fighter

In the latest twist in Canada’s long-running saga to field a new fighter, the country’s defense minister has said that Ottawa is “interested in learning more about” the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) next-generation fighter. GCAP is currently a trinational effort, led by the United Kingdom and involving Italy and Japan. Its centerpiece is the Tempest crewed fighter. A demonstrator for this jet is currently taking shape with BAE Systems in the United Kingdom.

David McGuinty, the Minister of National Defense of Canada, made the remarks after a meeting in Tokyo with his Japanese counterpart, Shinjiro Koizumi. Breaking Defense reports that McGuinty confirmed he had spoken with Koizumi about the GCAP, which the Canadian official described as a “promising initiative.”

“We are interested in learning more about it. I’ll take it back to my team and see what it looks ‌like,” McGuinty told Reuters.

Until now, no senior Canadian official appears to have spoken publicly about interest in GCAP. However, the development comes as Ottawa weighs up the option of a split fighter buy, which would involve acquiring the U.S.-made F-35 and one other type. This thinking has been driven by a growing rift between Ottawa and Washington.

However, the possibility of Canada coming on board GCAP as an ‘observer’ had been raised in March of this year. According to The Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese daily newspaper, unnamed Japanese officials disclosed that, during a previous meeting, McGuinty and Koizumi discussed such an arrangement.

Canada’s joining GCAP with observer status would provide it access to information on the program and could be a stepping-stone to deeper involvement.

Earlier this week, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto raised the possibility of other nations joining GCAP, noting that, were that to happen, “we would be completely willing, because the more there are, the greater the chances of creating something and bringing down costs.”

Crosetto then identified Canada as “the country most interested [in GCAP] at the moment.” He said he would be “fully open” to Canada joining as an observer.

For Canada, however, GCAP would require a rethink of Canada’s potential pursuit of a split-buy approach to its new fighter.

Until now, the Saab Gripen E had been identified as the most likely candidate to be bought alongside the F-35.

Sweden has made a strong push to sell Gripen to Ottawa, and Saab offered to build the jet in Canada, in an effort to secure support for its previous bid, which it lost to Lockheed Martin. Since then, Saab has also emerged as the preferred candidate to supply Canada with its future airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) via its GlobalEye.

In April of this year, McGuinty confirmed that Ottawa was still reviewing its earlier plan to buy 88 F-35s.

“The review of the purchase of the F-35s is continuing… We are taking the necessary time to study very, very closely the question of the fighter fleet,” McGuinty told the Senate’s defense committee.

The split-buy option emerged since Canada has already made a firm commitment to buy 16 F-35As to start replacing its aging CF-18 Hornets. Canada’s industry also has a significant degree of involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Canada currently has around 75 CF-18A/B+ jets and has also added 18 upgraded former Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F/A-18A/Bs, plus seven more as spares, to help bolster its fleet.

Of Canada’s first 16 F-35s, four have already been paid for in full, while parts for eight others have also been purchased. The first Canadian F-35s were expected to be delivered for training at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, in 2026.

Back in 2023, Canada’s Liberal government announced plans to buy 88 F-35s, a decision that appeared to bring closure to what had already been a very protracted process. You can read about this here.

However, amid growing trade tensions and a war of words with the United States, Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney launched a review of the F-35 program shortly after taking office in the spring of 2025.

There are other arguments for a split buy, too. Back in 2019, the cost of buying the planned 88 F-35s was put at $19 billion. Now it has rocketed to $27.7 billion, not including weapons and infrastructure.

Bill Blair, who was Canada’s defense minister when the review of the F-35 buy was launched last year, pointed to the advantages of a mixed fleet, saying it would give the RCAF more options to handle different types of threats.

“What happens if you have to persist in that space for months and months and years? The tool that you use, is it the right tool to do that job?” Blair said. “We need to have a whole wide range of capability sets to deal with all the eventualities that we could face.”

Were Canada to procure the Tempest, it would surely have to wait longer than 2035 — the prospect of GCAP’s fighter entering service at this date, as planned, is highly unlikely. Canada would be fourth in line behind the three core partners. Ottawa would need to buy more F-35s, perhaps around two thirds of its original intended number, or around 60 aircraft, and also keep the best of its CF-18s in service for longer, if that’s even possible. The Hornets are getting very old and disappearing from service abroad. Supporting them will become increasingly problematic. When the Tempest finally arrived, it would provide a flipped high-low fighter mix. This is essentially the same approach that the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan — all current F-35 operators — are taking.

However, the Tempest does appear to be especially well-suited to Canada’s fighter requirement.

The design of the jet will stress extreme range and a large payload — roughly twice that of the F-35A. Senior GCAP officials have said the jet could potentially carry enough internal fuel to fly across the Atlantic without refueling.

While these attributes are optimized for a future conflict in the Indo-Pacific region, they are equally applicable to dealing with the ‘tyranny of distance’ and the increasing Russian threat posed around Canada’s enormous land mass, which extends far into the highly strategic Arctic region.

“Both China and Russia have fifth-generation fighter aircraft and fifth-generation missiles that are able to go at much greater speeds and with much more that are holding Western allies at risk at this moment in time,” the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), Lt. Gen. Jamie Speiser-Blanchet, said in the past.

Plans to arm the Tempest with larger air-to-air missiles offering a longer range than those currently used by any of the three GCAP partner countries have also been revealed, as you can read about here.

If Canada decides it wants a sixth-generation combat aircraft to tackle current and emerging threats from China and Russia, the GCAP might be the only realistic choice. The rival pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) has collapsed, and there is little chance of Canada getting its hand on the Boeing F-47.

But any kind of split buy “would duplicate a certain amount of infrastructure and training,” Speiser-Blanchet admitted.

In some cases, however, there could be cost-benefit arguments in having a mixed fighter fleet, as well as the important factor of not relying entirely upon one source of this type of combat equipment.

There is also the question of how feasible it would be for Canada to join GCAP at this point, at least in terms of industrial participation and steering requirements. The latter point seems next to impossible, with national requirements already set, and most of the workshare agreement has also been divided up between the three partners.

The same applies to India, which has also looked at joining GCAP in the past.

There has been talk of Saudi Arabia possibly joining GCAP in some capacity, and, more recently, Poland has been reported as being interested in buying the aircraft, too.

With that in mind, Canada’s best shot might be to buy the jet ‘off the shelf,’ rather than hope for industrial windfalls.

At the same time, Canada and the United Kingdom are partners on some other key military programs, including the Royal Canadian Navy’s future River class Canadian Surface Combatants, derived from BAE Systems’ Type 26 design for the U.K. Royal Navy. 

Meet The River-Class Destroyer – State-of-the-art WARSHIP!

Returning to the Tempest, the broader GCAP program still has to survive considerable challenges, both technical and political, that lie ahead.

As we have explained many times in the past, the process of creating an all-new fighter, especially one incorporating stealth technologies, brings very lengthy development times and high costs.

At this point, BAE Systems is in the process of building a demonstrator as part of the GCAP program, with a first flight planned by the end of 2027.

The latest rendering of that demonstrator appears at the top of the story. Notably, it retains the Typhoon’s EJ200 turbofan engines, with non-stealthy nozzles. The Tempest will have an all-new powerplant.

As we have argued in the past, the more time that passes, and the more deeply intertwined with the F-35 Canada becomes, the arguments in favor of a split fighter buy become harder to justify. Buying the Tempest would certainly not be the cheapest option, and would force a rethink of timelines, but it does underscore the fact that Canadian officials are casting their net wider, looking at very high-end capabilities, and seeking to build deeper strategic relationships outside of the United States.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The Turkish Air Force looks set to receive a major boost to its fighter fleet, with the delivery of dozens of F110 engines required to power the homegrown TF Kaan combat jet. This would be one of the most significant positive developments in U.S.-Turkish defense relations since Turkey was ejected from the F-35 program in 2019, and may even pave the way for Ankara to rejoin that effort.

Citing four sources familiar with the matter, Reuters reports that President Donald Trump’s administration plans to go ahead with the engine sale, said to be worth more than $700 million, despite some resistance from Congress.

Ahead of his July trip to a NATO summit in Turkey, Trump was asked by a reporter whether Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan would be provided with a “big gift” in the form of F110 engines and potentially F-35 fighter jets.

“He’s a member of NATO,” Trump replied. “He really is a strong member of NATO. Yeah, I’m going to probably do something that’s going to make him very happy.”

Speaking alongside Trump, Vice President JD Vance said a review was underway to see if Turkey could receive the F-35.

“Pete and the entire team are reviewing this right now, because there are certain things that we have to certify have happened … in order to comply with American law,” Vance ⁠said, referring ​to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

The question of whether Turkey might receive F-35s has long been a fraught one, with Ankara kicked out of the program back in 2019, a development we will return to later.

For now, however, Turkey’s priority seems to be securing F110 engines.

Turkey’s TF Kaan next-generation fighter is a flagship program of the country’s burgeoning aerospace industry. The program was launched in 2010, and the first prototype took to the air in early 2024.

Reportedly, Turkey plans to complete three pre-production prototypes, to be followed by 250 series-production aircraft, incorporating various refinements.

Last month, a contract was reportedly signed for 20 examples of the initial Block 10 versions of the Kaan.

The twin-engine Kaan was developed with a reduced radar signature in mind, as well as a high level of performance and modern avionics and other systems. As a result, it doesn’t offer the same level of low observability as the F-35, while its sensor fusion, electronic warfare capabilities, and other ‘fifth-generation’ features lag behind the U.S.-designed jet.

Critically, the Kaan is powered by U.S.-supplied General Electric F110 turbofans.

F110s are assembled under license in Turkey by TUSAS Engine Industries (TEI) but are still governed by U.S. export restrictions. These engines are already used in significant numbers by the Turkish Air Force F-16 fleet, the third-largest in the world. Outside of the F-16, the F110 is also used in the F-15E Strike Eagle and F-15EX Eagle II, among other F-15 variants. An F110 comes with a typical flyaway unit cost of $10 to $15 million.

The Kaan program has long been overshadowed by the question of whether Washington will make available in larger numbers the F110 turbofans used in the prototype. Reportedly, an initial batch of 80 engines is required.

While Turkish officials have expressed hope of ultimately switching to a domestically produced engine type for the Kaan, TEI’s TF35000, it’s unclear how realistic this is, at least in the near term. Turkey has also looked at acquiring alternative engines, too, including those from Russia or Rolls-Royce in the United Kingdom.

In the meantime, the importance of the Kaan to the Turkish Air Force increased significantly in 2019, when it became clear that Ankara would be kicked out of the F-35 program, in which it had a considerable industrial stake, and a plan to buy around 100 of the fighters. Washington took that decision after Turkey refused to abandon its purchase of Russian-made S-400 long-range air defense systems.

As well as the S-400, U.S. lawmakers were unhappy with Turkey’s worsening relations with Greece, its other connections with Russia and Azerbaijan (which included the deployment of F-16s to the latter country), its conduct in the Syrian civil war, and human rights abuses. Turkey’s opposition to Sweden joining NATO also proved to be a significant hurdle.

In the wake of all this, the chances of Turkey receiving F110 engines were dramatically reduced. At the same time, Turkey’s request to buy additional F-16 fighters was also turned down. Turkey reportedly also began stockpiling spare parts for its F-16 back in 2019, fearing the effects of U.S. sanctions.

Toward the end of the Biden administration, U.S.-Turkish relations began to improve, and Washington moved to push through sales of new F-16s and upgrade kits for older jets to Turkey. There also began to be suggestions that the F-35 was potentially back on the table for Turkey.

Under the Trump administration, Washington’s relationship with Ankara has become closer, with Erdogan frequently praised by the U.S. leader.

In early 2024, the U.S. State Department finally approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to Turkey of 40 new F-16C/D Block 70 fighters, plus the upgrade of 79 existing aircraft to F-16V configuration.

At the same time, the issue surrounding the S-400 and the sanctions that followed that acquisition remains.

As it stands, U.S. law does not permit Turkey to operate or possess the S-400 system if it wishes to rejoin the F-35 program, as a result of security concerns around the Russian-made system.

During a visit to Turkey in early 2024, the U.S. Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland reportedly suggested that the United States might be willing to offer Patriot air defense systems if it were to give up its S-400s, which could also clear the way to re-entering the F-35 program.

“Frankly, if we can resolve this S-400 issue, which we want to do, the United States would be pleased to welcome Turkey back into the F-35 family,” Nuland said. “But we must solve this other issue first, and while we solve it, we must also ensure that Turkey has a strong air defense.”

The apparent decision to clear the F110 sale certainly represents a further softening of Washington’s stance, and it could be a stepping-stone to Ankara eventually being readmitted to the F-35 program.

Turkey’s desire for F-35s has only been intensified by the fact that Greece, its major strategic rival, has been approved for a purchase of the jets. You can read all about how tensions between Greece and Turkey are reflected in the countries’ respective air forces in this previous feature.

Even regarding the F110 transfer, some opposition to defense sales to Turkey remains in Washington.

In particular, Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the leading Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, has reportedly stood in the way of the engine sale during an informal review process.

However, according to the four sources who spoke to Reuters, the F110 deal should be “finalized in the coming days, followed by a formal notification from the State Department to Congress.”

While lawmakers can use the congressional review process to raise their concerns over big-ticket defense exports, the administration can override these.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration is expected to override Meeks’ effort to block the engine deal.

For the Kaan program, the F110 is vital.

Denied the F-35 and with F-16 deals moving forward only slowly, Turkey has been forced to look elsewhere to meet its short-term fighter needs. Most significantly, it signed a deal for 20 Eurofighter Typhoon jets last October.

Turkey has also been investing heavily in drones, including the ANKA-3, a low-observable flying wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV), and the fighter-like Bayraktar Kizilelma. Still, these are viewed as adjuncts to advanced crewed fighters, like the Kaan.

