engines

There seem to be more significant upgrades from a number of teams this year, McLaren’s being the latest. Will the top four teams be bringing many more in the second half of the season or is there a limit to what they can do? – Richard

All the F1 teams headed into 2026 knowing that the season would be defined by development.

When there is a new rule set, this is always the case. The longer a set of rules exists, the more a) the car designs converge; b) teams get into diminishing returns.

But at the start, progress comes faster and in bigger steps, and that explains the fluctuation in form between the top teams so far this season.

Typically, a team will bring an upgrade, their competitiveness will increase, but then it will shift as other teams bring their own upgrades.

The longer a team leaves it between upgrades, the more they fall back.

That’s why McLaren, for example, made a leap forward with their Miami upgrade, but slowly slipped back as Mercedes and Ferrari brought their own big developments in Canada and Spain.

Then, McLaren leapt forwards – even more than they expected – with their Hungary upgrade. And they have another due in Zandvoort. And more to come after that.

Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull also have developments to come after the summer break.

McLaren team principal Andrea Stella said in Hungary: “I still believe that if we want to be in a position to fight for victories consistently in the future, we need to keep our focus on delivering more upgrades. That is the plan, but we are not naive. We know that this will be the plan for all the teams.

“Like it’s always been in this 2026 season, it’s a matter of a race of upgrades. And the good news is that McLaren is now back in this race of upgrades while fighting for the lead.

“But I expect that the car that will be the best car at the end of the season will keep adding tenths of a second in the next 11 races, probably as much as half a second. So definitely a lot of work ahead of everyone, not only McLaren.”

The limiting factor is the cost cap – all teams are restricted to spending no more than $215m on racing and development this season.

This means teams have to be strategic in how they deploy their new parts, “rather than just throwing it in at every grand prix, like in the past”, as Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff put it in Hungary.

He added: “We’re bringing upgrades, we’re closely monitoring how much we can bring. At the moment, cost cap-wise, we’re in a good spot. We’ve tried to have it a little bit more second-half-of-the-season weighted, and we’ll see if that’s enough.”

Why don’t McLaren make their own engines? They often seem to struggle because they rely on others’ (Mercedes) power units, who are also a direct competitor. Surely McLaren have the expertise and they could benefit their road car industry and their F1 car if they became a works team. – Jack

Making a Formula 1 engine is a highly specialised enterprise. It’s also extremely expensive. The manufacturers supplying engines to F1 this year have all spent hundreds of millions of pounds developing their power-units.

Apart from Red Bull, all are car manufacturers who have wider automotive companies to offset the cost, and expertise on which to lean.

There is now an engine budget cap, set at $190m in a company’s inaugural year, and $148.5m after that.

McLaren is a road-car manufacturer. But it does not build engines. It outsources its engines to a UK company called Ricardo.

The plans for the next F1 engine, due in either 2030 or 2031, are still being formalised, and there is considerable debate about them.

However, one aspect all stakeholders are agreed upon is for the costs to come down, perhaps even to the point where becoming a supplier of customer engines becomes a viable business proposition, which is not the case at the moment.

McLaren have proved they can win titles as a customer team, but they have also had frustrations with their Mercedes relationship this year. They have discovered how customer teams are on the back foot when it comes to maximising the operations of such complex engines at the start of a new regulation cycle.

As for the future, McLaren Racing chief executive officer Zak Brown said at the Monaco Grand Prix: “Priority one is to stay with Mercedes. They’ve been a great partner. Any time a new regulation comes out, we’ll take a look and see, is it something technically that’s interesting? Is it something fiscally that makes sense?

“We’ll go through that process when that happens. But sitting here right now, we’re extremely happy with Mercedes and we anticipate continuing with them.”

The U.S. Air Force says a prototype jet engine developed under the Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program could be ready for integration onto an actual aircraft in 2030. The fruits of NGAP have long been expected to power the new F-47 fighter, and potentially other aircraft. The schedule here, however, raises the question of what engine will be used on the F-47, at least to start with, as that jet is expected to fly for the first time in 2028. Depending on how long full development lasts, the first operational F-47s might use different engines than the ones the design is ultimately expected to receive to unlock its full potential.

John Sneden, the Portfolio Acquisition Executive in charge of the Propulsion Directorate at the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), recently shared new details about the NGAP effort. Sneden provided the update on the next-generation engine program at the Life Cycle Industry Days conference in Dayton, Ohio, which opened yesterday. Dayton is home to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which is where the AFLCMC is headquartered.

The Air Force is “get[ting] ready for potential [NGAP] integration activities in the 2030 timeframe,” Sneden said, according to a report today from Breaking Defense. “What we’re doing right now is we’re building our system today, and we’re getting ready for the future.”

This is in line with the Air Force’s 2027 Fiscal year budget proposal, released earlier this year, which says NGAP’s “Prototype Fabrication & Engine Assessment” phase will run through at least September 2031. The budget documents also show a planned surge in NGAP spending over the next three years or so. The Air Force is asking for nearly $513.7 million for the program in the upcoming fiscal cycle, and then expects to request $905.7 million and $865 million in Fiscal Years 2028 and 2029, respectively. Projected annual funding then drops into the roughly $300 million range in Fiscal Years 2030 and 2031, which is as far out as the currently available outlay extends.

