good

Russell also pointed out that this was the first significant mistake Antonelli had made in a competitive session all year.

Asked if he believed Antonelli’s mistake was a result of “title jitters”, Russell said: “When you look at every championship campaign, even for the winners, there are mistakes along the way.

“So, I still keep on believing and keep on fighting until it isn’t possible any more. But I don’t feel any pressure.

“I feel excitement every time I jump in the car now, purely because I feel more confident in myself.

“When that confidence starts to build, it’s just like this upward cycle.

“On the flip side, when you’re on the back foot, you start losing that confidence and then you start pushing the limits more, and that’s when mistakes happen.

“But he’s been flawless this season. It’s the first mistake he’s made in a qualifying or race this whole year.”

Russell’s pole margin was a massive 0.837secs, with Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc second and Piastri third.

The Baku street circuit has a long straight that affords good overtaking possibilities and has a reputation for producing incident-packed races.

Something’s in the air this fall — and it’s not just the autumnal chill. For some reason, survival thrillers are all the rage; there are even two featuring a man and his dog. First, we had Ridley Scott’s “The Dog Stars” with Jacob Elordi and a Belgian Malinois traversing a postapocalyptic landscape.

The latest is “Heart of the Beast,” an Alaskan-set story about two combat veterans — one human, one canine — who set out for a post-retirement camping trip and find themselves in a perilous situation after the human, retired Special Forces officer James (Brad Pitt), suffers a heart attack while piloting his seaplane. James and his combat dog Odin survive the crash, just barely, but they’re stranded deep in the wilderness, miles from civilization.

The film is directed by David Ayer, a purveyor of wild action flicks and ballads of masculinity; the screenplay is the debut effort of Cameron Alexander. Their intent is to deliver something muscle-bound and emotional — if a man can’t cry about an Army dog, what can he cry about? But until the last two minutes of the film, “Heart of the Beast” is essentially “Homeward Bound” for adults. You know, the 1993 kids adventure film featuring a golden retriever, a bulldog and a cat named Sassy who have to make their way home through the wild. Marry the structure of that film with a Jack London-inspired milieu, add some blood, gore and rather cheesy Iraq war flashbacks, and you have “Heart of the Beast.”

We watch James as he’s rained on, chewed on, pulls trunks out of an icy lake, falls off a log, breaks his arm, faces down a bear, fights off wolves, sustains many head injuries and inexplicably keeps going, in hopes of saving if not himself his dog, the most important creature in his life.

And oh, is Odin worth it. Played by four different dogs named Uber, Seeka, Ryker and Hondo, the performance that these dogs collectively deliver is worthy company to an Oscar winner — the dogs may even eclipse Pitt for sheer screen presence. With every whimper, sigh, howl, bark and head tilt, these dogs create an empathetic portrayal of a highly intelligent creature that has been through battle and has the scars (and nightmares) to prove it. Odin is a bionic dog, with titanium teeth and a prosthetic foot from injuries sustained during wartime, but nothing slows him down, not even a plane crash. However, the film does have its limitations when it comes to the other wildlife, all digitally created and the CGI isn’t convincing in the slightest.

“Heart of the Beast” is an onslaught of danger and misery, alleviated only by the pleasure of watching James’ survival skills and ingenuity. This man makes a lot of mistakes on this journey (he’s constantly calling himself “stupid” and “dumb”), but he’s also kind of a MacGyver. He starts a fire with cotton balls and Neosporin. He carries an alarming number of knives. He splints his own arm. If anything, it’s an excellent lesson on carrying the right gear and always taking medical supplies on a camping trip — if you ever go camping again after this.

Pitt typically excels when there’s a little (or a lot) of levity for him to exercise his loose-limbed charms and there’s precisely none of that in “Heart of the Beast.” Ayer pushes the emotional and physical extremes and it feels like a dirge: a forced march through the muddy Alaskan wilderness with plenty of body horror on top. The one moment of camaraderie comes in the beginning, when James shares a beer with a mysterious stranger (J.K. Simmons) who happens upon his camp and might even be an apparition of an old miner. James does share moments of affection and victory with Odin but there’s nothing to relieve the constant danger, even though structurally, the film has already sapped its potential suspense.

“Heart of the Beast” has its highs and lows but cinematically, it’s a mixed bag — entirely predictable and just not great. Nevertheless, there’s no denying that the star of the movie is indeed Odin and he’s a very, very good boy.

Walsh is a Tribune News Service film critic.

Iranian media has reported the sound of an explosion near Iran’s Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz, though the cause remains unclear.

Filming a broadcast television show can leave even the most seasoned actors feeling like they’ve lost sense of time. But by afternoon on a recent weekday, Josh Charles actually looks like he teleported to the past as he collapses into a seat inside his production trailer in upstate New York.

He’s in the throes of filming Season 2 of “Best Medicine,” the Fox dramedy he headlines that’s set in a small fishing village in Maine, and the reason he’s shed his character’s usual suit and tie for gaitered trousers and a navy coat with red facings eventually reveals itself: Port Wenn, the show’s fictional town, is putting on a Revolutionary War reenactment. And if you’re familiar with Martin Best, the curmudgeonly doctor with an almost permanently furrowed brow portrayed by Charles, the character’s willingness to don such a getup likely took some coaxing.

That’s the fun of it all for Charles.

He’s been a working actor since childhood — making his debut at 15 in John Waters’ cult classic “Hairspray,” followed soon after by his turn as Knox Overstreet in “Dead Poets Society” — and a fixture in TV and film ever since.

While best known for dramatic roles like high-powered lawyer Will Gardner in “The Good Wife,” Charles easily pivots to comedy — like the time he memorably played the triple-collared, snobby camp ringleader in “Wet Hot American Summer: First Day of Camp.” Now, “Best Medicine” lets Charles leans into the push and pull of the comedy and drama within his tightly wound alter ego.

Josh Charles as Martin Best in Fox’s “Best Medicine.”

