, so I would say that it was pretty bad. So those were the old Soviet pistols, and they do not live up to the requirements of modern warfare.

I like the Glock because, first of all, it’s convenient. Second, accessibility. Then the shooting precision, and of course their dimensions. Their dimensions are also pretty convenient.

Khalepa

I would just say that every weapon needs its own approach. So you just need to find the right approach to every weapon. But no, there are no weapons that I wouldn’t use.

I like the Glock 17 and the Fort 20 because both of these pistols are easy to maintain, especially the Fort 20. It’s lightweight. It’s not really large, so it’s quite convenient to use. And as for the Glock pistol, it’s just the golden classic, the classical example of a handgun.

Chewie

Well, in terms of Glock 17, from my own combat experience, I would like to say that this is a really good weapon that works pretty well even in mud conditions, even when it’s dirty. So in 90% of cases, it didn’t show any malfunctions, any stoppages, etc. Even in really bad operational conditions. In terms of the Fort 20, it’s also quite a good weapon. But well, unfortunately, we cannot provide the Glock pistols for all of our service members. But if we had this opportunity, of course, we would provide the Glocks for 100% of our personnel.

The primary reason why we cannot provide Glocks for all of our personnel is that currently our unit is not purchasing Glocks because there are no funds for this procurement. And as for the key differences between the Glock and the Fort systems, the Fort is really sensitive to humidity and it gets rusty quite soon. So basically, this can also lead to some malfunctions.

I have worked with many pistols, and talking about those that I would never use, these are some of the models manufactured by Beretta. I really didn’t like those, both in terms of maintenance, in terms of the recoil of this weapon. They were hard to maintain, and they had too much recoil. It’s also not really controllable, especially in field conditions. But of course, this is also a matter of habit.

So you just need to get used to this weapon. I’m already used to the weapons that we use, and we can just easily maintain them, even in field conditions. And also, we’re quite good at operating the weapons.

Barman

The one that we use in my unit is the Fort 20. But the drawback of this one is that the barrel is very fragile and very much open for any kind of corrosion and rust. So if I could choose one, according to my preferences, I would definitely choose the CZ P-07.

CZ P-07

Right now we are in the process of rearming the soldiers, meaning that some of the soldiers have already received this weapon system, the rest of us will receive it, I guess, by the end of next year. This is being provided by MoD.

Out of those that I had a chance to put my hands on, I didn’t like the Beretta much because the way it sits in the hand is not comfortable. It has a pretty strong recoil, and this one is very sensitive and requires much more attention.

Do you run red dots on your pistols? If so, what kinds have worked well? What hasn’t? Same for pistol lights.

Tarantino

I have never worked with a pistol with a red dot. I do know that some of the soldiers use it, but for me, it seems mostly like something for the sport world, not the war world. 

It goes without saying, but there are some pitfalls and drawbacks of this because when it comes to the red dot on your main gun, it’s always in your hands. It’s always in front of you, so you can control it. But the pistol that the soldiers do have usually is in such a place where you do not completely have control every time you move.

That means that, if at some point you fall, or if at some point you are in the dense wood and it might simply knock this red dot off. So a pistol usually is in the holster, and don’t always have your eye on the holster or the pistol. While the red dot is on your rifle, you always keep an eye on it. So it simply can fall apart. And that’s a bad story when a soldier can only operate the pistol with a red dot, it means that you take the red dot out, and you cannot work with mechanical optics, it will be a very dire situation.

I don’t have much expertise in this field when it comes to the flashlights under the barrel of the pistol, and when it comes to any kind of modifications on the pistols. I do know that some reconnaissance soldiers do use the flashlights on the pistols, but that’s mostly on very rare occasions.

Chill

Personally, I have not used any red dot sights with my handguns. The only personnel that I have seen using red dot sights on their pistols are close protection service members, and for them this is justifiable because the pistol is their primary weapon, but for us the pistol is just a sidearm. So this is why we do not concentrate on using red dot sights on our pistols.

Khalepa

No, the effective range of these handguns is 20 to 30 meters, so there is no need, no sense using red dot sights on them. We don’t use pistol lights.

Chewie

In combat, we do not really use red dot sights on our pistols. Some of our guys can just install red dot sights on their pistols for sports reasons, just for training, for some personal use, etc. But not in combat.

