ISNT

Notwithstanding the California Republican party’s well-intentioned anointment of Sen. Pete Wilson as its gubernatorial nominee, it is no secret that he continues to have an uncomfortable relationship with the conservative wing that dominates it.

As we move closer toward the general election, conservatives across the state, and particularly in vote-rich Orange County, are now asking the question, “What would a Gov. Wilson offer to conservatives?” Some have already answered that question, and for them, the answer is: not much.

This could spell disaster in November, especially if the slickly packaged former mayor of San Francisco, Dianne Feinstein, wins the Democratic Party nomination over liberal Establishment candidate Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp.

Last March, the California Republican Assembly, the largest volunteer, grass-roots Republican organization in the state, adopted a vote of no-confidence in the senator. Pro-life and pro-family organizations–an integral part of winning Republican coalitions–are openly hostile to his candidacy. The conservative Young Americans for Freedom has already gone on record against him. In a futile but symbolic gesture, YAF even put up one of its own, Jeff Greene, to challenge the senator in the June primary.

So far, these are but chinks in the formidable Wilson campaign armor. Though most state conservative leaders are publicly backing Wilson, many are clearly wondering what happened to the Reagan Revolution in California. How is it that the one-time, anti-Reagan moderate mayor from San Diego might now become head of the party in the very state that produced “The Gipper”? (This frustration explains, in part, the enthusiasm among conservatives for the “renegade” primary campaign of “charter” Reaganite Bay Buchanan for state treasurer against the incumbent, Tom Hayes, who was appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian.)

Conservative Republicans have always been suspicious of the “progressive” mayor of San Diego. To begin with, they have never quite forgiven then-Mayor Wilson for campaigning for President Ford against favorite son Ronald Reagan in the 1976 New Hampshire presidential primary. These suspicions contributed to Wilson coming in a poor fourth in the Republican primary for governor two years later. By 1982 he learned a lesson. He then campaigned in the U.S. Senate Republican primary against several Ronald Reagan conservatives, including Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr. and Robert K. Dornan. While Goldwater was preoccupied with trading off his father’s name and latecomer Dornan was in search of campaign funds, Wilson preemptively blitzed the airwaves with commercials tightly wrapping himself around support for President Reagan. Fellow candidate and “first daughter” Maureen Reagan was particularly galled. So were others. But it worked, and Wilson won what was clearly the make-or-break election of his statewide political future.

Once in the Senate, Pete Wilson went on to very smartly, and sincerely, carry the banner of many issues important to conservatives. From his berth on the Senate Armed Services Committee he defended the Reagan military buildup, railed against the Soviet threat and became an ardent spokesman for the Strategic Defense Initiative. He helped protect California’s defense industry, the Long Beach Naval Shipyard and even got Mayor Feinstein to support home-porting the nuclear-powered battleship Missouri in liberal San Francisco. Wilson strongly backed the freedom fighters in Nicaragua and Afghanistan and was up front in his defense of Oliver L. North.

Occasionally, but never reliably, Wilson has voted with conservatives on key social and family-oriented issues. For these things and more, Wilson avoided a primary challenge from the right and deservedly received virtually unqualified conservative support for his 1988 reelection.

The problem now facing gubernatorial candidate Pete Wilson is that those defense and foreign policy issues so essential to his overall appeal to conservatives are no longer available to balance out his generally moderate-to-liberal campaign positions on many social, domestic and environmental issues. Unfortunately, the messages from his campaign and the press seem only to highlight the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-prayer in school, anti-growth, higher transportation taxes, costly mass transit, and other big-government elements of his platform (including the creation of another costly government Cabinet department to deal with the environment).

As a result, his yeoman efforts on behalf of the speedy-trial initiative seem pale. To many conservatives, the Pete Wilson of 1990 sounds a lot like the Pete Wilson of 1978.

Unlike Sen. Wilson’s 1982 race against Jerry Brown or his 1988 reelection against Leo T. McCarthy, this year every conservative vote will matter–a lot. So, too, will the crossover votes of conservative Democrats who today keep many Republicans in office. We cannot afford to have any one of them sit at home or cast a protest vote for a third-party candidate.