What is reflected in the budget outlay “is really about building engines, testing engines, and then we’ll be rolling through that competitively over the next few years,” Sneden said at the conference in Dayton, according to another report from Air & Space Forces Magazine.

“The Air Force is still evaluating its options,” Sneden added, per Breaking Defense, when asked about what aircraft might fly first with an NGAP engine. The F-47 “could” be one option, but the advanced nature of the technology might “open up” the door to other possibilities, he noted. The F-47 program is highly classified, which also limits what can be said about the jets and their expected capabilities, in general.

When it comes to where NGAP stands now, “initial hardware is procured, their design meets our standards, everything is clean from that end, and both vendors have been able to do that,” Sneden said, per Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The two vendors in question are General Electric and Pratt & Whitney, the latter of which is a subsidiary of Raytheon (now formally called RTX). Both firms announced they had completed assembly readiness reviews of their respective designs, known as the XA102 and XA103, in May. The two companies have already been working for years on their competing prototypes. Last year, they both saw the cost ceilings on their existing NGAP contracts rise to $3.5 billion. Those deals cover work through 2032.

NGAP has also been leveraging work done under an earlier Air Force effort called the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP), which both General Electric and Pratt & Whitney also participated in. In 2023, the service canceled AETP, which was exploring options for a new engine for variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Upgrades for the existing Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which currently powers all versions of the F-35, are now in the works instead.

More specific details about the XA102 and XA103 continue to be limited, but both are known to be so-called adaptive cycle designs. In very broad terms, jet engines of this kind can perform like a turbofan when optimal and more like a turbojet when needed. This offers benefits in terms of fuel economy and power in the same engine. Being able to conserve fuel while transiting to and from an operating area would help extend range and increase loiter time. This could also help reduce demands on already strained tanker fleets and offer more general cost benefits.

P&W XA103

To provide some additional context, General Electric has said in the past that the XA100 design it developed for AETP was around 25 percent more efficient than the F135. It was also said to offer between 10 and 20 percent more thrust than the Pratt & Whitney engine in certain flight profiles.

GE’s XA100 Adaptive Cycle Engine

This is all seen as especially valuable for traditionally fuel-hungry tactical jets like the F-47. Extended range and loiter time, and reduced need for tankers, would also be of particular utility in any future high-end fight against China across the broad expanses of the Pacific. TWZ touched on all of this in our recent detailed feature on what is currently known (and unknown) about the F-47’s design, which you can find here.

As already mentioned, a big question now is what engines will be used on the F-47, at least to begin with. The Air Force has consistently said that it is targeting a first flight for the F-47 in 2028. Sneden, head of the Propulsion Directorate, has now said that the service is not expecting to have an NGAP engine ready for integration until 2030.

Air & Space Forces Magazine reported that Air Force Col. Timothy Helfrich, the Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Fighters and Advanced Aircraft, declined to speak to F-47 propulsion plans when asked separately at the conference in Dayton.

It is not entirely uncommon for new aircraft prototypes to use a different engine from the one planned for production examples. As one example, Lockheed’s Cold War-era F-104 Starfighter was developed around the General Electric J79 turbojet, but that engine was not ready for the start of flight testing. So early XF-104 prototypes used older and less powerful Wright J65 turbojets instead.

In some cases, the initial production batches of aircraft have even entered operational service with different engines than were originally expected due to various factors. Spiral developments can include new engines regardless of what the original might have been, too. For instance, Northrop Grumman originally planned to use Pratt & Whitney F401 turbofans on the F-14 Tomcat, but that engine program was cancelled. Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofans were used instead on early F-14As. However, problems and limitations surrounding those engines led to General Electric F110 turbofans being integrated onto later examples of the Tomcat.

Similar spiral engine developments for combat aircraft have been seen outside the United States, too, including with China’s J-20 and Russia’s Su-57.

For the F-47, there are certainly existing in-production designs with relevant performance, such as the F135 and F100 from Pratt & Whitney, and the General Electric F110, which are used on various tactical jets today. Another possibility might be to use an otherwise available design like Pratt & Whitney’s F119 (currently only found on the F-22 Raptor), at least for initial flight testing. The F135 is based on the F119, but the latter is optimized for higher performance, including operations at higher altitudes and cruising at supersonic speeds (supercruise). The F119 is also out of production, at least as far as we know.

Pratt & Whitney F135 Overview

At the same time, the F-47 is a highly optimized and integrated platform with range and performance targets being key aspects of the design. The jet will likely have to be capable of supercruise and be able to fly at very high altitudes, pointing to a need for an F119-like or similar design.

The physical trade space on the F-47 allotted for any engine, as well as the fuel system, and any other associated components, will be largely static. There will be cooling and accessory power demands to factor in. There is then the matter of the jet’s intakes to consider, which is a critical aspect to consider for safe and reliable engine function. They also have to be optimized for the chosen engine and its airflow demands throughout the expected flight envelope. Furthermore, historically, stealthy inlets have been especially complicated to design in a way that blends seamlessly with the rest of the planform while still providing sufficient airflow.

Planning for a redesign of the F-47’s airframe down the line to accommodate an NGAP engine might well be a non-starter. The cost and complexity of integrating an AETP engine into the F-35, which might not have been feasible at all for the F-35B variant with its unique design constraints, directly factored into the cancellation of that program.