(Francisco Roman / Fox)

Created by Liz Tuccillo (“How to Be Single,” “Sex and the City”), the series follows a brilliant but cranky heart surgeon who, after developing a crippling blood phobia spurred by a traumatic medical case, abandons his thriving career in Boston to become a general practitioner in the town where he spent summers as a child. Martin Best is a doc whose bedside manner could use some TLC, but he came to town hoping he can still practice medicine — that is, if the townspeople would actually do as he says.

“I have been really wanting to do more comedy lately and looking — especially if I was going to call a place home for a particular period of time, like you do in a television show — for something that was a little more lighter air than I had been networking in of late,” says Charles, whose recent credits include dystopian drama “The Handmaid’s Tale” and spy thriller “The Veil.”

The series is based on the beloved British dramedy “Doc Martin,” which starred Martin Clunes as a doctor with a similar storyline, that aired between 2004 and 2022. Tuccillo says Charles brought an elegance and depth to the fish-out-of-water dynamic his character navigates in the quirky town.

“He never hits a false note,” she says in a separate video call. “I knew the material would be in great hands in that he would always elevate it just by his artistry and being. I knew he was going to be able to play the gruffness, but any time that you’re doing a show, there is a question mark on so many things. To be honest, we were like, ‘But is he going to be super funny? Is he going to want to do pratfalls? Is he going to be game for the comedy part of it?’ When we started working, it was clear he was game for all the shenanigans … he likes to laugh. So I try to devise things that I think will amuse him.”

A special advance preview of the Season 2 premiere aired Sunday, but the show will move into its regular time slot Tuesday. Here are edited excerpts from the conversation with Charles.

Josh Charles poses for photos on the “Best Medicine” set in upstate New York. He says he was drawn to the Fox dramedy because it was “a little more lighter air” than the other work he had done recently.

(Ebru Yildiz / For The Times)

“Best Medicine” hit Netflix after its first season aired. Building an audience outside the traditional linear viewing has become such a key component of television today. How do you feel about it?

One of my dad’s best friends told me, “I’m watching the show on Netflix!” He’s like, “I just can’t watch shows with commercials anymore” — as people are programmed now. That is the new shift. You go into these platforms for periods of time, build your audience in a different way and hopefully keep growing that audience. [Television] keeps evolving and growing in a way that I don’t fully understand, but I do know that it’s a different world right now. Netflix has a great reach, and it’s great that we’re on there and that people are discovering it. And apparently we did very well.

Season 2 opens with Martin on probation and under review by the medical board. What is Martin in for this season?

When it starts off, he’s really in it. Eden [Martin’s ex-girlfriend played by Eliza Coupe] is now back in the picture. She’s coming from Boston every weekend, and she’s rubbed a lot of people in town the wrong way. And the progress that Martin made, we see him maybe take a few steps back in the way that he interacts with people. He’s with her and I think there’s feelings there, but I think their relationship feels very — I don’t know, it’s interesting. It doesn’t have the fire. But she doesn’t make him feel bad about himself. She respects him, and I think those things are important. And he’s around in this town where nobody’s listening to him half the time. People are just always mad at him about something, and she’s not. She puts him a little bit on a pedestal, and I think he really needs that.

All that presents an obstacle for the show’s slow burn: Martin and Louisa (Abigail Spencer). There’s been some discourse about the art of the slow burn and how the pacing has changed in an era of short episode orders and unpredictable renewals. You have experience in this department with “The Good Wife.”

Liz and I have talked about it a little bit. You don’t want to muck bait it and drag it out for the sake of dragging it out. I think they’ve done a good job of putting the obstacles in a way that still feels organic and genuine and not yet a reach. In the British show, things accelerated so much faster. They only made eight [episodes] a year. We want to also have it feel like it’s plausible. It is really fun to have Eliza Coupe here. It’s fun to play scenes with her and [see] the different side that brought out in Martin. That is the challenge because I don’t think we’re as interested in doing it quite that fast [as the British show]. I have faith in them that we’ll land it in a good way.

Ellen Soraya Nikbakht as a peculiar patient and Josh Charles as Martin Best in the Season 2 premiere of “Best Medicine.”

(Danielle Mathias / Fox)

You’ve played in comedy and drama in your career. It’s fun to watch you straddle both sides with this character. How has it been finding the rhythm or tone with him?

A lot of the comedy I’ve done, I’ve done some stuff that’s more silly and kind of over the top. I love playing the fool. What’s really fun [here], to me, are the circumstances they put Martin in where things are blowing up in front of him and he’s just trying to deal. I’ve enjoyed doing a lot of the physical comedy on the show.

I [also] found it really interesting to have a character who doesn’t want to be around people, but he actually does. He just doesn’t really know how to do it, and he’s never really had any kind of practice at it in his life. And he’s gone through a lot of trauma in his life. He’s a really specific kind of workaholic. For him to grow up with what he did, and losing his sister really young in his life — I did research on that and what that does to people and how that can sort of frame your life. I imagine he went to private school, maybe a boarding school, then he goes on the track of going to college and medical school — we know how hard that is, the kind of hours they put in; then to be really successful at it, you put everything you have into your work. There’s this other side of his life that is completely empty. This town kind of just softens off the edges of him a little bit and helps him become a little more authentic version of who he was maybe meant to be. That gives me some place to build off of and to go with the character, other than it feeling kind of just very one-note.

Matthew Goode, left, as Finn Polmar and Josh Charles as Will Gardner in a scene from Season 5 of “The Good Wife.”

(CBS)

This series marks your return to broadcast television after leaving “The Good Wife” in its fifth season. You’ve done TV since then, of course. But a big reason you left broadcast was because of the grind of a 20-plus episode season. With “Best Medicine,” you’re the lead and the second season will have 14 episodes. Does that feel like the sweet spot?