Whether securing the F110 engines means the Kaan meets its target of service entry around the 2030 timeframe remains questionable.

However, it is a major step in that direction.

As well as being fielded by the Turkish Air Force, the Kaan could have significant potential for export, although sales would be governed by U.S. restrictions on its engines. It is one of a number of medium-weight fighters that feature low-observable characteristics and advanced avionics. These include China’s FC-31 and South Korea’s KF-21.

Reportedly, Indonesia already signed a contract for 48 Kaan fighters last June.

Perhaps most importantly, the F110 deal would get back on track what is very much the flagship of Turkey’s military aerospace industry. At the same time, a U.S. decision to provide Ankara with these engines will also be welcomed by those in Turkey who still wish for a way back into the F-35 program.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Turkey’s Baykar and Leonardo of Italy say they have successfully completed the first live trials of their K-SWARM concept, demonstrating collaborative operations between crewed and uncrewed aircraft as part of an effort to develop next-generation autonomous air combat capabilities. The trials, involving Baykar’s Kizilelma uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV) and Leonardo’s M-346 light fighter-trainer aircraft, are the latest to explore what is fast becoming a key element in the evolution of air combat.

Leonardo and Baykar announced the development today. The trials took place last month at Baykar’s flight and test center in Çorlu, Turkey, and involved a Leonardo-owned M-346 Fighter Attack variant and a Kizilelma UCAV. An Italian Air Force T-346A, the trainer version of the M-346, was on hand as chase aircraft.

During the flight-test campaign, the Kizilelma completed its taxi and takeoff autonomously. It then autonomously joined the M-346 in formation. At this point, the two-person crew in the jet assumed full control of the Kizilelma.

The Kizilelma used so-called Smart Fleet Autonomy algorithms developed by Baykar’s Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) Laboratory for the trials.

Once ‘handed over’ to the M-346, the pilots in the jet made use of a newly developed and fully integrated avionics suite to command different formations. Via a crewed/uncrewed computing system, the Kizilelma performed different maneuvers and formations, including position changes, separations and rejoins. These were executed autonomously by the drone, with the M-346 pilots only responsible for providing the initial commands.

What was described as an advanced radio-frequency data exchange system was used to share all data between the platforms.

The Kizilelma/M-346 trials in Çorlu were the first live phase of Leonardo and Baykar’s K-SWARM program, which focuses on developing interoperability between crewed and uncrewed aircraft. The companies refer to this as crewed/uncrewed teaming (CUC-T), but it’s also referred to by other names, including manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T), or collaborative combat teaming.

TWZ was provided the opportunity to experience the M-346FA firsthand during a visit and demonstration flight at the Beech Factory Airport in Wichita, Kansas:

We Fly Aboard The M-346 That Could Become The Navy’s Next Jet Trainer

Whatever the term, the ambition is similar: to have future fighter pilots go into battle accompanied by drones under their control, ready to fire weapons, gather intelligence, jam communications, or serve as decoys.

Baykar and Leonardo helped accelerate the start of these crewed/uncrewed teaming trials by first running simulated missions, including using an M-346 full-mission simulator in Venegono, Italy, and the Leonardo product capability and concept laboratory, or PC2LAB, in Turin. This meant that algorithms, as well as tactics and procedures, could be tested in the virtual realm first.

The Kizilelma’s rapid rise to prominence as a fighter-like UCAV has been notable, and there have been some impressive milestones along the way.

In general, the Kizilelma is one of only a few fighter-type air combat drone projects to have resulted in hardware. The development of the Kizilelma began as long ago as 2013, although the project was only revealed to the public in July 2021, when conceptual studies were presented. 

Kizilelma was flown first — very briefly — in December 2022, as you can read about here. That milestone came only weeks after the Kizilelma’s emergence for ground testing.

The UCAV is claimed to be supersonic (at least in later versions), have a degree of reduced-observable characteristics, and be tailored for the kinds of air combat missions typically undertaken by crewed fighter jets. In particular, it is eyed as being a drone companion to Turkey’s next-generation TF Kaan crewed fighter. In its definitive form, the drone is powered by a single Ukrainian-made Ivchenko-Progress AI-322F turbofan delivering close to 10,000 pounds of thrust with afterburner.

Late last year, Turkey announced that the Kizilelma used a Turkish-made Gökdoğan air-to-air missile to destroy a target drone, marking the first occasion a UCAV had launched a radar-guided air-to-air missile. Days later, Boeing followed up the feat when its MQ-28A Ghost Bat drone launched an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) in southern Australia.

Bayraktar #KIZILELMA | GÖKDOĞAN Füzesi Atış Testi

A next set of K-SWARM tests is planned for the coming months, with more complexity and additional functions. The companies say these will require greater levels of situational awareness and assets working together ‘as one’ toward mission objectives. Further details, including how enhanced situational awareness will be achieved, were not disclosed, but it should be noted that the Kizilelma has already been tested with a Toygun electro-optical sensor and targeting system, as well as an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

Ultimately, however, the K-SWARM program aims to harness AI technology to enable uncrewed systems to incrementally shift from remote piloting to autonomy, suggesting that, in future trials, the Kizilelma will autonomously conduct more complex missions and maneuvers on the command of the M-346 pilots. At all times, those human pilots will maintain full control and decision-making, the companies say.

A UCAV operating under the control of a crewed tactical jet represents a major milestone for Turkey, placing it among a very small group of countries pursuing this advanced capability. Publicly, such crewed-uncrewed teaming has largely been confined to experimental efforts in the United States and China. We meanwhile know a lot about what the United States has been doing in the “white world” in this regard, and it is now only accelerating its CCA efforts, while it is clear that China has also prioritized it.

Russia has also reportedly flight-tested its S-70 Okhotnik UCAV with a crewed Su-57 Felon fighter, but there is no confirmation about the degree of collaboration achieved. Last year, meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force demonstrated an MQ-20 Avenger drone being controlled by a pilot in an F-22 Raptor, during a mock mission.

Given the current surge in interest in collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs), the joint trials by Baykar and Leonardo also appear especially well-timed.

To take just one European country, Germany currently has a stated requirement for an operational CCA to be fielded before the end of this decade. While the Kizilelma might not necessarily be in the running for that, the AI technology that it is now demonstrating could be of considerable interest to a variety of export customers.

Meanwhile, the Kizilelma, like other Turkish defense products, comes with the advantage of being free from the restrictions imposed by the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) guidelines. ITAR serves to limit the transfer of defense and military technologies and services — especially the more sensitive ones — to certain countries. Already, Turkey has leveraged its drone developments to secure major arms sales to a variety of countries for which these kinds of capabilities would otherwise be out of reach — in both technological and political terms.

The opportunity for Turkey to offer for export the Kizilelma in concert with the high-end TF Kaan, or the lower-end Hürjet light combat aircraft, would put it in a unique position, at least in Europe. The same platforms could also be supplied with integrated weapons options, providing another significant advantage.

As for Leonardo, the M-346 has recorded some notable sales, with the combat-optimized Fighter Attack version also gaining increasing traction. Meanwhile, through its stake in Eurofighter, the Italian firm may well be looking forward to offering these ‘drone commander’ capabilities to the multirole fighter. As we have discussed only recently, the collapse of the pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) effort means that CCA capabilities are even more in the spotlight, including efforts to team UCAVs with advanced fourth-generation platforms like the Eurofighter Typhoon.

For Baykar and Leonardo, demonstrating that the Kizilelma can be commanded from an M-346 is an important achievement, but scaling that capability to different aircraft, larger formations, and increasingly autonomous mission execution will ultimately determine whether K-SWARM becomes an operational capability rather than simply a technology demonstrator. It should also be remembered that while the autonomy engine and AI agent are critical parts of an effective fighter-CCA teaming concept, it is unclear how developed these technologies are in the K-SWARM experiments. After all, just controlling the UCAV is one thing, but having the drone do much of the thinking while the pilot gives approvals and basic directions is the key. The companies have also proposed developing these technologies further to achieve ‘swarming,’ which presents an even greater challenge in this context.

However, with demand for affordable force multipliers continuing to grow and air forces looking for ways to increase combat mass without buying ever more expensive crewed fighters, a UCAV that can combine with a crewed combat aircraft further demonstrates the rapid pace of advances in Turkey’s burgeoning drone capabilities.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Well, that just happened.

The president held a cage fight on the White House South Lawn, complete with flyovers, fireworks, mini-skirted “octagon girls” and the surrealistic sight of mixed martial arts fighters striding through historic White House rooms flanked by National Medal of Honor winners.

Despite wide public disapproval for Sunday’s event and much scathing commentary about the political and psychological messaging of Donald Trump’s choice of a Vegas-like spectacle to celebrate his 80th birthday, and the country’s 250th, the sky did not fall, the original Constitution in the nearby National Archives did not tear in two and none of the fighters passed out from the heat or bug bites.

Things didn’t even get bloody until the final match in the fifth hour, when Justin Gaethje kicked and punched the crap out of widely favored Ilia Topuria.

Even so, it was impossible to emerge from watching UFC Freedom 250 without feeling punch-drunk.

Not because of the fighting; because of almost everything that was not the fighting.

Beginning with Paramount+, owned by the Trump-friendly Ellison family’s Paramount Skydance, which recently received Justice Department clearance for its highly controversial acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

The jarring sight of past UFC matches being seemingly projected onto the Jefferson Memorial and the Capitol gave way to a series of poorly produced “historical” moments in which UFC fighters were cast as inheriting the same “fighting spirit” that motivated this nation’s Founding Fathers, past presidents and war veterans. Down to the inevitable strains of the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.” (the baffling anthem of MAGA), the event projected a macho-man view of patriotism that was just as ghastly as many feared it would be.

UFC fighters are indeed dedicated and talented athletes who have overcome all manner of personal obstacles. But to compare them with Thomas Jefferson or American soldiers storming the beaches of Normandy is absurd and more than a little insulting.

The tens of thousands of UFC and Trump fans who gathered on the South Lawn and the Ellipse, however, were clearly having a very good time. Proceedings were delayed an hour by the threat of storms, but the weather cooperated in the end. “The President’s Own” United States Marine Band, and in particular, soloist Staff Sgt. Hannah Davis, gave masterful performances throughout. And while the Claw, the 600-ton steel structure arching above the Octagon, certainly looked like the first stage of an alien attack during the day, it put on a pretty terrific (if more than a little Vegasy) light show at night.

For those watching from home, however, these bright spots were glimpsed and heard infrequently, drowned out by the endless hyperbolic intonations of commentators (including Joe Rogan, who initially criticized the event), the long and invariably self-aggrandizing introductions of the various participants and the onslaught of frequently militaristic commercials, more than a few of which, included ads for Ram, featured UFC President and Chief Executive Dana White.

Which isn’t surprising when you think about it. White’s longtime support for the president culminated in his organization covering the event’s $60 million in production costs, and from the moment a smiling White joined Trump as he made his way through the White House to the front row, the event served as an almost-six-hour ad for the UFC.

Though I am not a UFC fan, I realize that showmanship is key to the sport’s wild and increasingly broad popularity. Championship matches, which rarely last longer than 30 minutes and sometimes much less, are inevitably preceded by hours of participants making all manner of florid claims and trash-talking their opponents. (Which may explain Trump’s fondness for the UFC.)

But when all of this strutting, preening and wild-eyed reaction revolves around what was, for better and worse, a series of rules-free brawls being force-fed into a narrative about this country’s enduring strength, what emerges is not so much a sporting event as it is a piece of naked and nationalistic propaganda.

Which came to a head in the final fight. After the six previous matches concluded rather quickly with bloodless knockouts (a UFC record), the fight between American Gaethje and the German-born, Georgia and Spain-representing Topuria lasted much longer. Gaethje, introduced as “the most violent man in the most violent sport,” left the lightweight champion’s face such a mess that even Rogan was shocked.

By all metrics, including Topuria’s refusal to go down, it was the best fight of the night. But hearing the crowd chant “USA, USA” as the bloody blows fell … well, let’s just say it was not everyone’s notion of a presidential birthday celebration.

Some have suggested that Trump staged the event in the hope of regaining the support of young men who helped him win the last election. Even if that was not the case, it was difficult to view UFC Freedom 250 in any way nonpartisan (especially after British former heavyweight champion Tyson Fury strode out of the White House wearing a “Trump for Prime Minister” hat).

Yes, several of the six non-American participants entered to Spanish or Portuguese songs (why so much fuss then about Bad Bunny at the Super Bowl?) but some of the winners are longtime MAGA supporters and made that very clear — Bo Nickal thanked Trump for being the only one “to have the balls” to stage such an event while Josh Hokit followed up his thanks to “my lord and savior Jesus Christ” with “Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?”

Because it was Trump’s birthday after all.

In a significant development for Europe’s future air combat ambitions, Airbus is trying to restart the program to develop a sixth-generation combat jet, now under German and Spanish leadership. This comes less than a week after the Franco-German-led New Generation Fighter (NGF) effort effectively collapsed in its original form, amid acrimony between Paris and Berlin. The NGF was planned as the crewed centerpiece of the pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS), which Airbus, as the leading European aerospace corporation, now hopes to get back on track.

Airbus’s Defense and Space unit launched the ‘Team Gen 6’ initiative today with a message on X, declaring that it was “an exciting step for European sovereignty.” So far, eight German defense and aerospace contractors have signed a strategic positioning paper as part of the effort. Those firms are Autoflug, Diehl Defense, Hensoldt, Liebherr, MBDA Germany, MTU Aero Engines, and Rohde and Schwarz.

Reflecting the German-Spanish nature of the new program, those companies are now “closely integrated” with firms from Spain, comprising GMV, Grupo Oesia, Indra, ITP Aero, and Sener.

“While the development of the overarching [FCAS] ‘system of systems’ is progressing as before, the sixth-generation fighter aircraft integrated within it requires a new, agile industrial setup,” Airbus said.