Again, this all depends on the F-47’s core design and to what degree the ability to accommodate new engines down the line has already been baked in.

It is worth noting here that some existing type or types of engine have already been powering the flying demonstrators that helped give birth to the F-47. New engine types that have yet to be disclosed might have been used on those aircraft, though it seems less likely to have two similar programs unless there were very special requirements that we do not yet know about. Regardless, how reflective any of those designs might be of the expected production configuration of the F-47 is unclear.

The initial batch of production F-47s could enter operational service with a different engine than what is expected to be integrated onto future versions, if this is not already the plan. The Air Force has said it is hoping to start fielding these jets in the early 2030s. There have also been reports that the service might not reach a real operational capability with the type until the middle of the next decade.

As an aside, having multiple true alternative engine options for a single aircraft can also help guard against disruptions in the supply of one particular type across the life of the program. The decision to axe procurement of the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 as an alternative for the F-35 family, ostensibly as a cost-cutting measure, was notably controversial at the time. It has since come to be seen as somewhat short-sighted given issues with F135 production.

The F-47 is not the only potential application for NGAP engines or technology derived from them, either. In particular, whatever sixth-generation fighter design the U.S. Navy ultimately selects as the winner of its F/A-XX competition would also benefit from next-generation adaptive cycle propulsion. The Air Force also talked in the past about advances from the preceding AETP effort filtering down to its F-15, F-16, and F-22 fleets, as well as the F-35.

“We built NGAP as essentially an agnostic system,” Sneden said in Dayton, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. “It was, build the system first, open up options for the future, and then when those options come to the forefront, we’ll be able to take advantage of it. You have to lean into propulsion technology first.”

“Not everything has to have an adaptive fan,” he added per that same outlet. “So we can actually take that backwards as well and incorporate it in some of our legacy platforms. So there is a great utilization for this type of tech.”

The Air Force is clearly very committed to NGAP, as underscored by the planning and budgeting around the program in the coming years. From what the service has disclosed to date, the work done already has been very fruitful and is now on track to result in at least one design being ready for flight testing in the next four years.

At the same time, the Air Force seems confident that an NGAP engine will not be available for integration before the F-47 is expected to make its maiden flight. There is also immense pressure to get the F-47 into service on an accelerated timetable, and for Boeing then to meet key milestones.

If the schedules hold for the two programs, this means that another propulsion option will have to be used on the F-47 at the start, no matter what happens with either program further down the line.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

“Imagine the scenario; one of our Havoc hypersonic missiles loaded on an F-15EX Eagle with a mission profile locked-in and ready to go. This new missile is designed for low-cost and high-effect – it’s very difficult for an adversary to track in flight,” explains Chris Spagnoletti, chief executive officer of Ursa Major, as he discusses the company’s expanding hypersonics activities. Part of a company strategy to help overcome critical Department of War munitions shortages, Ursa Major’s Havoc was unveiled in early 2026. With a unique 3D-printed propulsion system, Havoc has been envisioned as a hypersonic missile that aims to re-write the rulebook for these types of weapons.

Ursa Major’s ambitious vision comes at a time of something of a renaissance in U.S. aerospace development and defense manufacturing, with newer firms establishing major positions within a rapidly evolving marketplace. These fresh takes on cutting-edge defense technologies also come as the United States celebrates its 250th birthday and looks back on a history of unlikely up-starts changing the world with new ideas and ways of doing business. It’s in this same spirit that Ursa Major looks to stake its claim.

The firm is evolving from a propulsion provider into a prime contractor and integrator with a keen focus on hypersonics and solving a need for affordable high-speed missiles at scale for the U.S. and its allies. In recent operations, the U.S. has fired a vast number of standoff air-to-ground weapons including more than 850 Tomahawks cruise missiles in the recent war with Iran and hundreds of high-end interceptors, stressing a system that’s been constrained by prolonged replenishment timelines. 

Spagnoletti says he strongly believes that hypersonic missiles are “the most important and pressing issue within critical munitions, with solid rocket motors coming close behind.” The company’s approach to design and production in both of these areas means Spagnoletti sees Ursa Major as being “well positioned to solve” these pressing requirements for the U.S. military.

“We are innovating on manufacturability and on new munition systems,” he continues. “It’s all under the umbrella of scalable munitions. Ursa Major’s founders really focused on developing very complicated propulsion systems, but with a strong propensity on design for manufacturability – essentially developing very high performing rocket engines as low-cost and as reliably as possible.”

Ursa Major has produced hundreds of engines and motors and accumulated more than 135,000 seconds of hotfire test time in under a decade. From its very beginnings the company has innovated through advanced manufacturing techniques that have evolved to leverage AI-enabled 3D-printing, specifically metal printing. “We’re looking at the problem set, and the landscape here is about how we can help the United States catch up as quickly as possible. We don’t just want a “me too” product, because we find there’s a lot of that in this space. This is about finding real answers to the desperate need to replenish our critical munitions fast,” says Spagnoletti.

Solid rocket motors in high demand

Having started out with liquid rocket engines, Ursa Major increasingly saw a burgeoning requirement for solid rocket motors (SRMs) for munitions, which Spagnoletti says have remained tied to traditional manufacturing approaches. Ursa Major says its approach to SRM manufacturing is designed to complement and strengthen the broader defense industrial base by providing flexible manufacturing capacity, common architectures, and modernized production methods.