If “The Good Wife” was “The Good Fight,” I would have done that until the wheels come off. I would have never wanted to leave that because I would have had a life. I could have been able to go do a play, travel with my family, see my kids. At the time of “The Good Wife,” I didn’t have kids, but we were about to get married and wanted to have children. I was only going to do 18 [episodes] at most with this show, if they wanted it. And then I asked them this year, “Well, we’re just at 14. What was the decision [there]?” And I’m happy about it. They also agree. This just feels like where the show wants to live creatively. You work really hard for four or five months, and then you get to go explore other projects and travel and live your life.

Your departure from “The Good Wife,” with your character Will Gardner dying, felt like an out–of–body viewing experience as it happened. The fact that it was kept under wraps —

I can’t believe we did it, honestly. There was one journalist who obviously had a source somewhere and did find out. Part of being able to keep that silent until the moment was an agreement that they would come to set and be there as long as it was [kept secret]. I remember like when the episode aired, I was in the editing bay with the editors in L.A. [for an episode I directed]. I’m seeing things come in and I was like, “Oh my God!” I thought it was going to get ruined for people on the West Coast. These days, you know how they make something, how much this cost, how they did this scene … we used to be surprised by things. To be able to truly shock people you know like in an Orson Welles-style “War of the Worlds” way. I felt like in our own sort of network TV way, this was the equivalent of that. We really got to narratively pack a punch. That season was one of the great treats of my career. I just felt the writing on that show that season was at another level.

Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Air Force are once again discussing new-build F-16s. The development comes as the service grapples with a fighter fleet that is simultaneously aging, shrinking, ballooning in sustainment cost and being called upon to do more. This also comes at a time when the Air Force is now investing heavily in the F-15EX, another fourth-generation type it hadn’t bought for many years after committing to an all stealth future fighter fleet in the 2000s.

According to Aviation Week, the company has proposed an aircraft called the F-16G, an enhanced derivative of the F-16 Block 70. The proposed configuration reportedly incorporates conformal fuel tanks, 600-gallon wing tanks, an infrared search-and-track (IRST) system, a Sniper targeting pod, and a drag chute. All of these features have appeared on previous F-16s in one form or another. Lockheed is positioning the new version as a potential replacement for USAF F-16 units whose existing aircraft are approaching the end of their useful lives.

The Air Force, for its part, says that it has not yet settled on either the requirements or the options for addressing the problem. As it stands, the service has not committed to buying any new F-16s. The proposal is nevertheless notable because it follows an earlier round of discussions in which the Air Force was already examining whether a new-build F-16 could help address the growing fighter gap.

In December 2025, Inside Defense reported that the Air Force had reached out to Lockheed Martin about pricing for Block 70 F-16s — the current export standard. The conversations were described as exploratory, with no firm procurement plan, but the reporting established that the idea had moved beyond a purely theoretical discussion. One congressional aide told the publication that officials were looking at ways to “plug their holes” as part of their future force-structure planning.

A new Viper variant based on the Block 70 would be cheaper than replacing an aging F-16 with an F-35, while allowing the Air Force to retain much of the infrastructure, training, and experience associated with the existing aircraft. This is a major advantage as the F-35’s unique infrastructure and support requirements are a costly addition to the aircraft’s base price tag. An even bigger factor is unrelated to acquisition and bed-down costs: a Block 70 is far cheaper to sustain and operate over its service life than an F-35, a difference that compounds significantly across a fleet. 

The idea of a new Viper buy had already reached the highest levels of Air Force leadership several months earlier.

In May 2025, Sen. Tom Cotton asked then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin about the possibility of buying a U.S.-configured “Block 80” F-16 if Congress provided additional funding. Allvin did not endorse the proposal, but he did not dismiss it either, saying he needed to examine the time required to adapt the Block 70 design, where a U.S. aircraft could fit into Lockheed Martin’s production line, and what the industrial base could support. He also noted that the existing Block 70/72 line was already heavily occupied by foreign military sales.

At the same hearing, Allvin acknowledged the broader force-structure logic, saying the Air Force needed both the high-end capabilities required for an Indo-Pacific fight and other fighters that “may not need to be as sophisticated as our fifth-generation, sixth-generation.” He also emphasized that the first increment of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) was intended to augment rather than replace crewed fighters like the F-16.

Taken together, the developments show that the concept has remained alive through the Air Force’s evolving force-structure debate.

The Numbers Game

At first glance, the idea of buying new F-16s for the Air Force in the late 2020s might seem puzzling. The F-16 entered U.S. service in the 1970s, and the Air Force stopped buying new examples for itself more than 20 years ago. The established plan has been to replace the legacy F-16 fleet with the F-35A. For a long time, the service’s stated ambition was ultimately an all-stealth tactical fighter force — but that vision has already largely melted away as budget, operational and industrial-capacity realities have set in.

Today, the fighter fleet is still far older on average than it needs to be and legacy fourth generation types, minus a handful of new F-15EXs, are now well over 20-years old at the youngest. The oldest of these aircraft are increasingly challenging and costly to support. Meanwhile, the F-35 has had its fair share of successes and challenges, but replacing all of the USAF’s oldest fighters with JSFs in a timely and efficient manner, and operating those aircraft over future decades, looks increasingly problematic. The F-47 is also on the horizon, but that aircraft fits a different capability set more aligned with the F-22 than the F-16 and will come at a much higher cost than any fighter currently being procured.

Above all else, the problem is that the Air Force’s fighter challenge is one of numbers.

The service’s 2025 long-term fighter force-structure assessment concluded that it needed 1,558 combat-coded manned fighters by 2035 to reach what it considers a low-risk operational posture. The Air Force had only 1,098 fighters in its inventory as of May 2026, below the statutory minimum of 1,145.

At the same time, the service is trying to retire old aircraft, expand F-35A procurement, introduce the F-47, acquire additional F-15EXs, and field large numbers of CCAs. Those programs address different requirements, but they all compete for money, industrial capacity, personnel, and infrastructure.