What is of added danger to Wilson is that conservative Democrats are being told that Feinstein is a candidate they can finally support. Who’s kidding whom? A conservative Democrat mayor from San Francisco is about as believable as Dana Rohrabacher being appointed head of the National Endowment for the Arts. Yet the liberal Southern California media persist in mislabeling the Lady from Babylon by the Bay largely because of her “traitorous” support for the death penalty. Look for a finely tuned “come home” message from the Feinstein campaign to conservative Democrats in November.

When the media are not calling her a conservative, they frequently remark that on substantive issues there is little difference between Feinstein and Wilson. Strike another blow to a proven Republican campaign axiom: Fail to differentiate yourself from your Democrat opponent and you lose.

Wilson’s recent campaign commercials do not help. He emphasizes his environmental record, support for mass transit and the need to control those nasty developers. At best it seems an ill-timed ad for the primary season. At worst it emphasizes management, not leadership, and is not conservative on either count. Better he should first shore up his traditional Republican credentials.

The senator should probably not count on the evils of a Democratic-controlled reapportionment process to give him an added loyalty boost, either. Voters have shown either an inability to understand the issue or often view it in partisan terms. But if a state commission on reapportionment is created by the voters on June 5, the argument that a Republican governor is needed to keep the Democrat Legislature honest will be moot.

Finally, the precedent exists for an electorally significant percentage of the conservative vote to be cast in protest for a third-party candidate. That occurred in the Zschau-Cranston race. Despite a strong Republican Party sales effort aimed at ensuring conservative backing for the former moderate Rep. Ed Zschau, including four trips to California by President Reagan (two in Orange County alone), the word went out to the fall-on-your-sword conservatives to cast a protest vote for the pro-life American Independent Party candidate Ed Vallen. Vallen received nearly double the normal statewide and Orange County AIP vote that year (1.5%). Zschau lost to Alan Cranston by only 1.4%. While there are important differences between the seasoned Wilson with proven statewide electability and newcomer Zschau, the point is that a small electoral shift could prove fatal to him in a close race.

Despite what some political pollsters and self-appointed media opinion makers would have us believe, the successful Reagan electoral coalition has not dispersed. Nor have their beliefs in traditional family values, small government, low taxes, free enterprise and equal opportunity for that chance at the American dream taken a back seat to child care, global warming and acid rain.

Pete Wilson, known for waging smart, well-financed campaigns, has some reassuring to do on the right. To win in November, he has to count on every conservative vote in Orange County–and it is not clear yet that he is going to get them.

Four months have passed since US Starfighters breached the Fuerte Tiuna Death Star, captured Darth Maduro and celebrations broke out all around the galaxy. Venewoks in the diaspora embraced a renewed sense that victory, this time, might be permanent. But back in the country, the Empire has managed to reorganize and adapt to the demands of Viceroy Trump and leading members of the Trade Federation. Darth Delcy, albeit disdained by many, is becoming stronger. The rebellion yearns for the return of Master Machado, who isn’t getting the Viceroy’s authorization to negotiate a proper matchup with Darth Delcy and subsequent terms of surrender.

It’s more evident by the minute that Darth Delcy’s plan is to avert the creation of the New Republic by giving the Empire a technocratic, trade-friendly outlook. The path between defeating Darth Maduro and dismantling the Empire has turned out to be treacherous. Master Machado has tried to reassert her leadership by visiting foreign galaxies, but can’t find a breakthrough with the Viceroy.

Delcykrats are trying to conduct a swift takeover of the layered system Darth Maduro inherited from the Emperor. Madurokis are being neutralized or quietly assigned to minor planets, as is the case of Grand Moff Padrino in Agraria. Grand Admiral González López and Envoy Plasencia, old friends of Darth Delcy, are making strides, one within the Imperial High Command, the other across intergalactic diplomacy. Grand Vizier Jorge, Darth Delcy’s cunning brother, is running the senate and recasting the new imperial order through the language of old Scarlet propaganda.

The new imperial order

In Carascant, to keep the Scarlet Coalition from fragmenting, Darth Delcy tries to keep the echo of Stormtrooper boots and official dismissals contained within Imperial Offices. She still has to contend with Diosdado the Hutt, whose power lies in coercion and galactic hunting squads. More than 450 rebellion prisoners, many captured on the Hutt’s orders, are still in Imperial detention centers.