Ursa Major’s manufacturing approach fundamentally changes how SRMs are designed and built using additive manufacturing, modular tooling, and software-backed production cells. This enables rapid switching between SRM variants without expensive retooling, which reduces production timelines and increases flexibility. 

In addition, Ursa Major’s highly-loaded grain technology increases motor performance and range without increasing motor size. By leveraging common architectures and using a limited set of qualified propellants, it says it can reduce qualification timelines and simplify production across multiple variants. The company’s energetics (solid propellent grain) strategy aims to expand domestic propellant capacity and reduce dependence on fragile supply chains, while using reliable mix, cast, and cure processes.

“Both in the liquid rocket engine side, and in solid rocket motors, the approach from the outset is deeply embedded in our culture; how we design, how we build, how we scale,” says Nick Doucette, co-founder and vice president of strategic operations for Ursa Major. “We came at the manufacturing problems from a completely different direction. We started out building liquid rocket engines, which were – to a degree – supporting the launch industry. That approach allowed us to develop new platforms that use new types of fuels or higher performance rates and lower costs.”

“From the start it helped support a growing launch industry, but very quickly it started to find its way into the hypersonics community as our engines, products, and performance points really started to solve some interesting problems. As we leaned heavily into the hypersonics needs, we realized that the early Ursa Major approach in manufacturing and the types of tech that we’re using are really solving some of the actual problems, and that led to our solid rocket motor programs.”

When building solid rocket motors, the inert part of the manufacturing leverages additive manufacturing heavily – Ursa Major avoids fixed tooling. “For example, after we qualify a motor, say a specific diameter booster, and then the government comes back to us and says that the adversaries have adapted. Now they want slightly different thrust, or maybe get additional range. We’ve already thought about that, our manufacturing line doesn’t need to change. We can use the same manufacturing line and adapt it,” explains Spagnoletti.

“We kept the energetics formulation essentially the same – it’s tried and true and it has been munition-tested for years – but we looked at the problem from the manufacturability of the entirety of the system. From a contracting point of view, this gives the government a lot more flexibility and to be as agile as the adversary. This has been happening on the development side for the past three years, working with several primes and the U.S. Navy. They’re inherently leveraging our ability to turn things fast, and now that’s translating into contracts for us.”

“The Navy really understood our approach to manufacturing,” adds Doucette. “They challenged us to apply our approach with liquid rockets to the solid rocket motor industry. To look at the problems and peel back the onion on solid rocket motors. What we found is that the choke point actually lies the metallic components that make what we call the inert tube section, that then gets packed with the energetics. The energetics are difficult for sure, but what actually chokes the supply chain is the 36-plus months to make the metallic tube structures. To compound the problem, all these production lines of the last 30, 40, 50 years are designed around one platform. Can you imagine an automotive company that has a huge expensive factory but only ever makes one car model! I mean, it would economically go out of business.”

“We have demonstrated that, by looking at the steps to make a solid rocket motor, be it metal printing the end domes or how we do the internal features and make the actual case to how we in some cases load the highly-loaded grain to get more performance, we can do all of it on the same production line for any motor between two inches and 22 inches in diameter. The same equipment, the same people, the same factory footprint. If we want to scale, we just copy paste the factory. If the demand signal changes in a year – which if recent conflicts give us any indication they probably will – that factory can switch over to a different munition. We just stop making one size and tool up for the new size in a matter of months.”

Ursa Major’s primary 93-acre corporate headquarters is located in Berthoud, about an hour north of Denver, Colorado. Here the company has the facilities to test its liquid rocket engines on site and it also designs, develops, and manufactures here. “Our main building is really split in half,” explains Spagnoletti. “On one side we have liquid rocket engine manufacturing and development to power hypersonics, and on the other behind a steel rolling door are the solid rocket motor development and low-rate production as part of our replenishment of critical munitions.”

“At the Colorado site, we’re actually grinding, mixing, casting, curing thousands of pounds of energetics per year for our solid rocket motors, with a lot of automation built-in to not only protect the people but also to make the process more consistent. We have another site for our high volume solid rocket motor production – it needs a lot of space – and we are targeting to manufacture hundreds of thousands of pounds of energetics for use in various shapes and sizes by the middle of 2027.”

The company has expanded with more than 400 acres for SRM production in Galeton, Colorado.

Solid rocket motors of all sizes

Nick Doucette already sees the solid rocket motor work evolving. “We will eventually boost-power our Havoc system with our solid rocket motors. Remember, we got into SRMs due to seeing the critical munition needs, with an open door for manufacturing innovation and a problem we want to help solve. So we’ve built a manufacturing approach and we are now building a multitude of different size classes for different customers.”

The smallest SRM that Ursa Major is actively working on is for the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System, or APKWS, from BAE Systems. “This currently uses a very dated motor and there’s been a lot of need in the industry to essentially innovate on that motor,” explains Doucette. “So we’ve been working extensively with both BAE Systems and the U.S. Air Force on that particular platform, especially with highly loaded grain, and we see a very promising future there.”

Doucette explains that Ursa Major has already made several hundred 2.75-inch motors for testing and development. This will be an extended range version of the motor, packing a significantly larger amount of energetic material into the same size rocket casing.