For the Air Force, the question has not simply been whether the F-16 remains militarily useful, but also whether the aircraft provides a possible answer to a capacity shortfall, while also dealing with delays in F-35 deliveries, and the retirement of the A-10, blowing another hole in the inventory. Meanwhile, some older F-16s that had been expected to leave the fleet are instead receiving upgrades, including a new radar and electronic warfare suite, to keep them flying longer.

That creates a difficult transition period. The Air Force wants to retire aging fighters, but it also needs to keep enough aircraft available while their replacements arrive. The F-16 keeps reappearing because it offers a way of addressing at least part of that problem with a very well known commodity and without requiring every legacy fighter to be replaced by an F-35 or F-15EX.

The Production Line Matters

There is another reason the F-16 procurement idea refuses to disappear: Lockheed Martin already has an F-16 production line operating in the United States.

The Greenville, South Carolina, facility was established to produce Block 70/72 aircraft for foreign customers and is now the world’s only F-16 production facility. The Air Force helped establish the line as part of its broader effort to sustain the F-16 industrial base through foreign military sales. The line moved there after the massive Lockheed Martin plant at Fort Worth, Texas — where the F-16 had been built for decades — transitioned fully over to F-35 production.

So, buying new F-16s would not require reviving a dormant production line or spinning up an entirely new aircraft program. The basic manufacturing infrastructure already exists, and the additional work required for a U.S.-specific aircraft may end up being minimal — potentially amounting to little more than taking an existing Block 70 and tweaking it, rather than a large-scale new engineering, testing, and weapons-integration effort.

The Air Force has been aware of that possibility for years. In 2021, then-Air Force Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Will Roper argued that the service should consider the new F-16 production line as part of its capacity solution. Roper specifically pointed to the upgraded capabilities available from the South Carolina production line.

However, Greenville is not an empty production line waiting for a U.S. customer. Lockheed Martin’s F-16 facility already has a substantial Block 70/72 backlog for foreign operators, with the company reporting more than 100 aircraft in the queue and continued potential for additional international orders. It’s also unclear how much the facility could realistically be expanded, since it was designed around a relatively more modest foreign military sales production volume rather than the kind of surge a large U.S. order could require. Still, the USAF could step in and buy up open slots, which would also ensure the line stays open for the foreseeable future, which has major strategic and industrial protection benefits.

That brings us back to Gen. Allvin’s question in May 2025 about where a U.S. aircraft could fit on the production line. Even if the Air Force decided to buy the jets, it would have to compete for production capacity with an established international order book while developing whatever U.S.-specific configuration, testing, and integration work it requires.

This Is Not Your Dad’s F-16

The proposed F-16G is also significant because it is not simply another upgraded F-16C/D like the USAF already has.

Lockheed’s proposed configuration reportedly would add conformal fuel tanks and 600-gallon wing tanks, along with an IRST, and the latest Sniper targeting pod, as well as a drag chute. All of these systems are already fielded and available today rather than requiring new development.

Those additions point toward an aircraft intended to provide even more basing flexibility, range, persistence, weapons and sensing capability than the current F-16, which had already grown into a medium-weight fighter years ago. That is relevant to how such an aircraft might actually fit into the future Air Force.

A contemporary F-16 is already a very different proposition from the aircraft that entered U.S. service decades ago. Modern AESA radars, electronic warfare systems, digital architecture, datalinks, advanced cockpit interfaces and weapons have substantially expanded its capabilities. The proposed F-16G would push that evolution further, but, like the F-15EX, it would still occupy a different part of the spectrum from the F-35 and whatever eventually emerges from the F-47 program.

That distinction could be useful in a larger force. An F-35 provides capabilities, particularly its combination of stealth and advanced sensor fusion, that an F-16 can never reproduce. But the Air Force does not conduct every mission in the most heavily defended portion of an adversary’s airspace. Homeland defense, training, defensive counter-air, a range of strike missions, and operations in permissive or partially contested environments don’t necessarily require the same characteristics as a penetration mission against an integrated air defense network. In a major conflict, no fighter will fight alone, either. Far from it. Operation Midnight Hammer, the B-2 strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, provides a salient example here, with F-16s flying deep into the country along with F-22s and F-35s, to clear the way for the B-2 strike force. By now, the Air Force is well-versed in leveraging the total-force fourth-and-fifth-generation mix, and it has discovered that they complement each other in unique ways that can be an advantage, not just compensation for lack of capability.

As far as the drag chute, that is a highly relevant addition to the USAF’s F-16 capability set. The chute would allow for the F-16 to better execute Agile Combat Employment (ACE), which includes operating from austere airfields within the enemy’s weapons engagement zone. The F-16 can get off the runway pretty quick, but landing is a different story. The chute can help greatly in this regard.

There is no question that an F-16 is not a replacement for an F-35. But it could help the Air Force better allocate its limited inventory of increasingly expensive fifth-generation and future sixth-generation aircraft while also maintaining a much larger overall fighter fleet.

CCA Changes the Calculus for Fourth-Gen Jets

One factor that is easy to overlook is Collaborative Combat Aircraft. CCAs are not just a complement to fifth- and sixth-generation fighters, they can also breathe new relevance into fourth-generation types like the F-16. Pairing stealthy, and even optionally expendable CCAs with a fighter like the F-16G could substantially boost its survivability and lethality by pushing sensing, shooting, and some of the risk forward onto uncrewed platforms, extending the F-16’s combat relevance even into higher-end scenarios where it would otherwise be at a disadvantage. In that sense, CCA may end up being arguably as relevant to fourth-generation aircraft as it is to fifth-generation ones.

In other words, CCAs are a positive factor in the F-16G’s business case.

While the F-22 and F-35 are slated to get CCAs first, the F-16G can be built ready to interoperate with them, which could be a massive force multiplier to what would be the most affordable crewed tactical asset in the inventory. CCAs can eventually be used to also help augment F-16Gs operating in a homeland defense mission and other more mundane roles as well.

The Guard Argument

New Block 70s could make particular sense for the Air National Guard.