In terms of the closed-type [fully enclosed emitter] red dot sights, first of all they are quite pricey, and secondly they can be easily broken. Again, they are susceptible to mud, to humidity, etc. And in terms of the open-type red dot sights, a bit of mud and it doesn’t work anymore. At the same time, in terms of the use of the iron sights on the pistol, they are basically fail-proof. And even if they are dirty, even if there is some contamination, some mud, you can just clean them off with your glove and keep on shooting. So they are just fail-proof on the battlefield. And it’s easier. You don’t have to put in and out of your holster without the red dot.

My issued weapon doesn’t have a red dot sight, and I feel pretty confident in getting it out of the holster and putting it back in the holster. And my personal sidearm – a Glock 34 – I have a red dot sight on it, and once again, no problems in using the holster. The Glock 34 is a sports weapon I purchased to participate in sports. This is not a self-defense weapon.

Barman

When it comes to combat and real combat warfare, we do not use the red dots on the pistols. So the war is about the dust and it’s about being dirty and there is a pretty big and high chance that you might hit your weapon either with a stick or something and simply destroy or break the red dot. That is the reason why most of us stick to mechanical sights.

As for pistol lights, we use Olight.

What about shotguns? Do you use them for trench warfare? What about for shooting down drones?

Tarantino

When it comes to military shotguns, unfortunately, I cannot give you a lot of information because we don’t have many chances to work with them.

Chill

Usually they just use shotguns to shoot down drones. I haven’t really heard anything about using shotguns while conducting any actions in the trenches.

Khalepa

Well, as of today, we do not use shotguns, because they can be used against FPV drones or other types of small drones, but our unit does not use shotguns to shoot down Shahed drones.

Chewie

Well, usually we use shotguns for the crews of armored fighting vehicles, but we use shotguns in really rare cases. Mostly, all the personnel are trained to shoot down drones with their primary weapon without using the shotguns.

Barman

We do not use shotguns at all. The weapon that we operate is our authorized UAR-15 with the very standard M855 round.

What shotguns work best for shooting down drones?

Tarantino

So out of those that I had a chance to get my hands on, is one called Benelli. That’s an Italian production shotgun. I have it in my hands. That’s a very qualitative weapon system, and definitely is a reliable one. Another one that I used in my career is the Winchester, and it also looks and works quite and is quite an efficient weapon system. 

The one that we know that we use is the one from the Turkish production, and these are the smoothbore weapons. The drawback of all of them is the following: the weapon is the same, but the manufacturers of the same weapon are different. It means that a brand new weapon from one manufacturer can be up and running and working well, but another weapon system from another manufacturer cannot work so smoothly, and it requires additional fixing of some things. The explanation for all this in my mind is quite easy because these all are not military weapons. These are the weapons designed for hunting and for hunters.

Chill

We do not really have any kind of standardization in this matter. It’s either the Turkish manufactured platforms or any platforms that we can get.

As a hunter, I prefer the classical platforms, but now we have a lot of different types of shotguns in Ukraine, different form factors, a lot of Turkish-manufactured Hatsan shotguns, both pump-actions and other models, and I would say that the pump-action guns are the most effective that can be used in our conditions of Ukrainian warfare.

Chewie

Currently we are using the Turkish manufactured copy of Benelli and also the Safari [HG-150M]. This is a Ukrainian manufacturer.

Do you use a 5.56 fragmentation round for shooting down drones?

Tarantino

Yes, 5.56 shot rounds are occasionally used. However, the firing effectiveness depends exclusively on the operator’s skills.

Chill

No, we do not usually use specialized anti-drone cartridges. It’s usually just simple shot cartridges.

Khalepa

Well, the UAR-15 rifles have the special type of anti-drone ammunition that doesn’t have a single bullet, but it has something more similar to the shotgun, which just acts as the fragmentary ammunition that you have described. We have them and we practice using them at the training sites at the shooting ranges, but we haven’t had any need to use them in the real combat scenario yet.

If we’re looking at the extreme situations and if we imagine that a rifle with the anti-drone munitions is the only thing that you have against the drones, yes, I would say that these anti-drone munitions are better than just simple bullets. They contain small gauge shot, and in comparison with the bullet, they are much more effective in damaging the drones because they can cover a larger area, and the dispersion is larger and better than in just simple cartridges with bullets.