“As Team Gen 6, we have the capabilities and the capacities. Now, we are looking for close alignment with policymakers and the air force[s] to drive forward a superior European air combat system for collective security,” the X post stated.

Airbus also presented a video showing a notional concept aircraft flying with multiple uncrewed platforms. While not too much (as in not much at all) should be read into this, the crewed aircraft features canard foreplanes, a chin intake, and an unusual cranked wing.

Speaking just ahead of the announcement, at the ILA Berlin airshow today, where TWZ was in attendance, Jean-Brice Dumont, head of air power at Airbus Defense and Space, said the company remains committed to delivering a sixth-generation combat jet. “There is a need for a bit of a reshaping and reconsidering the reality of today,” Dumont added.

Dumont explained that the now-abandoned NGF was one of seven separate “pillars” of technology development being worked on under FCAS. As well as the crewed jet, pillars include powerplant, remote carrier vehicles, precision-guided weapons, and data connectivity.

“We have to consider safeguarding areas where it works, and how we reshape,” he added. “At the moment, we are going to seek guidance from our governments [on] what they want us to do. There has to be demonstrated an industrial feasibility of what is being asked — not only technical. That’s probably a lesson now,” Dumont added.

Dumont continued: “The world in 2026 is very different to the world of 2017 when the [FCAS] programme was launched. We have to accept that fact and reshape it — we need another way to get to the same goal, with faster milestones.”

“The problem we had is that we had drawn a line to 2040, and new technologies for everything,” Dumont added, referring to the goal of having the FCAS, including the NGF, in service by that date. “Today, you see demonstrations of connectivity, systems of systems and unmanned vehicles all around the world. The need is there, and in the countries that we are competing with, they are using it already.”

According to Dumont, the company has “put a number of options on the desk of our ministers and ministries of defense,” and is now awaiting further guidance from officials.

As the centerpiece of FCAS, in its original form, the NGF element was the most high-profile and challenging component of the project. However, it had long been dogged by disagreements over industrial workshare and leadership between Airbus and Dassault Aviation, which were the prime contractors for Germany and Spain, and France, respectively.

Dassault had demanded that it play the defining role in NGF, reflecting key requirements for the jet driven by the French Armed Forces. These included the ability to operate from aircraft carriers, and provision to deliver nuclear weapons. Germany or Spain needed neither of these functions.

Despite the disagreements that derailed NGF, Dumont argued that there had still been useful lessons learned from the FCAS program.

“What Phase 1A and 1B [of the program] have given is a very thorough analysis of the repartition of the work between the crewed and uncrewed platforms, and this remains. That kind of shapes what the manned aircraft will have to do.”

As an example of this work, Dumont pointed to ongoing work that will involve trials of a Eurofighter operating as a “command fighter” — a crewed jet that can operate in collaboration with drones, or what Airbus now refers to as uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft (UCCAs). The tests will see a Eurofighter fitted with a Rafael Litening 5 targeting pod modified to serve as the interface between the crewed jet and UCCAs. This should pave the way toward an in-service command fighter capability being introduced to the Eurofighter, something that will be incorporated in the sixth-generation combat jet from the outset.

Initial trials will involve a Learjet test configured as a surrogate command fighter and flying with drones in an “enhanced teaming” mode. Airbus hopes to have the command fighter-configured Eurofighter ready for operational service in 2029.

“The demand from the customers is: be ready early,” Dumont explained. “This is not a contradiction to the Future Combat Air System challenge — it is the need to have our platforms evolved earlier than we had traditionally planned.”

The termination of NGF and the launch of Team Gen 6 leaves plenty of questions over the future of Europe’s air combat landscape.

TWZ spoke to Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) research institute in London, for his take on what might happen next.

On the matter of Germany and Spain now teaming up under the Airbus umbrella, Barrie said that the relationship makes a lot of sense, but its success is far from certain. On the one hand, the two countries already work together within Airbus, and both Germany and Spain are seeking a replacement for their Eurofighter fleets.

“In terms of Team Gen 6, I do wonder if there’s an element of trying to kind of scramble to recover something from the wreckage of NGF, as it were, that the collapse of NGF doesn’t signal the end of Spanish industrial interest in next-gen combat aircraft development,” Barrie said. “But if somebody asked me, do I think between Germany and Spain, they can put together a credible program if nobody else is involved? I think that the numbers would be very difficult to stack up.”

Putting the German and Spanish future fighter requirements together, the two countries might, at best, need to build 300 new combat jets, with a figure of 250 more likely, Barrie contended. Team Gen 6 would then face a real struggle to break even.

This reality will, Barrie believes, force Germany and Spain to look for other partners, which will likely come down to a choice between the British-led Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) and the Swedish next-generation combat aircraft program, led by Saab. Of these, GCAP has the Tempest crewed fighter as its centerpiece, and also involves Italy and Japan. Sweden’s crewed fighter requirements are less clear at this point.

Building a role for Airbus in GCAP would be difficult at this point. With the industrial architecture already in place, bringing not one, but two more partners into that program would be disruptive, particularly in terms of timeline. Already, the Japanese in particular are concerned about the pace of the program, especially since the United Kingdom has not yet fully committed to it in terms of funding.

“My own view is that the United Kingdom remains committed to the program, but there are financial pressures elsewhere,” Barrie noted. “I think that the more likely outcome in all of this is a kind of German, Spanish, Swedish tie-up. The kind of requirements in some ways are aligned a bit better.”

This extends to the size of the aircraft, Barrie observed.

“The kind of aircraft that the Swedes seem to be thinking about, the crewed element is probably more of a bigger Gripen E/F, heading towards Typhoon, in terms of size. This is more in keeping with what the Germans and the Spanish seem to be looking for. Obviously, the United Kingdom and Japan, in particular, need something with longer legs and bigger internal payload, hence GCAP.”

“GCAP will be highly capable,” Barrie continued. “That will come with a unit cost to go with it. Maybe what the Swedes, the Germans, and the Spanish might do will be cheaper.”

Provided a German, Spanish, Swedish teaming arrangement could work, the resulting combat jet could still enter a space where it would face competition for important export orders from France, which looks set to continue the development of the Rafale, especially now that NGF has collapsed. Further competition could be provided by South Korea with further developments of its KF-21 and Turkey with the TF Kaan, although these are notably less-ambitious fifth-generation designs.

The Tempest, as currently envisaged, with its very different set of requirements, would not necessarily be a direct competitor to Team Gen 6, Barrie argued, since it would be a closer match to the F-47 in terms of size, capabilities, and cost. While the potential size of this market would be more limited, probably U.S. reluctance to export the F-47 would play in the Tempest’s favor.

As to the possibility of the United States offering a ‘watered-down’ export model of the F-47, Barrie considers this unlikely to generate much interest.

“Yeah, you can have a downgraded version of my super airplane — as a kind of marketing slug that hardly sells, does it?” Barrie continued. “Even if it’s 10 percent less capable, even if it’s 10 percent less expensive, it’s still a likely unit cost of $250 million or more, which is eye-watering.”

This leaves us with the French, and what they might be able to recover from NGF.

If France goes it alone with a sixth-generation combat jet, Dassault will likely be strongly backed by the French government, and the company has traditionally punched well above its weight.

In the medium term, Dassault has a healthy backlog of orders for the Rafale and is very much at the right end of the cost curve. Barrie considers that the Rafale will remain a profitable airplane for the foreseeable future, but at some point, France will need to think about a successor based on an all-new airframe. Industrially, France has the capability to go alone with this, but they would likely look to a partner or partners to come on board. The likelihood of those partners coming from Europe has now been reduced, but other possibilities might be found in the Gulf states.

Then there is the question of India, which may still buy more Rafales but which, in the fullness of time, is likely to look for a new-generation fighter, and could be a potential partner for France.

“I don’t see the Indians ever being fully committed to only one country,” Barrie continued. India has already hinted that it might want to try and join the pan-European FCAS or GCAP. Meanwhile, Russia has been a long-term military partner for India, and Barrie thinks that the recent appearance of a two-seat version of the Su-57 Felon may well indicate another effort to sell that fighter to India.

Were India to continue its pattern of buying Russian combat aircraft, that would give any potential European partner serious pause for thought, based on the security implications. Meanwhile, India also remains committed to developing its own next-generation fighter.

What the NGF debacle has demonstrated is that any potential partner with France on its next-generation combat aircraft program will likely have to be happy taking a junior role, with Dassault calling the shots.

The collapse of the New Generation Fighter could well be a pivotal moment for European defense cooperation, but it does not signal the end of Europe’s sixth-generation combat aircraft ambitions.

Airbus’s Team Gen 6 announcement marks the start of a German-Spanish-led industrial approach that its backers hope will be more agile and less contested than its Franco-German-led predecessor. However, significant political, financial, and industrial challenges remain, including the search for a reliable partner, or partners. As with NGF, the success of Team Gen 6 will ultimately depend on whether European governments can align their strategic priorities and industrial interests to deliver a sovereign future air combat capability.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

WASHINGTON — One by one, the burly mixed martial arts fighters made their entrance past the solemn, hulking marble statue of America’s 16th president and jogged down the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to roars from thousands of fans drawn to the unusual sporting weekend marking the nation’s 250th anniversary and President Trump’s 80th birthday.

The news conference Friday night featured the fighters who are preparing to face off Sunday in the Octagon built outside the White House. But it was also a chance to see the UFC fans who have thronged to Washington and endured lightning, humidity and bugs.

Tracy Philbeck and his son Levi drove from Charlotte, N.C., with a group of friends to support their favorite fighter, American Justin Gaethje, in the upcoming lightweight title bout against Georgian Ilia Topuria.

“You will hear an eagle screaming when Justin Gaethje wins,” the elder Philbeck said with a chuckle.

David Halstead journeyed from Albany, Australia, to watch the sport he has loved for a decade. Halstead said Trump, who regularly attends the fights, “put UFC on the map.”

The UFC has said it spent $60 million on this weekend’s festivities, and the president has billed his birthday fete as “the greatest show on Earth.”

Not everyone agrees.

The Public Integrity Project described the event as a “private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain” in a lawsuit the watchdog group filed to try to stop it from happening on federal land. A federal judge ruled Friday that the White House was allowed to go ahead.

About 1 in 10 U.S. adults consider themselves mixed martial arts fans, according to Ipsos Sports polling conducted in February and March. That survey suggests MMA fans tend to be male and nonwhite. They are more likely to identify as Republicans than Democrats.

“One misconception is that everyone who watches UFC is a Trump supporter, but that’s not the case,” said Ricardo Rodriguez, 24, explaining that he loves the physicality of the sport. “People also expect a knockout every time.”

Ellie Louizes, who practices Muay Thai, or Thai kickboxing, and jujitsu martial arts, drove from Daytona Beach, Fla., with her boyfriend, Jacob Purvis.

Female fans of MMA are the minority. But Louizes said she knows a lot of women who get into watching the sport through their male partners. She said “female fighters are often way more aggressive” than the men.

Fans brushed off criticism

The fans at the Lincoln Memorial brushed off criticism about the bouts being held at the White House — on federal grounds owned not by its occupant, but by the American people.

Holding fights at the “people’s house,” Tracy Philbeck said, “goes back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt.”

President Theodore Roosevelt regularly held sparring sessions at the White House, though they were not formal, public prizefights. He was an enthusiastic amateur boxer who had boxed at Harvard and continued the sport throughout much of his life.

Boxing fans also make up a large part of the UFC’s fan base.

At a UFC-sponsored community event this week at the District of Columbia’s Midtown Youth Academy, the boxing gym’s executive director was helping out with a visit from UFC fighter Randy Brown, who sparred with more than a dozen local teenagers and preteens.

Gloria Lee said meeting the fighter was a big deal for kids at her gym. “It’s just been a thrilling week, and I was about to fall out when he came in the door!” she said.

Asked about her personal UFC fandom, Lee said she had not watched it much. But by the end of Brown’s visit, she got into the ring with the professional fighter and threw some slugs of her own.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report.

The troubled pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) appears to have lurched to an undignified — but predictable — end, at least in its current form. A flurry of media reports today indicate that France and Germany, the two major partners in the program, have abandoned their program to develop a crewed New Generation Fighter (NGF) aircraft together, a conclusion supported by a French diplomat who spoke to TWZ today.

According to sources including the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has urged French President Emmanuel Macron to pull the plug on the NGF. The German newspaper cited unnamed government sources in Berlin. Reportedly, the French and German leaders concluded that the companies involved — Dassault and Airbus — have been unable to reach agreement on key aspects of the project, specifically relating to the jointly developed fighter jet.

At this stage, it is reported that Merz and Macron cannot see a future for the NGF, although it is apparently still unclear whether the French government fully shares this assessment and is prepared to accept its consequences.

At this point, it should be recalled that there are at least three separate FCAS initiatives in Europe.

As well as the pan-European version headed up by France and Germany, with Spain and Belgium as junior partners, there is a rival British-led FCAS. This has the Tempest crewed fighter as its centerpiece, involves Italy and Japan, and is now more commonly referred to as the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP). Finally, the Swedish next-generation combat aircraft program, led by Saab, is also known as FCAS.

Returning to today’s developments, French officials are reportedly surprised by what they viewed as uncoordinated messaging from Berlin. From Paris’s perspective, it is the responsibility of political leaders to provide industry with clear direction.

The French government is also said to be frustrated over what it sees as Germany’s increasing preference for national solutions, which threatens to sideline its own industrial input.

A French diplomat told TWZ: “The President of the Republic and the Federal Chancellor have held extensive and frequent discussions on ways to move forward with this important project for European defense. Both leaders expressed regret that the industrial partners have been unable to reach an agreement on the continuation of the project. The German authorities considered that it was not possible to exert further pressure on the companies involved. France remains convinced that Franco-German cooperation is essential both for our two countries and for our European partners in the fields of defence and security.”