The Guard continues to operate F-16s in large numbers, meaning that its personnel, facilities, simulators, and maintenance infrastructure are already built around the aircraft. A new-build F-16 could therefore replace an aging F-16 without requiring the same organizational transition associated with converting a unit to an entirely different fighter, and especially a highly complex fifth-generation type with all its unique support requirements.

That has financial implications beyond the aircraft itself. Replacing an existing F-16 squadron with Block 70s would reduce construction costs and training requirements because much of the existing infrastructure and expertise could be retained.

The Air Force would still have to pay for the aircraft and sustainment, but it would not be starting from scratch in terms of operating infrastructure, while the modernized fourth-generation capabilities of an F-16G would still mark a step forward for the Guard over its older F-16s.

It’s worth noting there has also been discussion of replacing more aging F-16s with additional F-15EXs instead. That path, however, is more expensive on both the acquisition and operating-cost side, and it would still require units to convert to a different airframe rather than simply recapitalizing in place.

Viper Refreshed

A new F-16 offers a fresh and highly mature airframe — one with a full service-life ahead of it, on the order of 12,000 flight hours without the need for structural upgrades — double that of the original F-16. This is compared to existing F-16s in the inventory with the decades of wear and fatigue already accumulated on them, with structural upgrades keeping them in the air. That difference in remaining structural life is arguably the single biggest advantage a new-build aircraft has compared with extending an existing one.

Dumping more money into existing F-16s is becoming questionable. Service life extensions and technical upgrades can only go so far and supporting these jets is becoming harder as parts dry up and suppliers who made them are long gone. A new airframe would give the Guard many decades of highly efficient service and the piece of mind for future force planning that goes with it.

Also, just like F-15EX, the development of the Block 70 F-16 has already been paid for largely by foreign customers over many years. It is as off-the-shelf of a solution as it gets and that is a very attractive proposition to an air arm trying to balance its books.

Above all, F-16 sustainment and operating costs run far below the F-35’s — a gap that already holds true even with older F-16s, and one that would widen further with new-build jets.

The Argument Against Simply Buying More F-35s

One seemingly obvious alternative would be to accelerate F-35A procurement. But the F-35 is not simply another fighter that can be substituted one-for-one whenever an F-16 reaches the end of its service life. That would also be difficult to do in practice. F-35A production is effectively capped and there are dense order books, and the well-documented troubles with the Block 4 upgrade are a huge factor pushing the Air Force to look at alternatives like the F-16G in the first place.

The Air Force’s current force-structure plans call for significantly more fighters overall, while the service is simultaneously pursuing F-35As, F-15EXs, and the F-47.

Among the reasons why a modernized F-16 might be considered alongside those programs are concerns not only about the cost of those aircraft, but also about the timing of F-35 deliveries, something that has been disrupted by well-publicized problems with Joint Strike Fighter upgrades. At the same time, keeping older F-16s active through upgrades is an increasingly unattractive way of managing the shortfall.

The issue is therefore less about choosing the F-16 instead of the F-35 than about deciding whether the Air Force should use both aircraft for different portions of the force structure.

The service is already doing something along these lines with the F-15EX. It has accepted that a modernized fourth-generation aircraft can have a role alongside the F-35 and the F-22, rather than requiring every new fighter to be stealthy.

A new F-16 would extend that logic to a lower-cost segment of the fleet, potentially allowing the Air Force to use F-35s where their particular capabilities are most valuable while maintaining additional capacity with a less expensive aircraft.

What Could Happen Next?

Even if Air Force leaders conclude that the F-16G makes operational sense, Congress would still have to decide whether it is worth funding.

The December 2025 reporting identified the central problem: lawmakers would want the service to demonstrate that buying new aircraft is preferable to continuing to upgrade the F-16s it already owns. They would also have to weigh the proposal against the F-35 and CCA programs.

If an existing F-16 can be kept operational with a relatively inexpensive upgrade, a new aircraft has to justify its acquisition cost and the additional long-term sustainment burden. But if maintaining an increasingly old F-16 fleet doesn’t save large sums of money over the long haul, the new Block 70 variant begins to look more compelling.

There remains a substantial gap between Lockheed Martin pitching the F-16G and the Air Force actually buying it. The service told TWZ that it is “in the initial phases of analyzing options for the next Future Years Defense Program.” The Air Force spokesperson added: “At this stage, we have neither defined the precise mission requirements nor the spectrum of options that could fill it.”

That is consistent with the status described by Inside Defense nine months earlier. At the time, the Air Force had no plans to procure Block 70s, and the discussions with Lockheed were described as exploratory. Even if senior officials ultimately favored the aircraft, Inside Defense reported that the program could not appear in the Future Years Defense Program until at least fiscal 2028 because the FY2027 budget process was already too far along.

The F-16G therefore remains a proposal rather than a program. But the persistence of the idea is itself significant. It should be noted that the F-15EX buy emerged out of very similar machinations, with the benefits proving to be undeniable.

The new proposal would let some Guard and Reserve units swap their F-16s for vastly improved F-16s — the same logic that drove the F-15EX buy — while also keeping the Greenville line hot, which is a significant benefit in its own right. And it accomplishes both in the most efficient way possible: not just in acquisition cost, but in sustainment cost, which is really the more problematic burden of the two. In the end, this points to another glaring reality check for the all-stealth-force concept, a vision the Air Force has effectively already abandoned.

The Air Force has spent years describing the F-35 as the replacement for its F-16 fleet, yet it now has to contend with aging F-16s, delayed or constrained fighter production, a larger stated requirement for total fighter capacity, and the lengthy transition toward the F-47 and uncrewed combat aircraft. In that environment, a new-build F-16 provides an option that sits between extending legacy aircraft and buying the most sophisticated — and expensive — fighters available.