Viceroy Trump looks unwilling to press the ruling Delcykrats as long as he gets unrestricted access to on-demand resources such as kyber crystals and beskar steel. As Darth Delcy’s power and appeal before the Trade Federation has grown, she has terminated initial gestures of reconciliation that were initially needed for appeasement. A new Death Star is in the works, and to build a superior weapon for durable rule, Darth Delcy knows time is her most valuable asset.

Chief Envoy Rubio has reassured Master Machado that the galaxy first needs to stabilize and revive its economy before any transition can take place. Lately, however, the envoys that visit Carascant have said nothing about Republican reform, and a great deal about kyber crystals and the resumption of intergalactic travel.

The Empire does not need either Darth Maduro or Darth Delcy to prevail. It only needs the New Republic project to fail.

Master Machado has also witnessed how the regime restricts the activity of allies like Han Guanipa and Lando Armas, dropping threats every now and then. In the domestic senate, separatist opponents led by Count Capriles have failed to influence Imperial policy. A series of looming Imperial appointments, and the November referendum on Viceroy Trump, can determine Master Machados’ chances to a great extent.

Aligning the interests of the victors of the November referendum with those of the New Republic will be a challenge for rebel aides Mon Meda and Pedro Organa. They won’t just need to keep a level of coordination with allies of growing importance, but to safeguard Master Machado’s position before Viceroy Trump while keeping the new hope alive.

The struggle for Republican foundations

In the coming weeks, the Scarlet Coalition will be forced to appoint a new InterGalactic Banking Board (IGBB) and, even sooner, fill roughly two-thirds of the Imperial High Court. The figures chosen to lead these bodies could prove decisive in shaping the fate of Darth Delcy’s emerging Death Star project. A competent IGBB will be essential for the stabilization phase, key to aligning both the Trade Federation and the Galactic Senate behind the prospect of Venezuela’s economic rebound.

At the same time, a genuinely independent Imperial High Court could become the first meaningful check on Imperial power. The courts are also expected to oversee the Council of Electoral Battles, still controlled by Madurokis whom Darth Delcy has left untouched to avoid triggering her pending matchup with Master Machado. These two institutions will be critical to the third phase that Chief Envoy Rubio is purportedly pursuing, and might determine the success of Viceroy Trump’s plan after capturing Darth Maduro. Control over courts and the Battles Council will determine whether the final electoral contest—backed by the Trade Federation—can take place on credible terms.

The Rebel struggle will gradually shift toward navigating a far more intricate web of factions within a fragmented Trade Federation.

But Darth Delcy is expected to attempt cosmetic reshuffles rather than a transformative change of Imperial personnel. One unresolved question is whether forces aligned with Master Machado, such as national support and diplomatic pressure, will be enough to force a true transfer of power, or whether the Empire will once again adapt without changing.

The near future provides an opportunity for the new order to strengthen. The Trade Federation’s influence over Darth Delcy depends on Viceroy Trump’s grip on power, which will face its biggest challenge in the November referendum. The unchecked power the Viceroy currently has allows him to circumvent any criticism over Carascant. But change in the Trade Federation’s balance of power could make bipartisan support essential for the future of the New Republic.

The Trade Federation’s reckoning

Competing views in the Trade Federation on how to advance with the Empire’s transition will give more time and less scrutiny to Darth Delcy’s actions. It also provides an opportunity for Imperial Envoy Plasencia to bolster views which are more aligned with the Empire. For the Rebellion, the fallout from Viceroy Trump’s eroding grip on power hinges entirely on the alliances Master Machado has tried to forge.

These alliances will likely be essential to maintain pressure and decisively advance the New Republic’s agenda. Nonetheless, Viceroy Trump’s polarizing grip on the narrative has created deep seated resistance amongst potential allies. The struggle will gradually shift away from merely managing and appeasing Viceroy Trump and his Envoys, and toward navigating a far more intricate web of factions within a fragmented Trade Federation.