The diplomat added: “The French authorities will continue to encourage our industries and armed forces to explore avenues for ambitious European projects that are consistent with our national security interests.”

According to reports, Macron and Merz discussed the future of FCAS last week, in the latest of several recent efforts to keep the program on track. At the same time, however, Merz had become increasingly vocal about his skepticism regarding the project’s prospects.

The FCAS program was launched back in 2017, with the primary aim of replacing France’s Rafale fleet and Germany’s Eurofighters.

FCAS was envisioned as a next-generation European combat air system entering service around 2040, spearheaded by the NGF crewed fighter. As of 2022, it was envisaged that “in-flight demonstrations” would be achieved by 2028 or 2029. 

Before long, however, the project was overshadowed by arguments over workshare agreements, and it is unclear how far the partners had got in terms of agreeing on NGF requirements and starting its design.

For a while now, there have been reports that Germany is exploring alternative paths, including the possibility of separating itself from France within the program entirely.

By February of this year, Merz was publicly raising doubts about the program’s viability, arguing that key issues had never been fully resolved during the planning phase. According to the German leader, Germany and France have fundamentally different operational requirements for a future combat aircraft.

Merz pointed to the specific French requirements that call for aircraft to be capable of carrying nuclear weapons and operating from aircraft carriers. Merz argued that Paris is seeking to shape the aircraft around French military requirements, which do not necessarily align with Germany’s needs.

“This is not primarily a political disagreement,” Merz said. “The real issue lies in the requirements profile. If we cannot reconcile those differences, the project cannot continue.”

Within France, Dassault CEO Éric Trappier recently declared the FCAS project dead if Airbus refuses to cooperate, while Macron continued to make efforts to resuscitate the program.

There are indications that Paris will still try to do its best to keep the program alive, and it remains possible that the broader FCAS architecture, or parts of it, could continue even without the NGF. FCAS has always intended to field families of drones, air-launched weapons, and potentially other aerial platforms, within an overarching ‘combat cloud.’

The German government considers that the “true essence of FCAS” should be continued as a European system of systems, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

FCAS System of Systems

Whatever happens next, the program appears to be at a crossroads, and facing its biggest existential challenge yet.

It is highly questionable whether either France or Germany (even with Spanish industrial support and finance) could develop a fighter without the other major partner.

This could open the door to a radical reshaping of European combat air programs.

There have already been suggestions at the highest military levels that the British-led and Franco-German FCAS efforts could be fused in some way. However, it seems highly unlikely that all these partners could come together with agreement. Just as questionable is whether the GCAP effort would be able to admit new major partners at this late stage.

Then there is the issue of Sweden.

Last month, we reported on Airbus having raised the possibility of teaming with Saab on the manned tactical component of FCAS. That was one of the clearest indications yet that Airbus is actively exploring post-FCAS alternatives, or, at the least, a major overhaul of the program’s structure.

Potentially, Airbus and Saab could now team up to develop a joint next-generation fighter, with their requirements likely to be more closely aligned than those of France. Germany and France also have a less urgent need for a sixth-generation combat jet, with Sweden only now introducing the Gripen E, and with Germany looking forward to receiving F-35s as well as more Eurofighters.

For France, losing its partners for NGF could be more critical, although it continues to work on advanced versions of the Rafale. In 2024, France also unveiled plans to develop a new uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV) that will complement the forthcoming Rafale F5 crewed fighter. The industrial side of the drone program will be headed up by Dassault, drawing upon its previous nEUROn UCAV demonstrator, which has already been used in trials with crewed combat aircraft.

The F5 standard of the Rafale is planned to keep the multirole combat aircraft in frontline service until around 2060. That will at least give France some time to consider what to do about a future crewed fighter.

Drones are also increasingly part of the combat-air picture in Germany, too. Delays in fielding a sixth-generation fighter could be mitigated, to a degree, by Airbus developing combat drones. Airbus and Kratos are already pitching the stealthy XQ-58A Valkyrie drone to Germany, and Airbus has also been working on a stealthy CCA-like concept of its own, known as Wingman.

In the background, the U.S.-made F-35 continues to expand its customer base in Europe. There is also the prospect that, in the future, the sixth-generation F-47 might also be offered for export in the region, although this might only be in a watered-down form.

Overall, though, the latest development is a poor reflection on Franco-German cooperation, which has singularly failed to come to agreement about what should be a flagship program, providing a cornerstone of efforts to strengthen Europe’s defense capabilities.

With the ILA Berlin airshow starting on Wednesday, this news could hardly be worse-timed. On the other hand, we may well learn more about Germany’s vision for its future combat aircraft program before the week is out.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Still, 80,000 seats is a lot to shift and in today’s environment, only the top heavyweights, plus a handful of other stars including Saul ‘Canelo’ Alvarez and Naoya Inoue can hit such heights.

For Taylor, 39, and her team to have ambitions to command such an audience is evidence of the reverence in which she is held.

After Friday’s news conference, the Bray native and team set off on a four-day promotional tour around the island of Ireland, beginning in her home town.

It may be a farewell, but a test and not a testimonial is how Taylor wants to sign off.

The opportunity to regain the WBC portion of the light-welterweight title [which was made vacant after last year’s Serrano win] and retire undisputed is the dream.

But she has no designs on getting swept up in the emotion with undefeated Frenchwoman Flora Pili standing in her way.

The Croke Park door appeared shut when an agreement could not be reached between Hearn and stadium authorities three years ago, so what has changed?

With costs to hire the stadium “twice as much as Wembley” according to the Matchroom chairman, it was difficult to see how the impasse would be broken.

For the company there is “not a whole lot financially” to be gained, but just as the rematch between Carl Froch and George Groves at Wembley Stadium in 2014 proved a big night for Matchroom, 80,000 at Croke Park can do likewise according to Hearn.

“That a female is fighting in front of 80,000 people, I think it’s the greatest moment of our [Matchroom’s] boxing history,” he said.

“We’re not going to be making much money on the night, but this is about more than that. My dad [Barry, Matchroom founder and president] might kill me, but what does it really matter what we make on a night like this?

“What we leave with is something we’ll never forget and also it’s important for the brand of our business.”

Yesterday, TWZ published an analysis of a thermal image purportedly showing a previously unseen advanced aircraft design, which appears to be a precursor to the U.S. Air Force’s forthcoming F-47 fighter from Boeing. The image, which went viral online and is from a video that has now been released, is said to have been captured near the U.S. military’s secretive Groom Lake test base, better known as Area 51. It turns out, as a number of our readers have pointed out, there may be some interesting similarities between this secret aircraft and a “Christmas tree” fighter design concept crafted decades ago by Darold Cummings, one of the top minds behind Northrop’s YF-23 Black Widow.

You can find our full initial assessment of what we may be seeing in the viral image, first posted online by the Project Fear YouTube channel earlier this week, here. What we saw initially, as shown below, appeared to feature what could be described as a “double arrowhead” profile to its forward fuselage. This is a very distinct design cue, but it could also be a result of the low quality of the image and the artifacts that come with consumer-grade thermal imagers, which was what the aircraft was recorded with.

Project Fear has now released the full video it says it captured near Area 51, seen below, and it underscores the aforementioned points about image quality. So, it is possible the aircraft has a more traditional low-observable ‘shovel nose,’ instead. Nonetheless, the Christmas tree fighter is an interesting trip down lesser-known fighter development memory lane that is worth examining, in particular what such a unique nose configuration would provide an advanced fighter aircraft.

The full clip of the mysterious aircraft passing by starts at around 49:34 in the runtime of the video below if it does not automatically start playing at that point.

​We Filmed a Top Secret Craft Flying at Area 51

In a post on LinkedIn around the end of last year, Darold Cummings shared an intriguing blueprint of a relevant-looking advanced fighter concept, along with additional details about the design and its genesis. Cummings is currently the founder and president of ForzAero, but has an extensive resume in the aviation industry dating back decades. As noted, he was a key figure at Northrop in the development of the YF-23, which ultimately lost out to what became Lockheed’s F-22 Raptor. He also led the team at Boeing that developed the X-40A Space Maneuver Vehicle, which was used as a testbed in support of work on what evolved into the X-37B reusable spaceplane. He was Chief Engineer/Chief Designer of Rockwell’s Ranger 2000 Jet Trainer, as well.

“I was hired by Bob Sandusky in 1982 to be the Chief Configurator for the Northrop ATF [Advanced Tactical Fighter] program (YF-23). In early 1983 Bob said that Northrop had tried to develop a ‘4-spike’ (like the B-2) fighter, but it couldn’t be done, since a flying wing fighter was not possible,” Cummings wrote in his post on LinkedIn. “I told him I could design one, and he said to give it a try. The only way to accomplish this was with a series of highly swept (55 degree) surfaces over the entire length of the aircraft. The result was the DP-21, created in June of 1983.”

“4-spike” here essentially refers to the total number of radar cross-section hot-spots and where they are located, each pointing in a different direction in azimuth. The fewer ‘spikes’ a low-observable (stealthy) aircraft has, the easier it is to manage its radar signature, and to make it harder to detect and lock onto, but it’s also where those spikes are located that matter.

A four-spike design like the B-2 critically has nothing from the head-on aspect, as well as from the rear, which helps immensely with survivability. These are the most critical signature areas, especially the front as the aircraft is heading into hostile territory. Also, because these are located along the path of flight, these spikes can stay consistent on a threat radar as the aircraft moves directly toward or away from the sensor, and are not fleeting in nature like those from the side. So a four spike aircraft would be very attractive for a tactical fighter meant to persist in contested territory.

“I never considered this to be a serious contender for the ATF program, as the aircraft was unstable beyond 10 degrees angle of attack!” he also noted.

“Back in 1983, the ‘Christmas Tree’ DP-21 would have been difficult to fly. However, with modern flight control systems, this design could be controlled, even at high angle of attack,” Cummings told TWZ directly today after we reached out for more information. “Low observability is always better served with long edges on the design, so the small arrow-shaped foreplane is not ideal, but it still has low RCS characteristics, just not the optimum.”

“Wing shaping is always a trade-off for maximizing LO. Most of the trades have to do with the leading edge contour, which is a large contributor to signature,” he continued. “The canard has to be designed to be ‘ported’ during penetration, as this minimizes the signature. On the YF-23, the V-Tail was ‘ported’ in penetration for the same reason. This is certainly possible with modern flight control systems.”

“Ported” in this instance refers to keeping the control surface locked in the same geometric plane as the wing while cruising.

We also asked Cummings directly whether it was possible his DP-21 concept had an influence on what is seen in the viral thermal image, assuming it is authentic. And we asked for his take on what impacts Boeing’s experimental X-36 and Bird of Prey designs may have had on the F-47, as well.

“My DP-21 aircraft image has been available publicly for quite some time, so it is possible it had some influence, but that is only speculation on my part,” he told us. “I believe the X-36 and Bird of Prey have both influenced the F-47 design. I have always been impressed by the X-36, as it seemed to be ahead of its time.”

“The Groom Lake images are truly intriguing,” he also noted. “It is a viable concept.”

“I think the main thing to remember is that NO ONE thought a 4-spike design (like the B-2) was possible, and my DP-21 was an example of how it was possible,” he added. “A 4-spike design for the F-47 would truly be impressive!”

As TWZ already wrote yesterday, based on what is visible in the image:

“The image shows an exotic design by any interpretation. The aft-set lambda-type wings appear to have a camber and wingtip droop, as on the Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator. There are very large canard foreplanes — a feature that appears prominently on F-47 renderings and which we have written in detail about in the past. The broad nose, too, is something that has been included in depictions of the F-47, although we have really no idea to what degree these are based in reality. It’s worth noting that in this new thermal image, it has a distinctive double-arrowhead shape, tapering in again in front of the canards. Even the canards themselves may have more than one plane, with the outer tips being drooped, matching similar architecture as the wing. The fuselage then tapers down in the center before the wing roots begin.”

“The aircraft is very likely to be tailless, a feature common to most sixth-generation concepts seen so far. However, since it’s seen from below, we cannot be sure about this aspect of its configuration.”

“As for the powerplant, it is most likely a twin-engine design, like the F-47, a theory reinforced by the sawtooth-type trailing edge. There is no obvious suggestion of any exhaust plumes, which seems odd, but that could be the result of the sensor being used in combination with the aircraft’s power setting at the time of recording, as well as general thermal signature reduction capabilities that are part of the design.”

“Soon after Boeing won the contract for the F-47, we looked at how it might have been influenced by the Phantom Works X-36, also a tailless-canard design.”

As mentioned earlier, the full video Project Fear released today does raise new questions about the exact profile of the front of the design seen in the footage. The idea of using a shovel nose profile on a stealthy aircraft dates back to Northrop’s Tacit Blue demonstrator, and it was found in its modern form the YF-23. It has since become common to see on low-observable (stealthy) designs, and has been notably present in official renders of the F-47 released to date.

Beyond the nose end, there are still some very broad similarities in the shaping of the wing and main body of the aircraft seen in the footage and Cummings’ DP-21 concept.

To date, there are no indications that an F-47 EMD prototype has flown. Air Force officials have said on multiple occasions now that first flight of the service’s new sixth-generation fighter is expected to come in 2028.

We do know that Boeing and Lockheed built flying demonstrator designs that fed into the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative, under which initial development of what has become the F-47 was carried out. Past reports have raised the possibility that there was a third NGAD demonstrator, which might have been built by Northrop Grumman. That company voluntarily dropped out of the NGAD combat jet competition around 2023, and is said to have been on the verge of being cut at the time.

As we noted yesterday, what is seen in the viral thermal image could be unrelated entirely to the F-47. The Navy has also been pursuing a carrier-based sixth-generation fighter, commonly referred to as F/A-XX, in recent years. There has been at least some crossover between F/A-XX and the Air Force’s NGAD effort. A rendering Boeing has shared of its proposed F/A-XX design looks very much in line with what has been shown of F-47 to date. Northrop Grumman is the other company currently competing to build the Navy’s sixth-generation carrier fighter, and has released its own renderings.