Regardless, there are so many priorities facing the force right now, buying new F-16s will be a challenge at every turn, but that doesn’t mean it won’t become too compelling of a proposition to accept. Still, many will argue that every dollar should be invested in higher-end fighter and uncrewed platforms that are more survivable against America’s primary pacing threat, China. That country is rapidly evolving its own air arm with stealth fighters and advanced uncrewed aircraft. Stepping back to the F-16 while facing down such a threat can appear to be counterproductive when taken at face value. At the same time, the F-16 is already slated to stay in the inventory by the hundreds for decades to come, which does take some of the bite out of that argument.

In the end, it is remarkable that the F-16 was supposed to have left the U.S. fighter equation years ago. Instead, every time the Air Force looks closely at the gap between the fighter force it has and the force it says it needs, the aircraft somehow finds a way back into the conversation.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Donald Trump Jr. has a lot more in common with his dad than just a name, sharing the president’s penchant for shady dealings and for kleptocratic Russians. Sometimes the two proclivities go together. That was the case in May, we learned this week from ProPublica, when Don Jr. married his second wife during a three-day Bahamian bacchanal bankrolled partly with hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Putin-allied oligarch the Trump scion met only recently.

I had to wonder — recalling Don Jr.’s response in 2016 on learning Russia helpfully wanted to dump dirt on Hillary Clinton — whether he replied in kind when his new Russian friend, Umar Kremlev, offered the wedding grift, er, gift: “If it’s what you say I love it.”

My second thought was that Don Jr. is just like his dad in wanting to spend other people’s money, even as the Trump family has accrued billions since President Trump has been back in office. (Cue the continued silence from the sleuths of Hunter Biden’s laptop.)

Just days before ProPublica’s exposé, at last week’s midterm Republican convention in Dallas, the elder Trump proffered a gift of $5,000 to every one of the roughly 270 million adult Americans. But the eponymous “Trump dividend” would come only if Republicans keep their House and Senate majorities after the November midterm elections.

The tab? More than $1 trillion, roughly $1.3 trillion. How generous Trump is with the U.S. Treasury, despite the news just last month that rattled bond markets and raised interest rates: The United States’ gross debt has exceeded $40 trillion. As Trump told CNBC in 2016: “I love debt. I love playing with it.” We can’t say he didn’t warn us. Even before his proposed 5K giveaway, Trump was on track to break his first-term record for adding to the unsustainable U.S. debt ($8.4 trillion).

Trump’s unprecedented offer of a post-election payout provoked predictable cries of “bribery” from Democrats and other critics. But legality aside, even the appearance of a bribe isn’t what bothers me most about the proposal.

For one thing, it won’t happen. No one will be receiving a $5,000 Trump dividend, just like no one received the DOGE dividend or $2,000 tariff refund he previously promised. Even if Republicans pull off a miracle and retain control of Congress, those in power show no zeal for his budget-buster, not after their complicity in adding trillions to the debt since last year with tax cuts, war costs and this, that and the other Trump pet project. And Congress indeed would have to act, under the Constitution, despite suggestions from the obsequious Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, that Trump could act alone. (But “I’m not ready to discuss it at present,” Bessent told a House committee on Tuesday.)

No, what bothers me most about Trump’s idea — what outrages me — is the damnable fiscal irresponsibility of it.

Trump has turned much of historical Republican orthodoxy on its head, including on immigration, trade and policy toward Russia. But his utter disregard for annual deficits — a record $2 trillion for this fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 — and his shameful profligacy with taxpayers’ money is something Americans haven’t seen in their lifetimes, in either party. Worse, Trump implies otherwise, that he is fiscally responsible, and he does it with lies that are so easily refuted, so often contradicted by his own words, that it’s a marvel that even such a chronic prevaricator as himself can utter them.

This week Trump is still claiming that the $5,000 dividend will be paid for because “we’re taking in trillions and trillions of dollars” in revenue from his inflationary tariffs on more than half of the goods imported into the country. The actual number isn’t even close to that, and he should know it: The data that nonpartisan analysts are crunching are from the government he supposedly runs.

In 2026, tariff revenue through August was just under $200 billion, but more than half of that already has been spent on refunds to big corporations including Amazon, Walmart and Home Depot, in keeping with a Supreme Court ruling against some of Trump’s tariffs. And as if Trump’s dividend proposal weren’t mendacious enough, in making it he seems to have forgotten his claim in his State of the Union address in February that he would use the tsunami of tariff revenue to abolish the federal income tax.

And one last thing: Even if each adult American got $5,000, subtract from that the nearly $2,000 that each household has paid, on average, because of higher tariffs since Trump took office, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

In this one dumb idea, in sum, the giveaway manifests just about all that is wrong with Trump as president: The lying, of course. Fiscal recklessness. The trashing of commendable Republican doctrines. The Trump bubble of sycophantic yay-sayers. And, in turn, the seat-of-his-pants policy idiocy, from war-making to White House demolishing.

The lack of any actual policy deliberation behind Trump’s $5,000 shocker was clear in his lackeys’ flailing and contradictory reactions — not just Bessent’s specious claim of presidential authority, but also Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s inane insistence the administration could somehow “earn the money that Donald Trump wants to pay out” and National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett’s comment, contrary to Bessent’s, that the White House is indeed looking to Congress for funds.

The good news? Americans get it. Recent polls have the percentage approving of Trump’s handling of the economy as low as 28%. Significant majorities say they are worse off since he became president again.

Such numbers portend an election result that isn’t likely to be changed by a promise of $5,000. Especially from a serial promise-breaker.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

If you’re looking for a Netflix series to watch, this show already has two seasons available and it’s so good, viewers will happily stay up all night watching every episode

On the hunt for a new Netflix series? It can be hard finding something new to watch, but Netflix is showing a series so good viewers are binging all episodes within days.

The show is so addictive, viewers will happily stay up late to binge as many episodes as they can. Two seasons are currently available to watch and the streaming platform even confirmed in May this year a third season will be on the cards. Social media users recently shed light on the comedy series which stars Kate Hudson and Max Greenfield. So what show is everyone talking about?

Running Point, a sport comedy series, follows Isla Gordon (Kate Hudson), who’s unexpectedly put in charge of her family’s pro basketball team, the Los Angeles Waves.