Drone Round: The Next Evolution of Counter-UAS

Chewie

No special cartridges. We just train them to shoot down the drones with what we have, with what they fight. Because when our personnel are somewhere in the tree line and they have contact with the enemy, and they quickly need to shoot down a drone, they will not have time to change the magazine for the one with the anti-drone cartridges, and basically shooting down drones with standard munitions has proven quite efficient. So we train our people to do this. We have quite high results, and we even had cases when our fighters shot down drones with their pistols.

Barman

The only scenario where we use them is during training on the ranges. But when it comes to combat warfare, usually we do stick to our standard rounds because when it comes to warfare right now, a lot of those attacks happen suddenly, unexpectedly. It means that a soldier simply doesn’t have time to change the magazine for the magazine that has those rounds that have these fragments in it.

The peculiarity of the fragmentation round is that its range of efficiency is approximately from 40 to 60 meters, while a usual standard round can hit a drone at a distance of 100 to 150 meters, so we simply made our own conclusion and stuck to this. That using a regular round is much better than this fragment round.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Saab is taking its well-established CB90 combat boat in a notably more ambitious direction, introducing a larger, optionally crewed version that’s intended to do much more than ferry troops and conduct raids. The new Combat Boat 90 Capability X (CB90 CX) is being developed as a multi-mission combat platform capable of carrying sensors and weapons for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), anti-surface warfare, and short-range air defense (SHORAD).

The new boat represents a significant evolution of a design that has been adopted by naval forces around the world for littoral operations. Compared to the original design, however, the CX adds greater payload capacity, updated onboard systems, and the ability to operate with or without a crew.

Saab says the CB90 CX is currently in production for Sweden, which will be the launch customer, with 36 craft under contract for the Swedish Amphibious Battalion. With the Swedish Armed Forces, the new boat will operate alongside the existing, smaller CB90 NG rather than immediately replacing it.

The development reflects several broader shifts in naval warfare, including the use of smaller combatants to contribute directly to the fight rather than simply transport personnel or support larger ships. At the same time, the ability of the CB90 CX to operate without personnel on board is indicative of the rapid advances being made in the uncrewed surface vessel (USV) space.

“The future of naval operations is not just about having more platforms; it is about distributing greater combat capability across the force,” Anders Hellman, head of Saab’s Docksta business unit, said in the announcement.

Hellman also pointed to recent operations in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the Red Sea to highlight the kinds of areas and missions the CB90 CX has been designed to face. In the Baltic, this includes protection of critical infrastructure as the threat from Russia continues to grow. In the Black Sea, Russia and Ukraine have been engaged in extensive naval warfare, increasingly using USVs to undertake missions including attacks on shipping and against ground targets, as well as SHORAD. Finally, the Red Sea has seen USVs, aerial drones, and cruise missiles attack commercial shipping, with the sheer volume of these strikes putting traditional naval air defenses under extreme pressure.

The baseline CB90 has already established its reputation through a combination of speed, maneuverability, and the ability to operate in confined coastal waters. While developed specifically with Swedish naval operations in mind, it has also been adopted by close to a dozen navies around the world. Among its operators, U.S. Navy examples are designated as the Riverine Command Boat. More unusually, Russia has fielded a locally developed clone of the CB90 design, known as the Raptor class.

The CB90 CX keeps those features but combines them with a larger hull and increased payload capacity, meaning it can accommodate a wider range of mission systems and weapons.

The ability for the CX to operate as an optionally crewed boat is derived from Saab’s proprietary Autonomous Ocean Core system. The company has not yet disclosed the full details of the autonomous operating modes but says that human supervision will be required as part of the decision-making process. Saab also says that every CB90 CX will come with the option of autonomous operations, with the decision falling upon the operator, based on the particular mission requirements.

Clearly, the combination of a larger platform and autonomous operation opens up a range of possibilities for employing the boat in situations where putting a crew at risk may be undesirable. The CX is also designed to operate across a wider range of sea states.

In terms of specifications, the CB90 CX has an overall length of 59 feet, compared to 54.5 feet for the CB90 NG variant. It is powered by a pair of 1,100-horsepower engines driving waterjets, giving a maximum speed of over 40 knots, at which it can travel for more than 300 nautical miles. In crewed configuration, it can carry up to 10 personnel.

The ISR variant is designed to provide enhanced situational awareness across multiple domains. It incorporates Saab’s Giraffe 1X X-band 3D surveillance radar, which can detect and track threats in the air and on the surface, out to a range of over 62 miles against aerial targets. The radar is mounted on a 36-foot extending mast to increase its range over the horizon and in littoral zones.