When Darth Maduro was defeated but no New Republic was allowed to emerge, the Empire did not dissolve, it adapted. Its new faces and colors are not signs of weakness but mechanisms of survival, designed to delay or prevent the formation of a New Republic. “Permanent victory” is an illusion. The Empire does not need either Darth Maduro or Darth Delcy to prevail. It only needs the New Republic project to fail.

What follows for Master Machado and the Rebellion is therefore not a triumphant return, but a sequence of calculated risks. The next chapter will depend on whether Master Machado returns as the leader of a Rebellion or as the effective architect of a New Republic. The Empire is determined to prevent her return or neutralize her immediately. If she returns solely as a symbol of resistance, Imperial forces will seek to frame her as a destabilizing threat to Viceroy Trump’s plan, increasing the risk of escalation against her.

If, however, her return becomes the centerpiece of a multilateral New Republic project backed by the Trade Federation, it would directly undermine Darth Delcy’s strategy. In that scenario, any move against Master Machado would signal to Viceroy Trump that Delcy cannot control the coalition she leads. At the same time, Master Machado’s movement can position itself as a more credible alternative for institutional reconstruction.

This shift, from diplomatic cover during resistance to an instrument of internal legitimacy, opens a narrow but meaningful window for the New Republic’s success.

The past 12o days show that Venewoks have not yet earned their Endor moment. As in the Star Wars movies, dismantling an Empire and building a New Republic will take a long and arduous journey. Normally the credits would unroll now, but the crisis continues and Darth Delcy’s intentions are crystal clear.

SACRAMENTO — Across America, 53 women have served as state governors. But not one in California. What gives? Aren’t we supposed to be enlightened out here in this cutting-edge state?

In fact, 14 women currently are governors in all sorts of states — north, south, flyover and Pacific coast. Big, midsize and small. Red, blue and purple.

We stand out with a huge black mark.

Voters have a chance to erase the ugly spot this year with Katie Porter in position to possibly be elected California’s first female governor.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Porter should be elected just because she’s a woman.

What I’m saying is that this is an opportunity to elect a perfectly qualified woman. If a male opponent is considered better suited for the job, fine. But first, let’s give her a good hard look and listen to her ideas. Maybe she’s too liberal — or not liberal enough. Perhaps too feisty and brusque than some unfairly find acceptable in a woman.

Independent polling shows that Porter basically isn’t getting any more support from women voters than she is from men.

I queried my best source on such matters: my daughter, Karen Skelton, a longtime political operative who has served stints in the Clinton and Biden White Houses. Why aren’t more women rallying around Porter?

“There was a time when women were excited to support women just because they were women, fueled by the historic prospect of electing ‘the first,’” she said. “But if anything has been proven in the last two presidential elections where women ran, it’s that identity politics does not work….

“It has to be more than her identity as a woman to get her elected.”

Yep. In my view, Democrat Hillary Clinton wasn’t very likable in 2016 and ran a lousy campaign. In 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris also lacked popularity. And she was dealt a losing hand by aging President Biden when he took too long to step aside.

Harris, a former U.S. senator with a long history of electoral success in California, would have been the heavy favorite to become the state’s first female governor if she had run. But she declined, opting for a possible third presidential bid in 2028.

Porter, 52, is a UC Irvine consumer law professor and former Orange County congresswoman who increased her statewide name familiarity by running unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2024.

Running for governor, she has been forthright and specific on what she’d try to achieve in Sacramento. She’d probably shake up the place.

One goal that should appeal to young families is free childcare. How’d she pay for that, I asked.

“Well, how do we afford public schools, roads, everything else, right?” the single mother of three answered, implying it’s about priorities. “The reason we don’t fund childcare, but we do fund other things, is because we expect women and mothers to do childcare for free or for pennies.”

She was scurrying along leading the Democrat pack last fall until tripping over two videos that displayed a hot temper.

In one, she threatened to walk out of a TV interview when a female reporter repeatedly asked how she expected to gain the votes of President Trump’s supporters. An irritated Porter said she didn’t need their votes, and she was right — but also rude.

In the other video — an oldie — then-Rep. Porter was shown yelling at a young female aide to “get out of my f— shot” during a videoconference with a Cabinet secretary.

Porter says she apologized to the staffer that day and they worked together for years afterward. And following a recent televised debate, Porter says, the former aide texted her congratulations and added that if she still lived in California, she’d vote for her.