The reformed party girl has a lot to prove as she soon learns that running a basketball team comes with its own set of challenges both on and off the court.

Over on Reddit, many people who have already watched both seasons had really good reviews about the Netflix series. One person wrote in the Running Point forum: “Just started this show, I LOVE IT!

“Last night I was endlessly scrolling through comedy shows on Netflix and nothing was sticking. I decided to start Running Point (with low expectations) and it immediately hooked me. I stayed up all night and just started season 2.”

Speaking about the entire cast, which also features Drew Tarver, who plays Sandy Gordon, Isla’s younger half-brother and chief financial officer of the Waves, Scott MacArthur as Ness Gordon, the older brother and general manager of the team, and Brenda Song as Ali Lee, Isla’s college roommate, best friend and chief of staff.

The person continued: “Kate Hudson absolutely crushes her role as President of the Waves.”

Over in the comments section, other people agreed Running Point has been a good watch. Someone said: “Oh my gosh yes! This was my first thought when I watched this show, all the similarities to Arrested Development.

“It’s so great. My personal favourite is Ness and all his quirkiness and how funny he is.”

A third admitted: “I came across it last weekend. Binged it in 2 days.” And a fourth chimed in: “My family and I started it like a week ago and we already finished it, so funny! Ness is hands down my favourite character, and I really like Sandy.”

Season 2 premiered in April this year, while Netflix announced a month later the series would be renewed for a third season. While an official release date is not finalised, previous release patterns suggest season 3 could be out around early 2027.

CALLING all foodies – this might just be the country pub with the best food in Britain.

Here’s everything else you need to know about staying at The Freemasons at Wiswell.

Where is The Freemasons at Wiswell?

The beautiful country pub is in the heart of a pretty sandstone Lancashire village.

What is the hotel like?

Lots of nooks and crannies ensure you enjoy the buzz of a busy spot, but also have privacy to enjoy the company of family or friends.

The inn itself was once three cottages, one of which was a freemason’s lodge.

What are the rooms like?

The room we stayed in was in a property next door so we had no noise from the bar and enjoyed a peaceful sleep in the countryside.

BOOZE AND SNOOZE

Best pub rooms you can rent on Airbnb with free breakfasts & dogs welcome

GOTTA SEA IT

I stayed at the Cornish pub with rooms that couldn’t be closer to the sea

Our room – Mr Hare – boasted a super king bed, and a stunning rolltop bath on a mezzanine floor.

Luxury touches included fluffy towels and dressing gowns as well as a Nespresso coffee machine and premium, handmade bath and body products.

“My dream bedroom”, said my wife.

Rooms start from £125. See freemasonsatwiswell.com.

What is there to eat and drink at the hotel?

The kitchen is led by executive chef Michael Shaw who has worked for some of Britain’s best known chefs including Gordon Ramsay and Raymond Blanc.

We visited on a Thursday so Mike popped out of the kitchen and encouraged us to enjoy a six-course tasting menu (£85pp).

English asparagus, cornish crab, stuffed mushrooms, glazed duck and salted white chocolate.

Andrew, our host, allowed us to choose some wine, before choosing us a better bottle of red. An a la carte menu is also available.

The following morning we enjoyed a three-course breakfast – fresh baked pastries, smoked salmon and cured meats and a delicious cooked breakfast.

Even if not staying at the hotel, the Freemasons is a lovely place for a pint, or a celebratory meal. Sunday lunch (£39.50 for two courses) looks good too.

What else is there to do there?

Chocolate box Wiswell is lovely to stroll around before or after a meal.

A few minute’s drive away is the popular village of Whalley which features lovely little shops, wine bars and traditional pubs.

We got into the car and drove 15 minutes to nearby Barley and spent a lovely couple of hours walking up 557-metre Pendle Hill, famous as the spot where ten people were hanged during the 1612 Pendle Witch trials.

Is it family friendly?

For families, it is advisable to get in contact to discuss the needs of your stay so there’s plenty of room for everyone.

Is there access for guests with disabilities?

Freemasons at Wiswell offers disabled access rooms on the ground floor.

Way back in the 1970s, the City Section ruled in top quarterbacks. In the city of Granada Hills alone, there were two future NFL quarterbacks competing: John Elway at Granada Hills and Tom Ramsey at Kennedy. Add another future NFL quarterback, Jay Schroeder, and the City Section could compare itself to anyone in the nation.

This season, City teams have been going to the air to take advantage of their experienced, athletic quarterbacks.

From Chris Fields III at Carson to super sophomore Thaddeus Breaux at Hamilton, these quarterbacks know what they are doing. Let’s look at others.

South East’s Bryce Johnson has 743 yards passing and five touchdowns in three games. Jered Smith of Verdugo Hills has 462 yards passing and six touchdowns in two games. Noa Tuvalu of Banning has thrown for 837 yards and seven touchdowns with only one interception.

Seth Solorio of San Pedro set a school record with seven touchdown passes last week against Westchester. Freshman Exavier Johnson of Birmingham came through with 171 yards passing and two touchdowns last week in a loss to Moorpark. Robert Holohan of Palisades has five touchdown throws. Danniel Flowers of Crenshaw has led his team to a 3-0 start with his versatility to run and pass.

Gerald Torres of King/Drew has 800 yards passing and seven touchdowns. Nathaniel Cadet of Marshall has passed for nine touchdowns.

It’s a good sign that teams are getting their offensive lines to provide enough protection to let quarterbacks shine.

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email eric.sondheimer@latimes.com.

A pair of top executives are out at Good Good Golf less than two weeks after the content creator and apparel brand posted, then deleted, an ad that has been highly criticized for making light of violence toward women.

Good Good chief executive officer Matt Kendrick and president Joe Flannery have left the company, multiple media outlets reported Wednesday. Business Insider published an internal staff memo from chief operating officer Alex Puchala that announced the departures without mentioning the controversial ad for the Good Good Callaway Quantum Driver.