The anti-ship warfare configuration is intended to provide over-the-horizon strike capability against surface vessels. Saab has shown a rendering of this version armed with a pair of MBDA’s Marte ER anti-ship missiles in angled canisters.

Marte ER is a lightweight, long-range missile designed to be deployed from a wide range of platforms, including aircraft, coastal batteries, and smaller naval vessels. It has a range of over 62 miles and operates on a sea-skimming ‘fire-and-forget’ principle, guided by an active radar seeker. The missile can also be employed against land targets, a capability that Saab doesn’t explicitly mention.

Successful first launch for Marte ER missile

However, Marte ER is just one option for the CB90 CX, and Saab has confirmed that Sweden will arm the boats with a different, undisclosed missile.

Furthermore, both the ISR and anti-ship versions are armed with a 12.7mm or 30mm Trackfire Remote Weapon Station for self-defense.

The SHORAD configuration, meanwhile, is designed to address the growing threat posed by drones. It will employ Rheinmetall’s Seasnake 30mm autocannon, giving the boat a dedicated close-range air defense role. As well as drones, the gun, which has a nominal maximum rate of fire of 1,100 rounds per minute, can be used to engage helicopters, and it has a secondary role against surface targets, including USVs.

The latter capability is particularly notable as navies increasingly face the challenge of defending themselves against relatively inexpensive drones that can threaten even sophisticated warships.

Beyond these three initial mission variants, Saab says it is developing an option to launch drones from the CB90 CX. Both tube-launched drones and quadcopters are being examined. Torpedo armament is also planned as an option.

The broader concept behind the CB90 CX involves the distribution of sensors and weapons across a larger number of smaller, more flexible platforms, which may or may not be crewed.

Operators could employ multiple CB90 CX boats in complementary roles. ISR-equipped boats could help detect and track threats, while anti-ship variants provide additional strike options, and SHORAD-equipped boats help protect the force against aerial threats.

Operating together, the different configurations could create a more distributed and more resilient combat fleet, particularly in coastal environments where geography, island chains, and confined waterways complicate operations.

Furthermore, the optionally crewed version would allow the boats to operate in higher-risk areas or undertake missions that would otherwise expose personnel to unacceptable danger.

The ISR variant, in particular, could be of use in a scenario like the current crisis with Iran, for instance. Vessels equipped with the Sea Giraffe radar could form a picket line across the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and Gulf of Oman to detect incoming drones and cruise missiles, and also provide data on surface movements. A counter-drone variants could be used for force protection. The idea that these could even be uncrewed makes such an application even more attractive considering the threats posed to vessels in this region and especially in or near the strait.

For Sweden, the introduction of the CX alongside the CB90 NG means that a more capable combat boat can be introduced alongside the smaller platform, which remains useful for more traditional troop transport and raiding party missions.

The CB90 CX also represents an effort to expand the utility of the basic design out of its traditional littoral environment and into a more demanding and increasingly complex operational environment.

At the same time, broad commonality with the CB90 NG should make the new design more attractive to established customers.

The company has not yet disclosed a timeline for deliveries but says the first boat for Sweden is now undergoing final acceptance trials. Saab has also confirmed it aims to produce the CB90 CX alongside the previous CB90 NG, making use of a new production site to handle expected demand.

While the original CB90 made its name moving troops around the littorals, the CX is an altogether more ambitious development. At the same time, Saab will face competition from a growing number of USVs and optionally crewed boats, as these vessels continue to proliferate and be adapted for more roles.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The U.S. Air Force is exploring options for adding air-to-air combat capabilities to its bombers as part of efforts adjacent to its latest fighter force structure plans. The service has raised the possibility of the B-21 Raider, specifically, taking on an air-to-air role, and potentially doing so in cooperation with Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones, in the past. As TWZ has explored for years, the B-21’s inherent attributes – size, extreme range, high operating ceiling, broadband low-observability (stealthiness), and advanced sensors – could actually make it especially well suited to taking part in air-to-air combat missions. The Air Force’s other bombers could also be part of these future plans.

Aviation Week was first to report on the potential for bombers to help bolster the Air Force’s air-to-air combat capacity after obtaining a copy of a new long-term fighter force structure report submitted to Congress last week. Media coverage of this report first began to appear earlier this week following a roundtable on Tuesday with Lt. Gen. David Tabor, the service’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs. The full report, which is unclassified, was not disseminated to reporters at that time.