In 2024, Ursa Major won a contract with the Naval Energetics Systems and Technologies (NEST) program to develop and test a new design to apply its SRM manufacturing processes to the Mk104 dual-thrust rocket motor that powers the U.S. Navy Standard Missile 2 (SM-2), used for surface-to-air defense, and the SM-6 anti-air, land, and sea missile.

Trusted solid rocket motor providers are in limited supply, and the versatility of Ursa Major’s production process opens up a raft of potential opportunities, particularly in the missile defense space. The 10-14-inch range is what Doucette calls a “sweet spot” for interceptor missiles.

Asked about air-to-air missiles, Doucette says: “of course, we’re looking at it. There’s been a lot of conversations around how Ursa Major would approach the problem, but we have a lot going on already, so we’re making sure we don’t try to swallow the whole critical munitions list at once.”

“Most of these larger hypersonic weapons are all boosted,” adds Doucette. “These have a booster in the back end, and we have additionally completed internal work to develop that 22-inch diameter SRM capability. So now we can do anything from 2-inch to 22-inch on that same production line using our common modular manufacturing approach.”

Unleashing Havoc

Ursa Major’s parallel efforts in hypersonics brings the story full circle. Alongside the solid rocket motors business, hypersonic missiles have become a critical part of the company’s efforts, as Nick Doucette picks up the story. 

“There’s two specific products that Ursa Major makes in the hypersonics realm right now. The first is an engine that’s liquid oxygen-powered with rocket fuel. We call it Hadley, and we’ve had that for the better part of a decade. Hadley powers the Stratolaunch hypersonic Talon A testbed, for example. We don’t make the vehicle, we just provide the engine and support services, and Hadley has flown 10 times now.”

“The challenge with Hadley is that it uses cryogenic liquid oxygen, which presents a whole suite of issues from a tactical perspective. A military user can’t sit and wait for the propellant to get cold, like you do with liquid oxygen. We needed to make a similar engine, slightly lower thrust, a little smaller, but essentially in the same packaging, make it storable and most importantly, make it tactical, so that you can drop it from a plane or shoot it vertically from a ship. So we switched from liquid oxygen to hydrogen peroxide.”

“The catch there was that the only way we were able to do that in the right packaging, tightness, and density, was to use 3D-printing. Fast-forward through six years of insane additive development and the Draper engine became a reality. It simply would not have been possible without massive advances in the additive world because of the complexity of what we’re doing geometrically. It’s a really challenging thing to do.”

Draper is a 4,000-pound-thrust engine that is powered by hydrogen peroxide and rocket fuel. Its use of non-cryogenic storable propellants enables long-duration storage, rapid deployment, and operational flexibility in real-world conditions. Its massive potential drove Ursa Major to search for a suitable hypersonic vehicle design to match it with.

“We strongly believed that Draper introduced a differentiating threat vector for any adversary,” Doucette continues. “China has had boost-glide hypersonics for a decade. Other hypersonic designs use a scramjet, which are costly and complex. Draper opened up hypersonic performance, where you have a wide range of trajectories and adaptability as well as other really creative mechanisms that, to be honest, the adversaries don’t have. I mean it’s wildly different, which we see as being a very valuable asset to the national security arsenal.

“The concept of using a liquid rocket engine for a hypersonic weapon is absolutely game changing. Draper can be throttled – unlike solid rocket motors that use a pre-mixed propellant and oxidizer that cannot be controlled once ignited – plus it’s designed to be more safely stored than other liquid rocket engines, providing the tactical storage capabilities that are typical of a solid rocket motor.”

Doucette says that Ursa Major looked to find a partner for the vehicle itself, but concluded that none were suitable, particularly when it came to moving fast. The decision was made to go it alone in-house with an air vehicle. The result is Havoc, which is designed like other hypersonic programs to fly in excess of mach 5, and intended to be launched in a variety of ways; as a single-stage from an aircraft or ground-launched with added booster stages. It’s also designed to run out at circa $3-million apiece. “We entered a rapid campaign in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory and we went from concept to flight-ready in about six months,” Doucette says.

Hypersonic missiles currently in testing with the USAF include the AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), which is a boost-glide hypersonic system, with rocket boost and an unpowered glide vehicle inside. The Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile, or HACM, also features rocket boosters, but with an air-breathing scramjet second stage vehicle. Both are limited to operations in the Earth’s atmosphere – whereas Havoc can operate either in or above the atmosphere.

“With regard to propulsion in aerospace defense, there’s three main types; air-breathing, solid powered, and liquid powered,” Doucette explains. “In the world of hypersonics, specifically, we’re talking about fast-moving, somewhat unpredictable, missile systems that are moving at over five times the speed of sound. You have the same propulsion methods, but liquid fuel has never really been introduced.”

“The air-breathing hypersonic weapons are typically scramjets and ramjets, which the U.S. has been developing for a very long time. They’re expensive and exquisite, but very long range.

“China has something in the order of 600-700 operational boost-glide systems in its arsenal right now. This is not new to them. They’ve been practicing, watching, and rehearsing.” Doucette warns that the U.S. fielding a boost-glide or scramjet hypersonic weapon may not really change the dynamic, which is why Ursa Major’s argument for its liquid-powered weapon is so strong.