In addition, it should be said that official F-47 and F/A-XX renderings released to date will have been carefully manipulated to maximize security of the programs, both of which remain highly classified, and to provide disinformation to adversaries.

As an aside, Darold Cummings also shared his take on a prospective navalized version of the F-47 in a separate post on LinkedIn last year. At that time he wrote:

“I received a DM asking if I had envisioned a Navy version of my recent F-47 fighter concept,  such as  the F-35A to F-35C approach. I recently completed my F-47 Navy version, which I call the F-47N. However, the approach I took was somewhat different: The F-35C used a larger wing for low speed lift, whereas I used my original F-47 wing planform, and added a canard for more low speed lift and control. The canard design (inspired by the X-36), coupled with the Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring (inspired by the X-44), provided a very reasonable first cut at a Navy version. In general, a canard layout has been treated as adding more radar signature to a fighter. However, on the YF-23 we found that if the all-moving surface (it was a V-tail on the YF-23) was kept “ported”, in this case aligned with the wing plane during cruise, the impact on LO was not a large impediment to signature reduction. The ability to keep the canard ported is achievable using thrust vectoring for trim in cruise and penetration modes.”

Cummings’ interpretation of the F-47 design at that time notably did not reflect his previous DP-21 concept. The X-44 design he mentioned is also known as the Multi-Axis No-Tail Aircraft (MANTA), and was derived from F-22. At least to our knowledge, the MANTA never came to be. The designation was recycled for an entirely unrelated flying wing-type drone, the existence of which was first reported by TWZ.

It’s also worth noting that the design in the newly emerged thermal video could be tied to one of many other programs, including uncrewed ones. Still, it is very much in line with what we would expect to see from a design related to the F-47 and it seems very likely this is the Boeing NGAD demonstrator, if the video is indeed authentic, which it appears to be.

It would be nice to say that we will have to wait and see whether this aircraft turns out to have a more traditional shovel-shaped nose, or even a mild Christmas tree-like design, but we may never see it again. Hopefully that is not the case, especially after the F-47 goes public, but the final design will have significant differences from its technology demonstrator forebears.

Special thanks to @ElectroFluidSys on X for bringing Darold Cummings’ posts on LinkedIn to our attention.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Boxing promoter Eddie Hearn has called on UFC president Dana White to release Tom Aspinall from his contract and says the heavyweight champion is not being paid his worth.

Manchester-based Aspinall, 33, signed a “commercial and advisory” deal with Hearn’s new talent agency in March.

Aspinall has been the standout performer in the UFC’s heavyweight division in recent years, with seven of his eight wins ending in the first round.

Hearn is prepared to offer Aspinall higher earnings if the UFC allowed him to leave, as tensions continue to grow between himself and White, though it is unclear whether that would be in boxing or MMA.

Matchroom chairman Hearn is also willing to drop planned legal action over Conor Benn’s decision to leave his stable for White’s Zuffa Boxing promotional company if they release Aspinall.

Hearn, 46, previously described 29-year-old Benn’s departure as a “dagger in the heart”.

“I’ll walk away from all their problems they’ve got on the Conor Benn legal situation if they release Tom Aspinall,” Hearn said.

“And I will, in writing, it will be five or six times more money he’ll be making, but I will put in writing that Tom Aspinall will make a minimum of three times more than he will under his current contract.”

Aspinall remains under contract with the UFC and is one of its biggest stars.

Hearn has previously criticised the UFC’s pay structure and suggested leading fighters could earn considerably more elsewhere.

There is no indication the UFC would consider releasing Aspinall, but Hearn’s remarks have increased debate around fighter pay in mixed martial arts (MMA).

“I would like to propose that Dana White should be happy for Tom Aspinall, who is extremely unhappy, and he should release him of his obligations with the UFC,” Hearn added.

“And he should allow him to go out and make considerably more for himself and his family because that’s what Dana White’s all about, isn’t it? He’d be happy for Tom. So that’s what I would like.”

Aspinall has been dealing with eye problems since his title fight with Ciryl Gane last October had to be stopped because of repeated eye pokes.

He had double eye surgery in February and it is not yet certain when he will be able to return to action.

Hearn has been publicly feuding with UFC president White since the launch of Zuffa Boxing.

Aspinall became part of that war of words when Hearn suggested White “humiliated” him by not backing the fighter after the eye controversy.

With the pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS), which is supposed to include a crewed New Generation Fighter (NGF) aircraft, mired in difficulty, Airbus has raised the possibility of teaming with Saab on the manned tactical component of it — the fighter. As well as France and Germany, Spain is a part of the pan-European FCAS as a junior partner, while Belgium has also joined it. The recent statements mark one of the clearest indications yet that Airbus is actively exploring post-FCAS alternatives, or, at the least, a major overhaul of the program’s structure.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Airbus Defense Summit at Airbus Defense & Space’s Manching site near Munich last week, that company’s CEO, Michael Schoellhorn, said that he was keen to cooperate with Sweden and Saab on a new fighter.

Schoellhorn’s words were provided in an exclusive interview by Johan Wendel, a reporter and analyst for the Swedish Dagens Industri financial newspaper.

At this point, it’s worth recalling that the FCAS nomenclature is also used by the British and Swedish future combat air initiatives. The British effort is now mainly known as the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP).

FCAS System of Systems

Noting that FCAS was in trouble in its current guise, he confirmed that Airbus has been in contact with both the Swedish and German governments on the issue, with “productive but confidential” discussions.

“We are open to a number of things. For Airbus, the crewed fighter aircraft is still an open question,” Schoellhorn told Dagens Industri, when asked if the company is considering developing a crewed fighter together with Saab.

The Airbus boss then reiterated that the company “will be involved in the development of a sixth-generation fighter aircraft.”

Schoellhorn recently visited Sweden and reflected that “Sweden and Saab are candidates with extensive expertise” in the field of fighter design and production. “We have difficulties that everyone knows about. That is why it is time to actively explore other options, which is what we are now doing,” he added, in reference to the FCAS program.

As TWZ only recently reported, questions around FCAS continue to grow.

For a long time, tensions have been evident within the FCAS program, with its two main partners, France and Germany, increasingly at odds. German defense officials are reportedly frustrated by what they see as disproportionate French demands for control and workshare in the project. For a while now, there have been reports that Germany is exploring alternative paths, including the possibility of separating itself from France within the program entirely.

Within France, Dassault CEO Éric Trappier recently declared the FCAS project dead if Airbus refuses to cooperate, while President Emmanuel Macron has made efforts to resuscitate the program.

Now, Sweden, with its position as a builder of tactical aircraft in the West, has emerged as a possible lifeline for FCAS, something that Schoellhorn acknowledged to Dagens Industri.

“We will be involved in the development of such an aircraft. The structure within FCAS could be improved. That could lead to two fighter aircraft within FCAS, or to another form of cooperation, and Sweden and Saab are candidates with extensive expertise in this field.”

When asked whether this was an Airbus tactic to put pressure on Dassault, Schöllhorn pointed to “many” previous cooperations between his company and Saab.

“We are not flirting,” he added. “We want to build sixth-generation fighter aircraft as soon as possible. I do not want to see sixth-generation fighter aircraft bought from the United States, as Europe did with the fifth generation.”

Here, he pointed to the growing customer base for the U.S.-made F-35 in Europe and the prospect that, in the future, the sixth-generation F-47 might also be offered for export in the region, although this might only be in a watered-down form.

Of course, GCAP, the British-led rival to FCAS, with the Tempest crewed fighter as its centerpiece, could be another option, but there are big questions surrounding the future of that program, too. As well as the United Kingdom, GCAP involves Italy and Japan.

“We must act now,” Schöllhorn said, to prevent Europe from looking beyond the pan-European FCAS for its next crewed fighter.

“If we are to have something that can be called sixth generation and that is airborne before the 2040s, we have to act now. We are waiting impatiently to see what the politicians will decide. If we are still in limbo at the end of the year, that would be very challenging,” Schöllhorn added.

As for GCAP, in which Sweden previously had a limited involvement, before stepping away from it, Schöllhorn also refused to rule out rolling the different projects together.

“GCAP is an existing alternative that could be considered,” he explained. “The defense industry submits proposals; the politicians decide what is to be done.”

Then there is the drone issue, or, more accurately, the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCA, issue.

While cooperative projects to develop fighters and their surrounding ecosystems have floundered, CCAs, as a concept, have forged ahead.

“Everyone has seen the need for CCA. There is a European race underway to find the model for CCA in various European countries,” said Schöllhorn.

The Airbus CEO underlined the fact that the company is also developing combat drones and that future uncrewed fighters are part of the plan. “There will not be a one-size-fits-all solution,” Schöllhorn added. “Perhaps we should not all go into the same niche, such as air-to-ground. The goal is to deliver the versatility, but also the scale that Europe will need.”

Airbus and Kratos are already pitching the stealthy XQ-58A Valkyrie drone to Germany, and Airbus has also been working on a stealthy CCA-like concept of its own, known as Wingman. Meanwhile, Boeing Australia has teamed up with Rheinmetall, the largest arms manufacturer in Germany, to offer the MQ-28 Ghost Bat drone to the German military.

Once again, Sweden could provide a key partner to Airbus on CCA-type developments, whether part of a broader FCAS effort or separate.

As we have reported in the past, Sweden is also moving ahead with plans for a new-generation combat aircraft, with Saab undertaking continued conceptual studies for future fighter systems. However, it remains unclear if there will definitely be a crewed successor to the Swedish Air Force’s current Gripen fighter, or if the ongoing studies will lead to a combat air ‘ecosystem’ comprised of different types of drones. A combination of crewed and uncrewed platforms remains possible, too.

Interestingly, Schöllhorn also put forward the possibility of Airbus working alongside Sweden for the airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) segment, specifically Saab’s GlobalEye aircraft.

“If we were to join forces, we could be a very capable team that could contribute many future capabilities,” said Schöllhorn of this idea.

The CEO noted that a NATO procurement decision on its future AEW&C platform is currently under review. Meanwhile, France has chosen the GlobalEye to replace its E-3F Sentry Airborne Warning & Control System (AWACS) fleet.

Imagery has emerged that appears to show a previously unknown two-seat version of the Sukhoi Su-57 Felon, Russia’s most modern and capable fighter. Provided the available photo is legitimate, and there is nothing obvious to suggest otherwise, at this point, the Russian development would parallel China’s work on a two-seat version of the stealthy J-20. While the exact role of China’s two-seat J-20S remains the subject of debate, it is noteworthy that Russia’s use of dual-seat tactical jets is well-established, as is China’s, and that Sukhoi had previously drafted a two-seat Felon specifically for an Indian requirement.

The apparent first publicly available photo of the two-seat Su-57 appeared on the Fighterbomber Telegram channel, which has close ties to the Russian Aerospace Forces. The same account claims that the aircraft is now undergoing taxi trials.

The most prominent modification to the aircraft is a redesigned forward fuselage, with a tandem two-seat cockpit that is broadly similar to that on the Su-30 Flanker family and on the two-seat Su-27UB Flanker-C. As on the Su-30, the rear seat is positioned significantly higher than the front one, providing a much better view forward from the rear cockpit.

The background of the photo has been blurred, so the location cannot be identified. Typically, tests of this kind would take place at Zhukovsky, near Moscow, the major hub for Russian experimental aerospace testing.

Some reports suggest that this new version of the Felon is designated Su-57D or Su-57UB, but this remains unconfirmed. In a Russian aerospace context, the suffix D would normally denote long range, while UB signifies a combat trainer.

There have been suggestions that the two-seat Su-57 might have been built using an existing single-seat Felon airframe, namely one of the prototypes, T-50-5R.

With no previous reports that Sukhoi was actively working on a two-seat version of the Su-57, the aircraft’s appearance now is all the more intriguing.

However, back in 2023, details of a patent emerged for a “multifunctional two-seat low-observable tactical aircraft,” with plans published showing a two-seat Su-57. According to Russian media reports, the planned two-seat aircraft is intended for “acting as an airborne command post for network-oriented operations of mixed groups of aircraft.” This is a concept that actually dates all the way back to when the Su-30 was first drafted at the end of the Soviet era. At the same time, the patent points to the utility of such an aircraft for crew training. Regardless, the accompanying illustration looks very similar to the two-seat Felon we see in the image from Fighterbomber.

As far as the Russian Aerospace Forces are concerned, only 76 Su-57s (presumed to be single-seaters) are on order. This is a surprisingly low number, with Moscow instead having chosen to invest in the cheaper and well-proven Su-35S and Su-30SM/M2 families of tactical fighters. The Su-57 first appeared, then in T-50 pre-production form, a decade and a half ago.

The idea that Russia might be seeking a combat trainer to help convert pilots to the Su-57 seems very unlikely, especially considering the small number of frontline Felon fighters currently planned. Stealth fighters have dropped the two seat trainer companion concept from the Cold War era. The extreme focus of signature control, high cost of the aircraft, higher levels of automation, as well as enhancements in simulated training over the years, have spurred this.

It may be that Sukhoi is seeking to promote a two-seat combat version of the Su-57 as a direct successor to the twin-seat Su-30SM/M2. These aircraft are widely used by the Russian Aerospace Forces for both long-range air defense and ground attack/strike, two roles for which Russia has long prized having an extra crewmember on board.

There is also the fact that the two-seat Su-57 is intended to operate alongside loyal wingman drones, specifically the Sukhoi S-70 Okhotnik-B (Hunter-B) flying-wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV).

The emergence of crewed-uncrewed teaming will be greatly enabled by a second person acting as a ‘mission commander’ of sorts. In this case, they would occupy the rear seat of the Su-57 and help control uncrewed systems, coordinating tactics with them near the forward edges of the fight. It is in this capacity that the two-seat version of China’s J-20 is widely expected to operate.