The Air Force’s central goal now is having 1,509 combat-coded fighters in inventory by 2035, which is hundreds more than it has in service today. This will come from the acquisition of new F-35As, F-15EXs, and F-47s. There are already questions about how realistic this plan might be, and the service has acknowledged several hurdles it will need to overcome. You can read more about this in our initial reporting here.

“Accordingly, the USAF is also evaluating additional recapitalization options, including a new capacity fighter, increased reliance on CCAs [Collaborative Combat Aircraft], and developing air-to-air capabilities on bombers,” the latest fighter force structure report says, per Aviation Week.

“A new capacity fighter” may refer to the possible acquisition of new-production F-16 Vipers, which Lt. Gen. Tabor said at the roundtable could be an option in the future, according to an earlier story from Air & Space Forces Magazine. He also said making any such decision was not an “urgent” priority. This is just one possibility here. The Air Force has floated ideas for other new fighter concepts beyond the F-47 in recent years. Lockheed Martin has talked about the potential for expanding on the F-35 design.

At the roundtable on Tuesday, Tabor also made clear that the introduction of CCAs would influence future fighter force structure plans, but the expected scale and scope of those impacts remain unclear. He does not appear to have addressed the role bombers could play in this equation at that time. The new fighter report itself does not elaborate further on the potential use of bombers, based on Aviation Week’s story. TWZ is seeking more information.

When it comes to the possibility of Air Force bombers, and the B-21 more specifically, taking on an air-to-air role, this is not the first time the possibility has been raised, as mentioned earlier.

“As the NGAD [Next Generation Air Dominance] review goes forward, like, is it possible that what that ends up with could be the B-21 taking a larger role?” reporter Stephen Losey, working at the time for Defense News, asked then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin at the Military Reporters & Editors (MRE) Conference in 2024.

“We have not taken that off the table,” the Air Force’s top officer said in response to Losey’s question, but did not elaborate.

B-21 Takeoff and Landing

At that time, the Air Force’s NGAD program was undergoing a deep review, and the future of the sixth-generation fighter component of the effort had come into question. The decision was ultimately made to continue pursuing plans for what has now become the F-47.

For years now, TWZ has been highlighting how the B-21 could serve in multiple roles beyond just that of a traditional bomber, including in an air-to-air capacity. Air Force officials have themselves described the Raider as having multi-mission capabilities, which could extend into the realm of air-to-air combat.

“If we were to characterize it [NGAD] as a fighter, we would be… thinking too narrowly about what kind of airplane we need in a highly contested environment,” then-Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Pleus told what was then just Air Force Magazine back in 2019. This could be “a B-21 that also has air-to-air capabilities” and can “work with the family of systems to defend itself, utilizing stealth – maybe that’s where the sixth-generation airplane comes from.”

Pleus’ comments had tied in with adjacent discussions at the time and thereafter about how the B-21 might operate together with future CCA drones. Pleus, who was subsequently promoted to lieutenant general and whose lasting posting was as Director of Staff at the Air Force’s top headquarters at the Pentagon, retired in August of this year.

It remains unclear how the Air Force might be considering employing the B-21, or any of its other existing bombers, in air-to-air combat. This could entail loading out bombers for direct air-to-air engagements, or the integration of new capabilities to help them find targets or to otherwise enable new supporting roles, or a mix of all of the above. The process of achieving air superiority is not limited to neutralizing aerial threats, either.

As TWZ has written in the past in the context of an air-to-air role for the Raider in particular:

“The Raider has the potential to serve as a launch platform for air-to-air missiles, especially outsized very long-range types. Its payload capacity would give it the ability to carry a large volume of smaller air-to-air missiles, as well. B-21s could also employ air-to-ground munitions in support of the suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses mission (SEAD/DEAD), which is also part of the air superiority equation.”

“Maybe most significantly, the B-21s could also act as airborne nerve centers in support of counter-air missions, especially for controlling drones like the Air Force’s planned fleets of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), and have the ability to do so even in the most heavily contested of airspaces. Uncrewed aircraft, in turn, could feed targeting data back to Raiders with air-to-air loadouts. B-21s might even be able to launch some of those drones themselves.”

Deeply networked ‘kill webs’ that bring together distributed arrays of sensors and other supporting elements across vast distances and multiple domains, coupled with very-long-range air-to-air missiles, open up new operational possibilities more generally. This applies to Air Force bombers beyond the B-21.