The TV reporter, Julie Watts of CBS, was a moderator of a campaign debate last week and tossed some prickly questions at Porter and the other candidates.

“I was very calm and answered all the questions,” Porter notes. “I showed people I can do better” than the TV interview she has apologized for many times.

Porter has never completely recovered from the harmful videos. But she’s running close to two other Democrats — billionaire Tom Steyer and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra — in the June 2 primary.

“If a man had done the same thing, we wouldn’t be talking about it,” asserts Valerie McGinty, founder and president of Fund Her, an organization dedicated to electing women.

Several women agreed.

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), who has endorsed Porter, points to the late beloved, oft-profane legislative leader John Burton of San Francisco as an example of a double standard.

“Not a woman in American politics could get away with titling their autobiography ‘I Yell Because I Care,’” she says. On the book’s jacket cover, Burton is pictured speaking to a crowd with two raised middle fingers.

“People expect women to be strong but not too harsh,” Petrie-Norris says.

OK, but why do women get elected governor in other states, but not in California?

Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC, says the vast amounts of money and human resources needed to win in humongous California make it especially difficult for women. They usually haven’t been included in the political pipeline long enough, she says, to build a hefty donor base, acquire elective office experience and gain statewide name recognition.

Three women have dropped out of the current race because they weren’t gaining ground. But it’s hard to argue it was because of any gender hurdles.

Previously, three women won their party nominations for governor but lost in November: Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Kathleen Brown in 1990 and 1994, respectively, and Republican Meg Whitman in 2010. None lost because of any double standard. It just wasn’t their year politically.

But California has elected three female U.S. senators — Democrats Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Harris.

And nearly half the state Legislative seats are held by women.

It’s conceivable this year that California finally enters the 20th century — let alone the 21st — by electing our first female governor.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Coded messages, ‘red boxing’ and other allegations in California’s testy race for governor
Money (That’s what I want): Billionaire-tax backers say they have enough signatures to qualify for ballot
The L.A. Times Special: Voter guide to the 2026 California primary election

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The U.S. Army’s 1st Cavalry Division turned heads yesterday with social media posts that seemed to suggest the unit had begun fielding a new version of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) armed with a turreted 30mm cannon. Multiple outlets and large social media channels subsequently reported the news this way. TWZ asked the Army and defense contractor BAE Systems for more information, and both have clarified that the two AMPV 30s delivered this week are company-funded prototypes that are only set to be tested.

The Army will evaluate the AMPV 30s as part of the Transformation In Contact (TIC) 2.0 initiative. TIC efforts, in general, have been focused on helping accelerate the fielding of new and improved capabilities, as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures to go with them. However, presently, the service has no plans to acquire this variant of the AMPV.

The Army selected the Bradley-based AMPV as the replacement for its long-serving M113 family of armored personnel carriers and related vehicles in 2014. The service’s current program of record includes five AMPV variants, all of which are turretless. The M1283 general-purpose personnel carrier, the M1284 medical evacuation vehicle, the M1285 medical treatment vehicle, the M1286 command and control version, and the M1287 mortar carrier vehicle.

So it came as something of a surprise when the 1st Cavalry Division announced the arrival of the AMPV 30s yesterday.

“Big news! The 1st Cavalry Division has just received the Army’s FIRST AMPV 30mm prototypes,” a post from the 1st Cavalry Division’s official account on X had declared. “Our troopers are leading the charge once again by integrating this next-generation capability into the formation and transforming how armored Divisions fight.”

The 1st Cavalry Division, which is based at Fort Hood in Texas, also shared a set of pictures of the vehicles yesterday through the U.S. military’s Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) website. “The AMPV features a remote 30mm turret capable of using programmable airburst ammunition, designed to target small drones and unarmored ground threats, embodying the Transforming in Contact initiative to dominate the modern battlefield,” per a common caption attached to all of these images.

As an aside, some were quick to point out a certain irony in the idea that the Army had fielded a new version of the AMPV with a cannon-armed turret. An AMPV in this configuration looks very similar to the Bradley on which the original turretless variants were based.