There have already been signs that the Su-57 and S-70 programs are directly linked, including ‘loyal wingmen’ cooperative testing. A two-seat Felon would offer a much more suitable platform for this kind of teaming to be taken further. It is perhaps no coincidence that one of the vertical fins of the two-seat Su-57 carries the silhouette of an apparent S-70.

Первый совместный полет БЛА «Охотник» и истребителя Су-57

As well as the S-70, the tail marking also appears to show the Sukhoi Su-75 Checkmate fighter, the S-71 stealthy air-launched missile, and some other kind of munition, perhaps generic.

This marking may well suggest that the two-seat fighter is intended to work in conjunction with all of these platforms, to various degrees, forming a new family of Russian air combat systems. This would be in line with a similar kind of tail markings we have seen on single-seat Felons, including the aircraft that was involved during previous cooperative testing with the Okhotnik-B.

Of course, a two-seat Su-57 would potentially be able to provide the Russian Aerospace Forces with a platform that can undertake all these roles: long-range air defense, ground attack/strike, drone controller, and combat trainer.

The two-seat Felon is very likely also being aimed at the export market. There would also be a precedent here, in the shape of India.

Back in 2003, Russia and India signed a letter of intent concerning the joint development of the Prospective Multirole Fighter (PMF), commonly referred to in India as the Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA).

In 2010, a contract was signed covering the preliminary design of the PMF, to be jointly developed by Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) of India on the basis of what was then known as the T-50 — the prototype of the Su-57 Felon.

Notably, the Indian Air Force wanted a two-seat PMF.

It’s not clear how far Sukhoi progressed on a two-seat PMF to meet the Indian requirement, but the result would have looked very much like the two-seat Felon now apparently under test.

This was all academic, however, since India walked away from the PMF in 2018. This followed an embarrassing incident, in which the fifth prototype T-50 caught fire on the runway at Zhukovsky, reportedly in full view of an Indian delegation.

Nevertheless, Moscow has continued to push the Su-57 for India, as that country struggles with acquiring new advanced fighters and fielding them in the required numbers.

At the same time, Russia has sought to kickstart the Felon program by finding other export customers for the Su-57E version.

So far, only Algeria has confirmed, via its state-run media, that it has bought the Su-57E, as we discussed at the time. It appears that two aircraft have already been delivered to the North African nation, out of a possible total of 14.

That creepy high pitched tone of Algeria’s Sukhoi Su-57E fighter jets. Algeria is currently the only country in Africa to operate 5th Gen stealth fighters. They have already received two Sukhoi Su‑57 aircraft and plans to acquire an additional 12 units. The Algerian Air Force is… pic.twitter.com/QLLDZNhaco

— Defense News Nigeria (@DefenseNigeria) March 16, 2026

Being able to offer a two-seat Felon could well attract more foreign interest, especially customers that might be looking to acquire members of the Su-30 family, or who might be looking to replace these same aircraft.

Potentially, Sukhoi might choose to combine the two-seat Felon with the improvements incorporated in the long-promised Su-57M. Also known as the ‘second stage’ Su-57, the Su-57M would be powered by the new AL-51F-1 (izdeliye 30) turbofan engine, replacing the current AL-41F-1, with increased thrust, lighter weight, and lower operating costs, as well as other advanced features. As you can read about here, Sukhoi has also unveiled a new type of thrust-vectoring engine nozzle for the aircraft, intended to improve the low-observable features of the Felon.

Still, adding another seat to the Su-57 will cause an impact on performance. Range could be decreased due to reduced internal fuel load, and the aircraft’s general performance, including speed and turning capabilities, could also suffer. Its radar signature, especially from the critical frontal aspect, will be affected as well. At the same time, the Su-57 is not a very low-observable aircraft, or even close to it. It was designed around a different philosophy than Western fifth-generation fighter aircraft, which took limitations in low-observable technologies and cost into heavy consideration. You can read more about this here.

The absence of Russian interest in buying more Felons has meant the Su-57M program has progressed only very slowly.

Getting more export customers would provide a huge boost to the Su-57 and would also help the Russian military.

Foreign investment is vital to speed the development of the Felon. The same was true in the late 1990s when India’s purchase of the Su-30MKI Flanker essentially secured the development of the multirole version of this fighter, which was only later acquired by Russia. On the other hand, any export customer would be taking a big risk due to the war with Ukraine and its impact on the Russian aerospace and defense industry, as well as its geopolitical standing.

While we await more imagery and details of the latest iteration of the Su-57 Felon, it is certainly noteworthy that a two-seat version of another fifth-generation fighter now appears to have broken cover.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Shield AI revealed a revised planform configuration and new details about its extremely ambitious X-BAT jet-powered autonomous stealth ‘fighter’ drone at April’s Sea-Air-Space 2026 convention, as detailed by TWZ. At the event, I was able to speak at length with Armor Harris, the chief designer of X-BAT, who was keen to discuss the status of the project. You can read TWZ’s original deep dive exclusive interview with Harris that was published when X-BAT first emerged from the shadows last October here.

The tail-sitting X-BAT, designed to take off vertically and land the same way, is planned to start vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) testing before the end of this year. Harris explained how it is designed to fly combat missions under the control of the company’s Hivemind artificial intelligence “pilot” and how Shield AI has designed-in payload bays that are roughly the same size as those found on the F-35, which will enable it to carry many of the same weapons as the stealthy crewed fighter.

The X-BAT concept is aimed to disrupt not just the budding advanced autonomous drone marketplace, but parts of the fighter market too. So much hangs on the VTOL element that the airframe is designed around, so to say that a lot is riding on those tests is an understatement.

Here is the full interview from the show floor at Sea-Air-Space:

Meet The Man Behind The X-BAT Autonomous VTOL Fighter Drone

Driven by a race to get ahead of quickly evolving enemy capabilities, the U.S. Navy is now aiming to enter the next step of contracting for its 6th-generation crewed fighter – known as F/A-XX – by August. Despite intervention from Congress, the next-generation carrier-based fighter has remained in limbo since the Pentagon moved to effectively shelve the program last year.

That’s according to Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Daryl Caudle, who spoke with reporters Monday at the Sea-Air-Space 2026 exposition near Washington, D.C. In response to a question from TWZ, Caudle acknowledged the uncertainty that has kept F/A-XX in a holding pattern, even as the Air Force’s future fighter, dubbed the F-47, has forged ahead. The current competitors for the F/A-XX are Boeing, which is also the F-47’s prime contractor, and Northrop Grumman.

“One of the challenges we’re seeing is, not only [are] our peer competitors improving their capability for anti-air, either air-to-air or surface-to-air, but the lower cost of entry of very capable weapons is also making more players on the field in which that level of stealth and technology is required,” Caudle, the Navy’s top officer, said. “So this is not about the need for a peer adversary. This is just having an aircraft that can operate with a level of uncertainty and with the acceptable level of risk.”

This is in line with arguments Caudle made in favor of moving ahead of F/A-XX in January, where he cited growing threats posed by smaller nation-state adversaries, including Iran, as well as non-state actors.

Today, Caudle again emphasized that he nevertheless had been “very vocal” on the need for a carrier-based next-generation fighter, and had expressed “many times” to Deputy Secretary of War Steve Feinberg that the service had to secure the aircraft. It’s important, Caudle said, for both the future carrier air wing and collaboration and planning with the MQ-25 Stingray, the Boeing-made carrier refueling drone set to reach initial operational capability later this year.

“It ties to our MQ-25 for stealth refueling. It ties to our reach. It ties to the work we’re doing for making the carrier air wing something that remains very effective into the future based on the range in which you can operate safely,” Caudle said. “So the need’s clearly there.”

MQ-25A Stingray first taxi test

While it was recently reported that the Navy, bolstered by funding from Congress for the new F/A-XX, planned to award a contract for the program by year end, Caudle said August was now the likely timeframe.

As noted, the Pentagon had moved to essentially shelve F/A-XX in its Fiscal Year 2026 budget request, with the Navy only requesting a relatively meager $74 million for the program. U.S. officials said at the time this decision had been driven largely by concerns about the ability of the U.S. industrial base to support work on two sixth-generation fighters, the other being the F-47, simultaneously.

Congress subsequently interceded, appropriating $1.69 billion for F/A-XX through a combination of regular spending bills and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. From a budgetary perspective, the Navy’s next-generation fighter program remains well behind the F-47, which has already received billions in funding and could be in line to get approximately $5 billion more in Fiscal Year 2027. The Navy only appears to be requesting an additional $140 million for its new carrier-based combat jet in the $1.5 trillion proposed defense budget for the next fiscal cycle.

“We’ve got a lot of airframes out there. We’ve got an F-35 program. We’ve got a F-47 program. You know, we’re still building the [F/A-18 Super Hornet] … there’s a lot of airplanes being built,” Adm. Caudle said today. “The Air Force has got a lot of demand on the system. The Navy’s got a lot of demand … One of the contractors who would make this plane for us is in a place where they really can’t deliver in the timeframe we need it. So there was, you know, a check twice, cut once, kind of mentality here on this decision. And now there, I think we’re all on the same page on the reason why the hard look needed to be done. I’m good with it.”

As noted, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are in competition to produce the F/A-XX, a program that first took shape as a Navy request for information in 2012. An earlier down-select reportedly eliminated Lockheed Martin in March 2025. Last August, Northrop Grumman released a rendering of its concept for the aircraft, showing a streamlined nose and landing gear on the front of a carrier with the tagline, “Project Power Anywhere.” Boeing’s concept, released the same month, drew visual comparisons to its F-47 Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter for the Air Force.

Citing classification, Adm. Caudle said today he couldn’t provide any information on design or payload details that give the Navy confidence in pursuing F/A-XX despite the adversary threats he mentioned. However, he suggested speed was increasingly essential to having a chance at maintaining overmatch.

“We monitor very closely, red-team that very hard, and assess that threat with a predicted trajectory of whether or not the existing designs we’ve seen will still overmatch that,” he said. “So I think we’re okay there, but we do know that our existing airframes could become vulnerable to some of those threats by the time [it’s fielded] … because it takes time to deliver that, that our existing airframes could be vulnerable to some of those threats, and we want to make sure the air wing of the future can still participate.”

Despite Caudle’s comments today, it should be remembered that this is not the first time that major progress on the Navy’s next-gen fighter has supposedly been imminent. Last October, Reuters reported the program had been greenlighted by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, with a contract expected to follow in short order. 

Aside from funding moves from Congress to ensure the survival of the F/A-XX program, no public steps have been taken to advance the program since.

Contact the editor: Tyler@twz.com

On the same day that the Chief of Naval Operations answered our question about the future of the F/A-XX sixth-generation naval fighter program, stating a final selection between the offerings from Boeing and Northrop Grumman will be coming in August, the latter of the two firms has released a new teaser video. Previously, we only had one rendering of Northrop’s notional F/A-XX concept. Now we have a more detailed panning video and a new head-on perspective view.

The video clip, posted on Northrop Grumman’s X account this evening, as seen below, states: “We’re bringing tomorrow’s horizon into focus, faster, stronger, and ready when the warfighter needs it.”

What we see in the clip is the same general design we saw in the still image earlier, but much more of it. This includes a head-on shot, showing the aircraft’s stealthy and efficient tailless design and rear-set dorsal inlets, as well as its very broad nose and canopy.

The aircraft in the new stylized video clip has some interesting proportions. The size of the landing gear and especially the canopy give it something of a smaller overall appearance than what one would expect from a heavy sixth-generation naval fighter that will be stuffed with fuel and weapons. Of course, this could be due to the somewhat ‘cartoonish’ nature of this new glitzy clip, and how accurate this rendering is to the actual Northrop Grumman F/A-XX is still unknown. At the very least, some of the aircraft’s features (such as its inlets) will have been significantly changed for security issues pertaining to its sensitive design elements.

We also see the wings, which look like they have a bit of camber on the outer sections and possibly a bit of ‘crank’ too. We also see the wings folded in the first part of the clip.

What could be a weapons bay with its doors open is also visible in some of the angles seen in the clip. At first glance, this appeared to be for the jet’s very stout-looking landing gear, but they are curved inward. There are additional doors on the centerline, as well, pointing to two separate bays.

Overall, because of the size of the canopy, it is hard to tell if this is a single-seat or a two-crew aircraft. The canopy is so large in these renders that a side-by-side crew arrangement may even be possible, although that seems unlikely.

Once again, we don’t know how close this computer-generated model is to the real thing, but considering this aircraft will have to carry a sizable weapons load and have something approaching a combat radius of 1,000-miles, while still fitting well within the confines of a supercarrier, it should be firmly in the heavy fighter class.

Maybe Northrop Grumman will share more on its F/A-XX at the annual Sea-Air-Space convention in Washington this week, and we will be ready to report it from the scene if they do.

We have reached out to Northrop Grumman with questions, and we will update this post if we hear back.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

Two cabinet-level ministers in Peru have resigned after interim President Jose Maria Balcazar announced he would defer a decision to buy F-16 fighter jets from the United States company Lockheed Martin.

Defence Minister Carlos Diaz and Foreign Minister Hugo de Zela cited their opposition to the move in their resignation letters on Wednesday.

“A strategic decision has been taken in the area of national security with which I have a fundamental disagreement,” Diaz wrote.

The fighter jets have long been a source of controversy in Peru, where critics have questioned whether the purchase is a sign of deference to US President Donald Trump.

Last week, the left-wing Balcazar — Peru’s ninth president in a decade — announced he would leave the decision about whether to invest $3.5bn in the purchase to the country’s next elected leader.

Balcazar himself had only been in office since February, selected by Congress to replace the latest in a string of impeached presidents.