“The novelty of being liquid-powered is that it carries its own oxidizer and fuel, which means it can go anywhere – in the atmosphere, out of the atmosphere, high, low. A solid rocket can technically do the same thing, but the big difference with the liquid system is that it can turn on and off an infinite number of times. A solid is going where it’s going, but a liquid could be on one trajectory and a split second later turn it off, then instantaneously head on a different trajectory because you can maneuver it from a powered vector perspective. Draper is also fully throttleable down to 10% all the way up to 100%.”

There are currently no competing systems that have the ability to bridge the gap between running in atmosphere and out of atmosphere with such a degree of throttle control. Ursa Major is currently the only company with a hypersonic vehicle and experience in the liquid-powered hypersonic realm. It has twice ground-launched from a rail what it calls “Havoc Block 0” in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory, under its Affordable Rapid Missile Demonstrator (ARMD) program. These demonstrator flights have been designed as multi-domain tests. “The great thing about Havoc is that we can alter the wings, add our solid rocket motor boost system, and it means we can ground launch, VLS [vertical launch system] launch, or air-launch,” Doucette says.

“Havoc provides something the Department of War has not previously seen,” adds Chris Spagnoletti. “Having a mid- and long-range tactical weapon that can deep throttle, turn on and off at will, is agnostic to atmosphere, rapidly change vector, accelerate and de-celerate, skim the sea, fly outside the atmosphere – this really opens up the aperture of what a munition can do. This is very tough for conventional systems to figure out what it’s intending to do.”

Rapidly scaling production

Spagnoletti says Ursa Major’s hypersonic program can scale quickly because of the company’s additive manufacturing and AI-driven manufacturing processes. Draper’s liquid propellant also has additional advantages when it comes to production. “We can drain the fuel, bring them into a facility, and that now-inert system doesn’t need massive keep-out distances,” explains Spagnoletti. “So, say in a 100,000 square foot building, we can produce 500 full-up missile systems per year inert, then fuel them right before we ship them or at the operational location.”

“Some companies are advocating for things like multi-year contracts, and that really matters to them because they’re setting up rigid long-term production lines. We’ve flipped that on its head where if a customer decides in say five years they want this weapon to look different, we have a common modular approach that we can swap things out. Most of the aerospace systems I’ve worked on in my career have long five or 10-year windows. Design, build, qualify – they don’t want to make hardware changes because it’s going to take ages and cost a lot of money to modify and qualify those systems. They’re inherently resistant to change, not because they don’t want to help and adapt, but because the system allows a massive amount of inertia, production lines have rigid tooling and processes, they can’t adapt. What’s different about Ursa Major is, again, that we design for manufacturability and leverage advanced manufacturing.’

Ursa Major Additive Manufacturing

In addition to its Colorado facilities mentioned earlier, Ursa Major also has a plant in Youngstown, Ohio, which is a center of excellence for 3D-printing, they then ship to Berthoud for final assembly and test. A lot of parts and components are manufactured in house, including valves, tanks, pressurization systems, avionics, but it does have dependency on some external suppliers where appropriate. “We have some really strong partnerships where we can’t bring things in-house. We’re such experts in additive manufacturing that we know when not to do it.”

“Importantly, we are not reducing costs by using the cheapest parts. In my 36 years in the aerospace industry, when it comes to building a critical munition, I know the devil’s in the details – it has to work every time and there’s only so cheap you can go before you start to sacrifice reliability. Some of our competitors are trying to achieve a lower cost hypersonic system, which is great, but those are typically salvo weapons where you just launch a lot of them. The Havoc missile system is more of a strategic asset.”

Ursa Major is making significant moves in the U.S. military’s missile stockpile recapitalization effort. It has opened up versatile methods of producing solid rocket motors, and it has demonstrated the functionality of Havoc with the Air Force Research Laboratory, including the concept of operations with the liquid rocket. Spagnoletti points out that the U.S. used to use liquid rockets prior to the advent of solid rocket motors. Use of additive manufacturing and 3D-printing is always in the conversation too, it’s how this company can scale its innovations fast.

The next major milestone it’s driving towards is a follow-on demonstration phase for Havoc – a boosted, full hypersonic flight. “We’re pushing for that in 2027,” says Spagnoletti.

As America marks its 250th year, the dream of a hypersonic missile with a 3D-printed engine that can be delivered in large quantities at an affordable price could materialize into another significant landmark in the story of American defense innovation. At least that’s Ursa Major’s goal, and it appears to look more promising by the day.

Mercedes would also prefer for the new engines to be turbocharged but is not as trenchant on the idea as Audi.

Ben Sulayem said in an Instagram post this week that he wants V8s to return because they are “lighter, cheaper, safer and louder”.

His idea is effectively a return to the engine regulations F1 last had in 2013 before turbo hybrid engines made their debut in 2014.

The post said: “V8s are lighter, simpler and more cost-effective, while sustainable fuels mean they can remain aligned with our environmental ambitions. Most importantly, they bring back the unique, visceral sound that fans around the world associate with Formula 1.”

No significant research has been undertaken on the topic of whether audiences do want louder engines to return to F1.

An article on BBC Sport on the topic of F1’s future engines last month contained a poll that received 26,000 responses.

The single biggest vote was for a V8 or V6 turbo engine with 30% hybrid capacity, and there was a clear majority for a turbo engine with significant hybrid capability.