Despite the phrasing of the 1st Cavalry’s social media posts, the AMPV 30s are “an internal research and development type effort from BAE Systems,” an Army spokesperson told TWZ today. “It is not something the Army procured, nor is there a requirement for the system at this time.”

“This system will be participating in TIC, but again, there is no Army requirement,” the spokesperson added.

“BAE Systems provided two prototype AMPV 30s to the U.S. Army to participate in the upcoming Transformation in Contact (TiC) 2.0 initiative,” the company told TWZ in a separate statement. “The vehicles were developed through self-investment and based on the proven chassis of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV). Over the next several months, the Army will run the AMPV 30s through field evaluations to benchmark the platform’s capabilities against what Soldiers require to maintain advantage on the modern battlefield.”

“Our mission was speed and innovation, and we delivered beyond expectations. With today’s battlefield evolving faster than ever, it’s paramount that Soldiers have the capabilities they need to win the fight,” a BAE Systems spokesperson also told TWZ today. “Throughout this effort, our team demonstrated how we can integrate new design solutions in a time-effective and more cost-efficient manner for the Army.”

BAE Systems also confirmed that the turret on these up-gunned AMPVs is the Medium Caliber Turret-30 (MCT-30) from Norway’s Kongsberg Defense. This is a remotely operated design that contains a Mk 44 Bushmaster II automatic cannon, as well as a fire control suite that includes electro-optical and infrared cameras. It is interesting to note that the Marine Corps is in the process of acquiring a variant of its 8×8 wheeled Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) equipped with MCT-30. BAE is also the prime contractor for the ACV family. In addition, the Army has two variants of the 8×8 Stryker wheeled armored vehicle armed with XM813 cannons, which are based on the Mk 44, but neither uses the MCT-30 turret.

An AMPV equipped with the MCT-30 was first shown publicly back in 2024. The turret in that case was also fitted with a Javelin anti-tank guided missile launcher. BAE Systems also previously announced the development of what it calls the External Mission Equipment Package (ExMEP) for these vehicles, which consists primarily of a new top plate that allows for the relatively rapid integration of various turrets. The company has said in the past that ExMEP can accommodate “more than 30 turret systems.”

In 2024, BAE had delivered another AMPV variant to the Army for evaluation, which was armed with a turreted 120mm rapid-firing mortar called NEMO (a contraction of “NEw MOrtar”). Patria in Finland, in cooperation with Kongsberg, supplied the mortar turret. The Army has not yet moved to acquire that version, either.

Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle – Patria NEMO 120mm Mortar Variant

What interest the Army might ultimately have in the AMPV 30 remains to be seen. The service continues to operate Bradley variants and is working to update them with new capabilities, including Iron Fist active protection systems (APS). A test last year also demonstrated the ability of the vehicle to fire a loitering munition from its TOW missile launcher, which could open up new operational possibilities. The Army is also pursuing a separate replacement for the Bradley, tentatively designated the XM30, which will be armed with a larger 50mm cannon as its main weapon.

The mention of the counter-drone mission in relation to the prototype AMPV 30s delivered to the 1st Cavalry Division could point to a potential use case for the Army. The service previously had an air defense variant of the Bradley, the M6 Linebacker, which had a launcher for Stinger short-range heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles rather than TOWs. The last M6s were converted into standard M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles in the mid-2000s, and no direct replacement for that capability was ever acquired.

In the meantime, the threat posed by drones has continued to grow, prompting a surge in demand across the U.S. military and elsewhere globally for new capabilities to shoot them down or otherwise defend against them. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, in particular, has underscored the critical importance of protecting heavy armored vehicles from uncrewed aerial attackers.

A Ukrainian drone from the 79th Air Assault Brigade drops a 40mm HEDP grenade on a Russian UR-77 Meteorit, causing a catastrophic payload explosion. pic.twitter.com/SsaQCKXsNL

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) August 14, 2023

BAE Systems has previously shown another version of the AMPV in a more dedicated air defense configuration with a turret armed with a 30mm XM914 cannon, which fires a smaller round than the XM813, as well as Stinger missiles. The vehicle, seen in the picture below, also featured several small-form-factor radars to help spot and track incoming threats. An AMPV in a counter-drone or more general anti-air configuration would also be better able to keep up and otherwise operate with Army units equipped with other variants of that vehicle.