Last week, he abruptly cancelled a signing ceremony for the F-16 deal, which would have seen an initial batch of 12 new planes added to Peru’s ageing air force. The country aims to acquire 24 jets overall.

Balcazar explained he was not pulling out of the deal, but that he felt the next presidential administration should be involved in making such a hefty financial commitment.

“For us to commit such a large sum of money to the incoming government would be a poor practice for a transitional government,” Balcazar said at the time.

“We remain firm in respecting all agreements that may have been reached at the level of the armed forces, or in this case, with the relevant ministry of the air force, to carry out the corresponding negotiations.”

His decision, however, was met with pushback, both domestically and from the US. The US ambassador to Peru, Bernie Navarro, responded on April 17 with a warning posted on social media.

“If you deal with the U.S. in bad faith and undermine U.S. interests, rest assured, I, on behalf of
[President] Trump and his administration, will use every available tool to protect and promote the prosperity and security of the United States and our region,” Navarro wrote.

Critics of the deal, however, have argued that Peru has received more competitive offers from French and Swedish aircraft makers like Dassault Aviation and Saab AB, respectively.

But Navarro on Wednesday denied that the US had been outcompeted. In a statement, he wrote that the “bid was made at a high level of competitiveness” and called the plane fleet “the most technically advanced fighter jets ever built”.

He also denounced the delay as an unreasonable stoppage on a deal he characterised as already signed.

“In planning the delivery of a product of this calibre, there is no such thing as an inconsequential delay,” he wrote.

“Every delay results in significant costs. The same package cannot be available in a couple of months, or even weeks.”

The decision to spend the $3.5bn on 24 fighter jets was made in 2024 under former President Dina Boluarte. The purchase was to be financed by $2bn in domestic borrowing in 2025 and $1.5bn in 2026.

In September, the US Department of Defense approved a potential sale of F-16s to Peru.

But Boluarte was removed from office in October, and her successor, Jose Jeri, lasted just four months in office before he too was impeached.

The instability in Peru’s presidency comes at a time when the Trump administration is seeking greater influence over Latin America, as part of what the US president has called his “Donroe Doctrine”.

Already, the Trump administration has pushed Peru to distance itself from Chinese investment. In February, for instance, it publicly protested against Chinese ownership in the Pacific port of Chancay.

“Peru could be powerless to oversee Chancay, one of its largest ports, which is under the jurisdiction of predatory Chinese owners,” the Trump administration wrote in a social media post.

“We support Peru’s sovereign right to oversee critical infrastructure in its own territory. Let this be a cautionary tale for the region and the world: cheap Chinese money costs sovereignty.”

Just this week, one of Trump’s allies, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar, warned that the Chinese-owned port was a danger to the US.

“That’s a direct threat in our hemisphere, right in the country of Peru,” she told a congressional committee. “For that reason, the new Peruvian government, which will be elected next June, must take it back.”

She added that, if the Peruvian government responded accordingly, “the United States will help them under the Trump administration”.

The country, however, is enmeshed in a messy presidential race replete with vote-counting delays and accusations of malpractice.

Election experts have said there is no evidence of voter fraud. But the slow vote count has left the race’s outcome undetermined, more than a week after the ballots were cast on April 12.

Right-wing leader and former First Lady Keiko Fujimori is all but assured of progressing to a run-off in June. But who will join her is uncertain.

Left-wing Congress member Roberto Sanchez is currently in the lead in the race for second place, with 12 percent of the votes tallied, but far-right candidate Rafael Lopez Aliaga, a former mayor, is close behind with 11.9 percent. Lopez Aliaga has been a vocal supporter of the Trump administration.

The final vote count for the first round of the election is expected to be delivered in May.

Traditionally, Peru’s new president should be sworn in on July 28, the country’s independence day.

Shield AI and General Electric have revealed more details about X-BAT, the jet-powered autonomous stealth ‘fighter’ drone designed to take off vertically and land the same way, tail first, after completing its mission. With the extremely ambitious aircraft concept planned to start vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) testing before the end of this year, the companies have also shown off a roughly half-size model that includes significant design changes.

The new details came when officials — J.J. Cummings and Armor Harris from Shield AI, and Steve Russell from GE’s Edison Works — spoke with reporters, including The War Zone, at the Sea-Air-Space 2026 exposition near Washington, D.C.

Make sure to get up to speed on everything we previously knew about X-BAT in our exclusive feature from when the aircraft was unveiled, linked here, as well as its forthcoming flight testing here.

A major redesign

When we discussed the X-BAT in our in-depth coverage of the program in the past, the drone had a ‘cranked kite’ planform, which has now given way to a straight leading edge with a more dramatic sweep as part of a distinctive arrowhead-shaped profile. We saw the same on the Boeing X-45C Phantom Ray UCAV prototype, and it has since been adopted by the Chinese GJ-11 Sharp Sword, among others. This new configuration looks better optimized for higher-speed flight.

According to X-BAT’s chief designer, Armor Harris, “We’ve taken an iterative approach to development and made improvements to the design based on test data.”

Raiding the past to realize the future

Of all the new details we received about X-BAT, where the jet’s critical thrust vectoring capability will come from is perhaps the most intriguing. GE says that the engine nozzle is the Axisymmetric Vectoring Exhaust Nozzle (AVEN), which comes from a specialized thrust-vectoring F-16 that was tested out of Edwards Air Force Base, California, back in the 1990s. The AVEN nozzle — taken direct from the warehouse, “Indiana Jones-style,” according to the officials — will be used for the initial testing.

F-16 MATV Axisymmetric vectoring in the early 1990’s.

Multirole platform: including tanker

Officials confirmed that the X-BAT can be operated as a tanker, making use of its two external hardpoints. Both of these are plumbed to the internal fuel tanks, so they can support ‘buddy’ refueling pods, which trail a hose and drogue.

The companies stress that aerial refueling tanker is “definitely not a primary mission,” but this option does reflect the multirole nature of the platform. Meanwhile, drone tankers are a growing area of interest for different U.S. military services, with efforts currently spearheaded by Boeing’s MQ-25 Stingray, although, since it is larger than the X-BAT, this would also offer much greater internal capacity.

For expeditionary operations, in particular, drone tankers are seen as a viable solution, although by no means the only one. X-BAT acting as a launch tanker could be especially of interest for tactical jets that require long runways. This would allow them to takeoff in short distances with heavy weapons loads and get fuel immediately from the X-BAT tanker before heading on their missions. X-BAT tankers could also act as unpredictable refueling platforms that are forward deployed for enroute combat aircraft, launching from virtually anywhere to refuel jets making their way from longer distances to their target areas. These are just some of the less traditional theoretical ways a tanker-configured X-BAT could be used.

Interestingly, based on the current concept of operations, Shield AI sees less interest in having the X-BAT take on fuel while airborne itself, although there is a “holding place” for a refueling probe in the nose, if required.

Overall, and beyond tanking, the X-BAT’s multirole capability implies “significant air-to-ground capability, maritime strike capability, and electronic warfare capability,” Shield AI says.

GE F110 engine

Last year, TWZ broke the news that General Electric was working with Shield AI on the powerplant side of the X-BAT, specifically its F110 turbofan, the same as used in many F-16s and F-15s. The choice of the F110 was driven by size and thrust requirements, including the demanding VTOL cycle that’s at the heart of the X-BAT concept.

Significant thrust is also a prerequisite of the X-BAT’s multirole capability, which Shield AI says sets it apart from other Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) and uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV) type drones now flying or in development.

X-BAT: Earth Is Our Runway

As well as offering what Shield AI describes as the best power-to-weight ratio in its class, the F110 was selected for its fuel economy. The engine is also widely available. With roughly 3,400 in the world, several “certified pre-owned engines” have been obtained for the program, as well as new-build ones.

While the partnership between Shield AI and General Electric was announced relatively recently, they have been working together for longer, with “tremendous progress on adapting the F110 engine” made in the last six to 12 months, according to officials.

Payload and range

According to Shield AI, X-BAT is around twice the size of all the other CCAs that are on the market today, which allows it to have a pair of payload bays that are roughly the same size as those found on the F-35. This means that any store that fits in an F-35 can theoretically also be accommodated internally in an X-BAT. These presently include 2,000-pound-class weapons.

At the same time, the X-BAT “goes twice as far” as an F-35, meaning double the combat radius. The drone’s manufacturers give a combat radius figure of 1,000 nautical miles. In the past, Shield AI told TWZ that the drone would also have a maximum range of 2,000 nautical miles and a service ceiling of around 50,000 feet.

Of course, the aircraft’s weight is a major factor in providing range. Company officials say they are “not really doing anything super-novel on the design of the air vehicle” in terms of weight reduction. However, with no landing gear and no auxiliary power unit (X-BAT uses an external lithium-ion battery pack to start the engine), and with other items moved from the air vehicle to the trailer-based launch recovery vehicle, all of this helps make the drone lighter.

VTOL flight profile

For vertical takeoff, the F110 engine is put into afterburner to get the required thrust-to-weight ratio needed for takeoff, although the aircraft returns to land on military power (without afterburner).

Various modifications are needed to the F110 for use in a vertical takeoff application: as a tail-sitting aircraft, the X-BAT spends a lot of its time in this attitude. As such, the engine has been exposed to significant subscale and full-scale testing at GE facilities. Shield AI says it plans to build the prototype aircraft at a facility in Frisco, Texas, this summer.

Interestingly, one important part of the tests so far has been to explore just how far the F110 can be throttled back for the delicate VTOL and transition phases. Previously, the limits were set by the cabin pressurization requirements of crewed aircraft: essentially, how much fan speed was needed to generate enough bleed air to pressurize the cabin for the pilot. Since the X-BAT is uncrewed, the F110 can be throttled back farther and operate in different regimes.

Thrust-vectoring nozzle

While the aforementioned AVEN nozzle will be used for the initial testing, the companies are meanwhile working on redesigning and updating the design and building more nozzles. The control system and software are also completely different from those used on the original AVEN and are tweaked to work with today’s F110.

“It actually has worked really well,” Steve Russell says of the nozzle. “We’ve done testing where we’ve reversed it, we’ve integrated it, we’ve run the control system … you put all those things together and put it into such a cool platform that’s really going to present a unique dilemma for our potential adversaries.”

So far, testing has shown that the rigors of VTOL actually result in less fatigue and vibration compared to a typical F-16 profile.

The current nozzle doesn’t have low-observable (LO) attributes, but that is something that will be introduced after prototype testing. There is also the possibility of the X-BAT vectoring its nozzle in forward flight to increase its agility. The companies stress that this capability will depend on customer requirements, but the nozzle will be fully vectorable across the flight regime.

The focus for now is more about actuation and integration of the F110 with the Shield AI airframe and flight control system. A key factor is mitigating against exhaust gas ingestion and ensuring the engine is fed with clean air during the transition phases of flight. However, this is not something the developers are overly concerned about, and the F110 is also judged particularly stall-resistant.

Air intakes and blast deflector

Shield AI’s air intake system is specifically engineered to handle these demanding phases of flight and includes an auxiliary inlet on the back of the aircraft. This is concealed beneath a panel when the aircraft is not in VTOL mode.

Just as important is the engine exhaust, especially when it comes to mitigating the risk of foreign object damage (FOD) and kicking up debris that could damage other assets on the ground during VTOL operations. This would be especially critical on the tight confines of a ship’s flight deck.

For the launch, a blast deflector built into the X-BAT’s custom trailer is designed to direct the exhaust plume away rather than recirculating it back to the engine. The fact that the aircraft is suspended relatively high in the air for takeoff means that the issue of rocks and other debris being kicked-up at the aircraft is reduced. The deflector also channels the blast in a known direction.

For the landing phase, the aircraft’s approach profile helps avoid FOD and exhaust gas ingestion. Instead of coming straight down to land, the X-BAT approaches the launch-recovery trailer from the side, makes contact with it, and then powers up into a latch that secures it. The aircraft also leans slightly into the incoming airstream to help ensure the intake is always being fed with cleaner air.

Open system architectures

With open system architectures baked into the design, it should also be easier to upgrade the X-BAT than previous aircraft, meaning it is getting “a lot closer to plug and play.” Shield AI talks about swapping in and swapping out different radiofrequency and infrared sensors for upgrades or potentially for different missions.

The companies remain generally tight-lipped about the electronic warfare (EW) packages that will be installed in the X-BAT. They did say that the EW gear will be unique to this aircraft and that they were able to leverage a lot of the sixth-generation systems that have been developed for the NGAD programs, in both their Air Force and Navy iterations.

Testing pathway

Looking in more detail at what comes next for the program, Shield AI and General Electric confirm that the first stage of testing is already underway, using the adapted F110 on GE test stands. Step two will see the propulsion system integrated into the prototype aircraft. It will then be run horizontally and then vertically, while still attached to the launch-recovery trailer.

The next step will involve a very large crane, which will hold the aircraft vertically, with engine tests being run while the X-BAT is tethered for safety. This phase will see the propulsion system tested in proximity to the ground, in proximity to the launch and recovery trailer, and under different inlet conditions.

The final step will see the tether taken off, allowing the X-BAT to perform free flights. The aircraft will take off from the launch and recovery trailer, go up, come around, and reattach to it, all in vertical mode. If things go well, company officials say, this milestone will be targeted before the end of 2026.

In the process, Shield AI and General Electric are realistic about the possibility of mishaps in what is really groundbreaking technology. Company officials describe a “hardware-rich approach to test,” which means building several prototype test aircraft that will be pushed to the limit. They “fully expect to lose one in testing,” since the program is stressing the delivery of capability to the operators as quickly as possible. In this respect, zero failures mean the program is going too slow, the officials say.

Market prognosis

Shield AI and General Electric confirm that there is “tremendous interest internationally” in the X-BAT, across all regions.