Kendrick was one of the co-founders of the company, which started as a YouTube channel in 2020, and has since become one of golf’s biggest content creators. He told Front Office Sports late last month that he did not see the video before it was posted and added that he wasn’t in the practice of approving every one of the company’s social media posts.

Flannery was a recent hire whose first day on the job was Aug. 21, the same day the ad dropped.

“Effective today, Matt has decided to step down as CEO of Good Good and Joe has chosen to part ways as well,” Puchala wrote. “This is a difficult day for the entire Good Good family. Matt helped build something extraordinary that exceeded all expectations and continues to bring countless new fans to the sport. What began as a small group of friends playing golf is now a growing global community.”

Company co-founder Nahid Giga will serve as interim CEO, Puchala wrote. Neither Puchala nor Good Good immediately responded to requests for comment.

The ad depicted a man, played by Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark, shoving a woman to the ground as she reaches for one of his golf clubs. “Do not touch my new driver,” he says as he stands over her. Clark remains with the company as part of the creator team, according to Puchala’s memo.

Both Good Good and Callaway issued apologies for the ad in the days following its deletion. Clark also posted a lengthy video on social media in which he apologized for “the worst ad known to man.”

“This is not at all what we stand for,” Clark said. “… I want everyone to know that I do not support [domestic violence], abuse or any of that of any kind.”

On Aug. 27, Callaway announced it had cut ties with Good Good after a three-year business relationship and committed $1 million “to support organizations working to prevent violence against women, provide resources to survivors, and advance education and awareness efforts.”

The next day, Kendrick criticized Callaway in a post on his X account.

“Interesting that @CallawayGolf asks us to make an ad then approves it then asks us to take the fall then drops us in a coordinated media blitz and covers it up by giving a million dollars away thinking everyone will be ok with it,” Kendrick wrote.

He took a much more reserved approach related to the split with Callaway when talking to Front Office Sports the same day.

“They severed ties with us. We completely understand that position and this is a situation no one wants to be in,” Kendrick said. “And we apologize to everyone for being in this position, and I apologize to Callaway that all of us are here. I understand everyone’s position and I get it.

“We loved being with Callaway for a long time. They were nothing but great to us the entire time we were together. I just hate that this is how it ended.”

American golf brand Good Good has sacked two senior executives following backlash over an advert which showed a woman being pushed to the ground after reaching for a club.

The company, whose YouTube channel has 2.1m subscribers, said it had parted ways with chief executive Matt Kendrick and president Joe Flannery following the release of the advert created for golf club manufacturer Callaway.

Good Good vice-president of brand and marketing Jeffrey Lefkovits was sacked earlier this week.

Head of finance and operations at Good Good, Alex Puchala, said the dismissals on Wednesday were a “difficult day for the entire Good Good family”.

Nahid Giga, a board member and investor in Good Good, has been installed as interim CEO.

The video drew widespread criticism and was accused of making light of violence against women.

Last month Good Good and Callaway removed the advert and issued apologies.

Callaway ended its partnership with Good Good and said it was donating $1m (£736,000) to organisations working to prevent violence against women and support victims.

Good Good, whom Callaway has worked with since 2023, has stepped away from its sponsorship of a PGA Tour event in Austin, Texas, in November.

Good Good products have also been pulled from the shelves of several retailers.

The advert showed Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark rushing over to Alexis Miestowski – a professional golfer and regular content creator for Good Good – and pushing her to the ground before shouting: “Do not touch my new driver.”

The brand, which has become one of the largest content creators in golf, launched its YouTube channel 2020. Regular clips include men and women competing in various golf challenges.

Good Good also creates made-for-TV shows as well as adverts for golf clothing and other merchandise.

Puchala said Good Good was “concouraged by the continued support” of its fans and said it is “focused on moving forward and building the next chapter of the company”.

The beloved comedy was created by The Office star Mindy Kaling

Friends fans might have just found their next TV obsession.

Not Suitable For Work (NSFW) landed on Hulu and Disney Plus in June, and its already drawing comparisons to iconic sitcoms. Created by Mindy Kaling, the series centres on five twenty-somethings as they navigate the transition from university life into the professional world.

Viewers follow the tight-knit group as they attempt to scale the corporate ladder in New York City. English actress Ella Hunt leads the cast as main character AJ, an introverted financial analyst who moves to Manhattan for the role.

She shacks up with her former university flatmate Abby (played by Avantika Vandanapu), who is pursuing a career in celebrity styling. The rest of the ensemble is made up of rising stars Will Angus, Jack Martin and Nicholas Duvernay.

Despite its first season spanning just nine episodes, NSFW has garnered overwhelming praise from viewers. It achieved an impressive 82% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, where one enthusiastic fan declared: “This series is everything and deserves the f***** best.”

The review continued: “Modern day ‘Friends’, and I say that as the most outstanding compliment. Mindy Kaling, wow! It felt fresh, new and necessary for the time,” reports OK!

Another fan compared it to the nineties classics, commenting: “The cast is brilliant. It clearly feels like an homage to 90’s sitcoms like Friends.” While a third person raved: “10/10 series, a breath of fresh air for comedy in 2026.”

Get Disney+ from £5.99

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

£5.99

Disney+

Get Disney+ here

A Disney+ subscription is now available from £5.99 per month, offering hit shows like Andor, The Bear and Alien: Earth, plus countless titles from Star Wars and Marvel.

Yet another viewer shared their glowing verdict: “Such a good show! only complaint is that there are never enough episodes….give us 20 episode seasons.”

Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like NSFW will be releasing new episodes anytime soon. Hulu has decided to cancel the show after one season, although producers are said to be looking for a new streaming home.

Creator Kaling took to Instagram to express her love for the project following its cancellation. Sharing several snaps of the cast, she wrote: “I love this show, I loved making this show, I love these people, and I love all of you for all your sweet comments, messages, edits and for watching.”

All nine episodes of Not Suitable For Work are available to stream now on Disney Plus.