Audi has proposed to the FIA that F1 could use a V8 twin turbo engine with a so-called “hot V”, where the turbos are contained within the two cylinder banks.

This is exactly the engine used in a new hypercar Audi launched on Thursday in Antibes near Monaco. The Nuvolari has a four-litre twin turbo engine with 30% hybrid capacity.

Dollner said: “The Nuvolari has a V8 so we don’t have problems with V8 engines. You have to see that in the overall context. So to just pick one question of a regulation is not really answering the overall question, ‘where do you want to go with the regulation?'”

Asked whether there were any deal breakers with regard to the new rules that could threaten Audi’s participation in F1, Dollner said: “No, not right now. As I think and believe and trust that we will have a good discussion regarding the regulation and we will definitely have sustainable fuels.

“That’s not a topic under discussion and it’s more in some areas a philosophical question, but let’s see what the process brings.”

The FIA has the power to impose engine rules for 2031 because the contracts that bind the teams to F1 and the FIA expire after 2030.

But doing so would risk losing manufacturers at a time when the current hybrid rules – which everyone in the sport accepts are flawed and need refining – have attracted General Motors and Ford as well as Audi, and persuaded Honda to reverse a decision to leave.

Plans for a new tranche of upgrades for U.S. Army special operations MH-60M Black Hawk helicopters are heavily tied to continued progress, or lack thereof, on an improved engine. Work on the Army’s Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) is ongoing now, but there have also been threats to cancel it entirely in recent years, and its future remains murky.

Officials from U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) talked about the intersection of future plans for the MH-60M fleet and ITEP during a roundtable at the annual SOF Week conference yesterday. TWZ was in attendance, along with other outlets. The Army’s elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, also known as the Night Stalkers, operates the MH-60Ms.

The Army selected General Electric’s (GE) T901 as the winner of the ITEP competition in 2019. The engine remains in development, with flight testing involving a modified Black Hawk beginning in May 2025.

“We are following very closely what the Army is doing with ITEP. We are hoping that we will get it,” Lt. Col. Aron Hauquitz, head of the Technology Applications Program Office (TAPO), said at the roundtable yesterday. “We’ll be able to put it in our aircraft, and we’ll create the Block 2 variant of the MH-60M.”

In “FY30 [Fiscal Year 2030], we’re going to start either the Block 1.2 or the Block 2” upgrade program for the MH-60M fleet, Lt. Col. Cameron Keogh, the Program Manager for the MH-60 within SOCOM’s Program Executive Office for Rotary Wing (PEO-RW), also said at the roundtable. “It’s going to hinge on what’s going on with the Improved Turbine Engine, the T901 program that the Army’s running. We’re closely following that. If it continues to be successful, we will integrate that engine.”

To take a step back quickly, Night Stalker Black Hawks today already have an array of unique features compared to other H-60 variants in service elsewhere across the U.S. military and globally. This includes a terrain-following/terrain avoidance radar and other sensors, a variety of defensive systems, and an extensive communications suite, which you can read about in more detail here. A subset of the MH-60Ms are also configured as Direct Action Penetrators (DAP), which can be armed with a mix of guns, missiles, launched effects, and rockets to provide organic close air support during missions.

Cramming all of these capabilities on the MH-60Ms also requires significant changes to their core structure, and they are notably heavier than other typical H-60 variants. To account for this, the 160th’s Black Hawks already have YT706 turbine engines that are more powerful than the T701s found on standard Army models. GE makes both of these engines.

The YT706 has “higher fuel consumption, but it also has a higher output to help us keep that extra weight in the air,” Lt. Col. Keogh noted yesterday.

Integrating the T901 onto a typical Black Hawk will provide “50 percent more shaft‑power while delivering significantly higher fuel efficiency,” according to Lockheed Martin. Sikorsky, the prime contractor behind the H-60 family of helicopters, became a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin in 2015.

“The 50% power increase means a Black Hawk can transport additional fuel or payloads, such as launched effects, medical evacuation litters, forward area resupply loads or advanced sensor packages, without compromising aircraft performance,” Lockheed Martin highlighted in a press release earlier this month. “The engine’s performance at high altitude, high temperature conditions expands the Black Hawk’s envelope, giving commanders more options for insertion, extraction and reconnaissance missions in austere environments.”

Sikorsky Begins Black Hawk® Ground Runs with U.S. Army T901 Improved Turbine Engines

“Higher fuel efficiency and lower maintenance demands lessen the supply chain burden in contested environments, a core tenet of the Army’s continuous transformation strategy,” the press release noted. “Improved specific fuel consumption reduces the number of refuel stops, extending mission endurance and shrinking the fuel footprint in forward operating bases.”

The boost in capability that the T901 is set to bring is especially relevant for Night Stalker MH-60Ms, given their unique attributes and mission requirements. The maintenance and logistics benefits would also be particularly attractive for the 160th. The Regiment routinely flies extremely demanding missions, often conducted across long distances and under adverse conditions, and staged from far-flung locations with limited access to established support chains.

Plans otherwise for the Block 1.2/Block 2.0 MH-60M upgrades are still evolving.

Right now, the core “focus on that is payload restoration. We’re trying to take weight out of the airplane [sic], [and] we’re trying to move the CG, the center of gravity, forward,” Lt. Col. Keogh explained. “How we’re doing that without reducing capabilities is we’re just kind of moving the capabilities around.”