When it comes to longer-range air-to-air missiles, the Navy has notably already fielded the AIM-174B air-launched version of the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6). The service more recently disclosed another such missile in flight testing now, the AIM-424 Malice.

The Air Force has pursued similar missile developments in the past and put out a call for a new anti-air missile with a maximum range of at least 1,000 nautical miles just in June. The service has been exploring multi-stage types with modular designs that could be configured for longer- and shorter-range engagements, as well. These are all just programs we know about, and do not speak to the developments the Air Force and others could have underway in the classified realm.

There is also the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) LongShot program, which the Air Force, as well as the U.S. Army and Navy, have been involved with over the years. The aim of that effort is to demonstrate the concept of an air-to-air missile-carrying drone to help extend the reach and reduce the vulnerability of tactical fighters and bombers.

On top of all this, tactical fighters are generally ill-suited to, and in some cases outright incapable of, carrying the kinds of outsized payloads being discussed here. This underscores the potential value of incorporating bombers into this equation as a means to engage targets at extreme ranges.

Even in a closer proximity support role of fighter aircraft, B-21s, as well as B-52s, could contribute to air-to-air fight as arsenal ships for longer-range weapons, firing on demand from the rear in coordination with crewed and uncrewed platforms operating at the tip of the tactical edge. B-21s could also use their penetrating capabilities to command drones of their own that provide penetrating fighter-like capabilities.

New air-to-air capabilities on Air Force bombers could include self-protection systems, too. Years ago now, the B-21’s prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, patented an anti-missile defense system for stealthy aircraft designed to fire hard-kill interceptors. The Air Force, as well as the Navy, have openly expressed interest in similar defensive capabilities for aerial refueling tankers and other larger planes. Just being able to provide localized close-in defensive ‘bubbles’ around individual bombers could impact the calculus when it comes to future air-to-air combat requirements.

To reiterate, these are all concepts we have discussed in depth for roughly a decade.

Speaking more broadly about Air Force future fighter force structure demands, as we wrote previously:

“In recent years, sustainment costs, broadly, have only become an increasingly serious concern for the Air Force, as well as the other branches of the U.S. military, especially when it comes to complex manned platforms, such as the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Fleet size and the readiness of those fleets are also highly pressing issues. So, at least in the near term, it’s not surprising that NGAD may end up focusing more on exploring available lower-cost options with distributed capabilities as alternatives to traditional air combat assets with highly centralized capabilities, such as manned fighter jets packed with ‘exquisite’ technologies.”

Despite the decision in the end to proceed with the more exquisite F-47, these points have only become more pronounced as time has gone on. How many F-47s the Air Force ultimately intends to buy is another question that looks to remain unanswered by the latest fighter force structure report. At the same time, there are clear signs that the Air Force is planning to significantly increase its planned B-21 fleet size. The official acquisition target has long been at least 100 Raiders, but the Air Force and Northrop Grumman have said a new topline figure is expected to come in the Fiscal Year 2028 budget proposal next year. The service is now explicitly aiming to have at least 500 CCA drones in service by 2032, too. All of this will compete for funding and other resources, at least to a degree.

In the meantime, there has been a “persistent decline in AA [aircraft availability] rates across the USAF tactical fighter fleet,” which “is the direct mathematical consequence of operating an inventory with an average age exceeding 31 years,” the Air Force’s latest fighter force structure report says, according to Aviation Week. “As legacy platforms – such as the F-16C/D, F-15E, and A-10C – operate well beyond their original engineering service lives, they experience compounding structural fatigue, widespread corrosion, and subsystem degradation.”

“Achieving the mandated AA rates required for a peer-conflict scenario necessitates aggressive divestment of the oldest airframes to fund the procurement of highly available, modernized platforms like the F-35A and F-15EX,” the report adds, per that outlet. Furthermore, “to counter the [Chinese] industrial capacity and numerical advantage in fielding fighters like the J-20 and J-16, the USAF must embrace a hybrid force of manned and unmanned systems.”

With all this in mind, active consideration of new air-to-air roles for bombers, as well as the possibility of “increased reliance on CCAs” and the potential to acquire new current-generation F-16s, at least seems to reflect a hedge strategy on the part of the Air Force.

If nothing else, the door clearly remains open to bombers being a key part of the Air Force’s ‘fighter’ vision in the future.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com