Their business case rests on the X-BAT providing “fifth and sixth-gen type capabilities” at a price point much cheaper than an equivalent crewed combat jet. Part of the cost equation also relates to the VTOL flight mode, which means operators can “delete a lot of the lifecycle cost associated with having a conventional air force.” With no conventional airbase required, there is no need for expensive airbase defenses or hardened aircraft shelters. The concept of operations involves a much-reduced need for tanker support, since the X-BAT can be forward stationed and has a large combat radius. Of course, there is also no conventional pilot-training pipeline. Shield AI and General Electric officials describe the resulting air power employment, in life-cycle terms, as costing around a tenth that of an equivalent fifth or sixth-gen type.

Compared to those fifth/sixth-gen platforms, the lower cost of the X-BAT means that it doesn’t have to be as survivable. Shield AI and General Electric talk about the aim of having an aircraft that is “just survivable enough that you can do the mission.” Meanwhile, it should avoid the “exponential costs for incremental return” that are inevitable in other, more exquisite platforms. Instead, the companies are looking at the possibility of an operator buying 10 to 20 X-BATs for the price of something like a B-21. The Air Force previously specified an average unit cost of roughly $550 million for the B-21.

With this in mind, Shield AI is sizing a factory that will be able to produce 150 X-BATs annually, with employees working single shifts.

Clearly, the ambition of creating a vertical takeoff and landing ‘autonomous fighter’ that is capable of countering an adversary’s air defenses at a fraction of the price of a crewed platform is incredibly bold. Some would even call it outright far-fetched. Yet the comparisons to Space-X and how they disrupted the space access market by doing something many thought would not work — also a VTOL solution — also can’t be denied.

With testing of the X-BAT and its F110-based propulsion system now well underway, and first flights planned before the end of the year, we are getting closer to seeing whether this radical vision can actually be realized.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The U.S. Marine Corps says it is making good progress toward fielding Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) type drones, starting with a landing gear-equipped version of Kratos’ XQ-58 Valkyrie. The service sees those aircraft, and potentially other CCAs, paired with its F-35s as a “bridge” to an entire family of next-generation air combat capabilities, which could include a sixth-generation crewed fighter.

Marine officials discussed the service’s CCA plans and broader future aviation vision during a panel discussion at the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2026 exhibition, at which TWZ is in attendance. The Corps’ CCA efforts currently fall under a program called Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTAF) Uncrewed Expeditionary Tactical Aircraft (MUX TACAIR). The MAGTAF is the primary organizing concept around which the service deploys air and ground forces.

“So, with the MUX TACAIR effort, I think we’re meeting our testing goals. I would say that it’s on track,” Marine Col. Dan Weber, the Unmanned Aerial Systems Branch Head in the office of the Deputy Commandant for Aviation, said. “From a funding and demand power perspective, I think we’ve got great support. We’ve got good partners. We’ve got good relationships right now to keep that program on track, and I expect that we’re going to meet all of our milestones and goals.”

“From the F-35 side, the vision ultimately is we want the F-35 to be a quarterback with CCAs as attritable mass, as enablers to ensure the MAGTAF can project power, the sensing, the lethality, [and] all of the intangibles that kind of go along with that,” Marine Col. Thomas Bolen, the Tactical Aviation (TACAIR) Branch Head, another one of the panelists, also said. “How we integrate with CCAs is going to be extremely important, and that will bridge us down the road to kind of the sixth-generation family of systems.”

One of the “main things in our portfolio that will be enduring and developing over the next couple years” is “man-unmanned teaming,” Marine Col. Richard Rusnok, head of the Cunningham Group, who was also on the panel, added. “We’re laying the foundation for that with our first foray into Collaborative Combat Aircraft, the MQ-58.”

The Cunningham Group, which also falls under the office of the Deputy Commandant for Aviation, is charged with plotting out the overarching future vision for Marine Corps aviation.

MQ-58 refers to Marine-specific variants of Kratos’ Valkyrie now in development. Last year, the Corps announced that it was transitioning what had originally been experimental work with a small fleet of XQ-58s into a full program of record to acquire an operational platform. Kratos has since partnered with Northrop Grumman to deliver these uncrewed aircraft.

Marine Valkyries will have built-in landing gear, unlike the original version of the drone, but will still be capable of making rocket-assisted takeoffs from static launchers. This means the uncrewed aircraft will retain a valuable degree of runway independence, but that there will also be tradeoffs, as TWZ has previously explored here.

In January, Kratos told TWZ it was hoping to see the first flight of a landing gearing-equipped Valkyrie in early 2026, but there has been no official announcement yet of that milestone being reached. The Marine Corps’ unclassified 2026 Aviation Plan presents the MQ-58 as a capability arriving in the 2026 to 2030 timeframe.

The Marines have also said previously that they expect the MQ-58 to be just the first in a planned series of CCA “increments,” which might entail the future acquisition of completely different types of drones. The service has said in the past that MUX TACAIR, broadly speaking, “will enhance Marine Corps Aviation’s lethality and ability to support the Stand-in Force (SiF) by delivering air-to-ground, reconnaissance, and Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities.”

The Corps has also already chosen to use General Atomics’ YFQ-42A Dark Merlin at least as a surrogate to test new autonomy technologies and other mission systems under the umbrella of the MUX TACAIR program. The YFQ-42A is also one of two drones under development as part of Increment 1 of the U.S. Air Force’s CCA program. Dark Merlins have been flying since August 2025, but General Atomics announced an indefinite pause in flight activities earlier this month after one of the drones suffered an accident on takeoff.

Speaking on the panel today, Col. Thomas Bolen did not elaborate on what the Marine Corps’ “sixth-generation family of systems” might consist of. However, Marine Lt. Gen. William Swan, the Deputy Commandant for Aviation, said his service was beginning to explore what it might want in a future sixth-generation crewed combat jet during a press roundtable last week, as first reported by Breaking Defense.

“Last year’s Av[iation] Plan didn’t have six-gen on there, and I made the team put it on, because we need to think about that,” Swan said at that time. “We’re not there yet. We’re fast following with the Air Force, right? They got the F-47. The Navy’s looking at F/A-XX, and they’re just starting on that. So we are going to watch.”

“We want to be an all Block 4 F-35 fleet, and that’s probably going to take another 10 years. So we’re probably five to 10 years away from ultimately making that decision. And we’ll see what they have, see what the threat looks like,” Swan continued. “I think right now, if you had to say, ‘hey, what is it going to look like?’, I think it’ll look a lot more like what the Navy’s doing, because we still fly off the carriers, we’re part of the Department of the Navy.”

“I don’t know that we’re going to get high-end, and that’s really not a Marine Corps mission; it’s the Air Force,” he added. “So I think if I had to – if you said, make a decision right now, it would be yes, some amount to augment the fifth-gen [F-35] force, and it would probably look something like the F/A-XX, or whatever the Navy ends up being [sic; acquiring].”

Lt. Gen. Swan, who served as the moderator for today’s panel at Sea Air Space, as well as Col. Bolen, again stressed the importance of the Block 4 upgrades for the F-35, including for future teaming with CCAs. The Block 4 effort has been mired in delays and cost growth, even after a revision in the fielding strategy last year to focus first on a truncated portion of the planned capability improvements. The full package for all three Joint Strike Fighter variants is eventually expected to include a new AN/APQ-85 radar and electronic warfare suite, replacements for the AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), and a host of other improvements. A particular point of concern now is that new production F-35s might soon start being delivered without any radars at all, as a result of issues tied to the development of the APG-85.

As the Marine’s top aviation officer noted last week, it could be 10 years before his service at least sees all of its F-35s fully upgraded to the Block 4 standard. That, in turn, could have serious impacts on the service’s broader plans to acquire and field new crewed and uncrewed aircraft.

Marine Corps interest in whatever the Navy chooses for F/A-XX could be an important factor for the future of that program, as well. In response to a question from TWZ at a roundtable on the sidelines of Sea Air Space this morning, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said he is now hoping to see the selection of the winning design in the F/A-XX competition by August. The program has been in bureaucratic purgatory since the Pentagon moved to effectively shelve it indefinitely last year, with Congress subsequently intervening to keep it funded. How the Navy’s next-generation carrier-based fighter plans will proceed now still very much remains to be seen.

If nothing else, the vision the Marines have put forward today clearly frames Block 4 F-35s ‘quarterbacking’ fleets of CCAs as a key stepping stone to the service’s next-generation aviation capabilities.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. Air Force has concluded what it describes as a “critical exercise” with Anduril’s YFQ-44 Fury ‘fighter drone’ prototype, flown out of the base that is the heart of flight testing, the legendary Edwards Air Force Base, California. The drills involved the Air Force’s Experimental Operations Unit and were intended to demonstrate how CCAs can be deployed and sustained in a contested environment. For the exercise, the YFQ-44A flew from Edwards back to Anduril’s Southern California test site.

As well as the Experimental Operations Unit (EOU), which falls under Air Combat Command (ACC), the exercise involved personnel from Air Force Materiel Command’s (AFMC) 412th Test Wing. This wing is headquartered at Edwards Air Force Base, and the squadrons attached to it are responsible for flight testing of virtually all the aircraft in the Air Force’s inventory.

Multiple sorties were flown — we have asked Air Combat Command for more details on exactly how many and their scope. The exercise took place last week, according to Anduril’s vice president of autonomous airpower, Mark Shushnar.

The YFQ-44 is one of two designs now being developed as part of the first phase, or Increment 1, of the Air Force’s CCA program. The other is General Atomics’ YFQ-42A Dark Merlin. We have reached out to Edwards to see whether the YFQ-42 was originally expected to take part in the exercise before its recent takeoff accident.

Imagery published by the Air Force shows a YFQ-44A carrying inert AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) on pylons under the wings, something that we first saw earlier this year, during captive-carry evaluations, as you can read about here. It should be noted that the Fury, at least as it exists now, does not have an internal munitions bay.

The primary function of the exercise was to explore the practicalities of what the Air Force calls the Warfighting Acquisition System. This framework is intended to speed the delivery of CCAs to operational units by enabling operators to get their hands on the drones earlier in the program. In this way, they can refine tactics and procedures before deliveries to the front line.

ACC has stressed in the past how it wants CCAs to operate seamlessly within the existing command structures and legal frameworks that govern all Air Force weapons systems.

“This experimental operations event was executed by EOU members from start to finish. Every sortie generated and flown was done with a warfighter, not an engineer or test pilot, kicking the tires and controlling the prototypes,” explained Lt. Col. Matthew Jensen, EOU commander. “We are learning by doing, at a speed and risk tolerance accepted by the USAF’s most senior leaders, to ensure CCA is ready to operate and win in the most demanding combat environments.”

Above all, the sorties stressed operational and logistical procedures for using CCAs in a contested environment. The issue of logistics is a critical one, including how CCAs will get to the area of operations and how they will be maintained in the field.

According to Shushnar, Anduril’s Menace-T command, control, communications, and compute (C4) solution was used as the main ground element for YFQ-44A flight operations during the exercise. “EOU operators used Menace-T’s ruggedized laptop to upload mission plans, initiate autonomous taxi and takeoff, task the aircraft while in flight, and manage post-flight data ingestion and checks,” he explained. “That enabled the EOU to conduct operations out of a simulated forward operating base, successfully launching, recovering, and turning YFQ-44A without the infrastructure of a large, established base.”

This is entirely in line with the Air Force’s drive toward short-notice and otherwise irregular deployments, often to remote, austere, or otherwise non-traditional locales. Agile Combat Employment (ACE) is the term the service currently uses to describe a set of concepts for distributed and disaggregated operations.

While the warfighters of the EOU were at Edwards to carry out the practical aspects of CCA employment, exploring tactics, techniques, and procedures, the 412th Test Wing, meanwhile, was on hand to gather data from the test events.

“By uniting the distinct test authorities of AFMC and the operational authorities of ACC, officials were able to fast-track the event, enabling groundbreaking, hands-on experimentation by operators at a uniquely early stage of development,” the Air Force explained in a media release.

“The collaboration we saw in this exercise is the cornerstone of our acquisition transformation. By embedding the operators from the EOU with our acquisition professionals, we create a tight feedback loop that lets us trade operational risk with acquisition risk in real-time,” said Col. Timothy Helfrich, portfolio acquisition executive for fighters and advanced aircraft. “This isn’t just a test; it’s a demonstration of how we are adopting a more agile process. An 85 percent solution in the hands of a warfighter today is infinitely better than a 100 percent solution that never arrives.”

The CCA program is viewed as a pathfinder for the Warfighting Acquisition System, and success with this could lead to the same approach being employed to get other systems into operational service much more quickly than in the past.

The Air Force has not yet determined whether it will procure one or both Increment 1 CCA designs at scale. Whichever option it selects is expected to become its first operational “fighter drones,” built to carry live munitions into combat alongside crewed aircraft.

CCAs will also extend the sensor coverage of the crewed fighters they accompany. More broadly, the Air Force views them as a way to add vital combat mass and unlock new tactical options, particularly in high-end conflicts against adversaries like China. Back in late 2024, Brig. Gen. Douglas “Beaker” Wickert, commander of the 412th Test Wing, told TWZ that, “[the-then Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall] “has been very clear that we are out of time, that our Air Force has never been older or smaller than it is right now, and that the People’s Liberation Army has been specifically designed to defeat us.”

“The investments we’re making right now in modernization and testing for the USAF are designed for success and aimed at changing Chairman Xi’s calculus about pushing back aggressively against the international rules-based order. What we are doing here and across USAF flight-testing is extremely consequential.”

Since then, Wickert has moved on to become Director of Air, Space and Cyberspace Operations at AFMC, but the test wing’s remit remains the same. Meanwhile, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force has doubled down on its rapid expansion, including many of its own CCA programs.

If all goes to plan, the completion of this recent exercise at Edwards could well be a key milestone in fielding a combat-ready force of CCAs and go some way toward realizing the Air Force’s ambition for a new capability that should extend the reach and the survivability of its crewed aircraft.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com