“Somebody asked me earlier if we’re going to take the anti-ice system off the airplane to lose some weight. We’re not. We need the anti-ice, especially up in Washington State,” he continued. “We’re taking some of our heavier boxes, a lot of our avionics, we’re putting them up forward into the crew department, we’re putting them behind the pilots. That’s going to shorten cable runs – copper weighs a lot, you’d be surprised – and then it also helped with our CG shift, as well.”

“That’ll give the operators more butts in seats as they head out to the objective, and also give the air crews better fuel flexibility for mission planning,” he added.

To go back to ITEP, the new engine has long been expected to offer a major leap in performance to regular Army Black Hawks, as well as the service’s AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. However, as noted, the program has faced major uncertainty in recent years. The effort has suffered significant delays tied to manufacturing and supply chain issues. The T901 was also a central component of the Army’s Future Attack Recon Aircraft (FARA) program, which the service axed in 2024.

Last year, there were indications the Army was moving to cancel ITEP, too, with the service requesting no additional funding for the program in its 2026 Fiscal Year budget proposal. Congress subsequently interceded, appropriating another $238 million for continued work on the engine in the current fiscal cycle.

In its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request, the Army is again not asking for any new money for ITEP, which has raised new questions about the program’s future.

T901 First Engine to Test Mission Accomplished

At the Army Aviation Association of America’s (AAAA) 2026 Warfighting Summit last month, Army Maj. Gen. Clair Gill said he was “very excited about where they’re going there” with ITEP and that the engine was “almost nearing completion of certification.” Gill is the service’s Program Acquisition Executive for Maneuver Air.

ITEP is “performing as intended,” and “the resourcing that Congress added in 2025 and the resourcing that Congress added in 2026 is being used to deliberately continue that testing,” Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips also told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable at the AAAA conference, but did not elaborate on future plans for the engine. Phillips is the Deputy Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Maneuver Air.

“We will need a little bit more money to get through the EMD [engineering, manufacturing and development] program, but it’s certainly not anywhere close to the money that we’ve already received for the program,” Mike Sousa, GE’s Executive Program Manager for the T901, had also told members of the media ahead of the AAAA conference, according to Breaking Defense. “So there is a little bit of money that is still required.”

Another factor now in all of this for the Army, as well as the Night Stalkers, is the expected arrival of the new MV-75 Cheyenne II tiltrotor in the next few years. The MV-75 offers massive boosts in range and speed compared to any Black Hawk variant. At the same time, that is also expected to come at a cost. As it stands now, the MV-75 is not expected to replace all of the Army’s H-60s, which will continue to play important roles for years to come. SOCOM and the 160th have a similar vision when it comes to the fielding of a special operations-specific version of the MV-75 and the future of the MH-60M.

“There will not be a one-for-one swap for MH-60M and MV-75. Don’t ask me what that exact number will be,” Dr. Steven Smith, head of SOCOM’s PEO-RW, also said at the roundtable yesterday. “We’re still going to need analysis to determine what that will be, but it will not be a one-for-one swap. We recognize that the M-60s will be required for the crisis response mission.”

As an aside, the 160th’s MH-60Ms, including examples in the DAP configuration, were a key element of Operation Absolute Resolve to capture Nicolas Maduro, then Venezuela’s dictatorial president, in January. TWZ explored the contributions of the DAP helicopters in detail at the time.

Altogether, the MH-60M is still on track to be a central component of the Night Stalker’s fleets for years to come, whether the helicopters are re-engined in the end or not.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

This question essentially centres on the push by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem to return Formula 1 to a set of engine regulations that are pretty much the same as the era from 2010-13.

We delved into this topic extensively last week. There’s a link to that article below.

Now, as to the specific question, yes, 2013 was pretty boring, or at least the second half of it was.

The season started relatively competitively – Red Bull’s Sebastian Vettel won four of the first 10 grands prix, but Ferrari’s Fernando Alonso, Lotus’ Kimi Raikkonen and Mercedes drivers Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton all won over that period.

But a change to the specification of tyres following a series of blow-outs at the British Grand Prix led to Red Bull dominating and Vettel won the last nine races in a row to clinch a fourth consecutive world title.

The last years of the V8 era, once refuelling was banned at the end of 2009, fluctuated between intensely competitive and, er, not.

The 2010 and 2012 seasons had gripping title fights. In 2010 there were five drivers in the running until the penultimate race, and four mathematically at the last one.

That was the year Ferrari dropped the ball on strategy in Abu Dhabi and threw away the title, letting Red Bull and Vettel in to win their first title.

In 2012, there were seven different winners in the first seven races, and the title fight between Vettel and Alonso went to the final race again.

In 2011, as in 2013, Vettel and Red Bull dominated.

But there were a lot more factors involved in those scenarios than just engines. Tyres, for one. The relative competitiveness of the cars for another.

However, the naturally aspirated era – and especially the years from 1994-2009 when there was refuelling – was notorious for the lack of overtaking on track.

That has certainly increased this year with the new style of “yo-yo racing” brought about by the new hybrid engines.

There are so many issues wrapped up in this engine debate. Some of it may well be people harking back to the past, one they felt was more attractive than what F1 serves up today.

But there is also a cost issue, whether the essence of F1 has been polluted, noise, the changing road-car market place and on and on.