The Army could also have different demands for new, turreted AMPVs depending on how the XM30 effort continues to evolve. Designs from American Rheinmetall and General Dynamics Land Systems have been competing to secure that contract. However, a program pause and a new request for information for a different, but very similar-sounding vehicle earlier this year have raised questions about the XM30’s overall future.

Cost and other factors have scuttled several previous Bradley replacement efforts. If serious issues arise with the latest XM30 program plans, it might lead to at least a portion of the Bradley fleet ultimately being replaced by turreted AMPV variants instead.

A positive Army assessment of the AMPV 30 could be a boon for BAE, even if the service does not buy any of those vehicles, in the end, too. The combat effectiveness of older Bradley variants has recently been demonstrated in the conflict in Ukraine, and other potential customers could be attracted to the idea of a derivative with a new turret and other more modern features.

For now, anyway, the Army is set to put the AMPV 30 through its paces, but has no plans to buy any of them for its own use.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

With the upcoming May bank holidays and extra long weekends, this might be the best time to book a break by the seaside, and there are some beautiful UK destinations to choose from

The UK’s best seaside destinations for a mini staycation have been named, from ‘coral’ beaches to turquoise waters and traditional beach huts lining the shores.

The UK is home to some of the most awe-inspiring landscapes, and the stretches of picturesque coastline more than account for that. From the whitewashed cliffs of Devon to Victorian piers stretching out to sea along the Somerset coast, and the azure waters of Cornwall that compare to those in the Caribbean.

With a whopping 1,500 beaches across the UK, we’re spoilt for choice on where to spend a weekend escape or mini-break by the seaside. Yet, some have been named the best of them all, and it’s in perfect time ahead of the May bank holiday weekends.

Following research by the staycation specialist, Sykes Holiday Cottages, the top 10 UK destinations that are best for a short coastal break have been revealed. Whether you’re looking for a seaside escape with the backdrop of mountain peaks, the pristine shores with sugar-white sand, or the traditional seaside fun with a pleasure pier, there’s somewhere to suit everyone.

Topping the list was the breathtakingly beautiful terrains of the Isle of Skye in Scotland, thanks to stretches of sprawling coastlines against the backdrop of rugged mountains and emerald-green valleys. The beaches are striking, with crystal-clear waters, dark volcanic shores and crushed maerl on the famed Claigan Coral Beach.

St Ives in Cornwall, known for its turquoise waters and golden sand beaches, modestly followed behind. Dubbed the ‘Cornish California’, it’s long been a favourite among Brits seeking a break in the coastal town, with surfing beaches, a charming harbour and sheltered bays.

One that might come as a surprise, beating the likes of Devon, is the diverse coastline of Whitby in North Yorkshire. Its main beach, West Cliff, is known for its wide stretches of golden sand, traditional beach huts, and rock pools, framed by a dramatic backdrop of rocky cliffs and the ruins of historic Whitby Abbey.

In fourth place was the lively coast of Brighton in East Sussex, with its iconic four-mile promenade, historic Palace Pier over its shingle beach and Victorian arches. Known as the ‘London by the Sea’, there’s an energetic atmopshere, a catalogue of eateries, shops and attractions, alongside its traditional seaside charm.

Another seaside spot that made the top five was the Causeway Coast in Northern Ireland, known for its 30-mile stretch of Atlantic coastline, sand beaches and white chalk cliffs. There are villages, towns, and harbours dotted near the coast, offering an idyllic weekend break against its picture-postcard vistas.

While Devon didn’t make the top five, its coast in Torquay put the holiday hotspot amongst the top 10, alongside Anglesey in North Wales and Bournemouth in Dorset. But it was Cornwall that was featured heavily on the list, with Newquay and Padstow also making the top 10 of the best seaside getaways.

Top 10 coastal destinations for a short break:

1. Isle of Skye, Scotland
2. St Ives, Cornwall
3. Whitby, North Yorkshire
4. Brighton, East Sussex
5. Causeway Coast, Northern Ireland
6. Torquay, Devon
7. Anglesey, North Wales
8. Bournemouth, Dorset
9. Newquay, Cornwall
10. Padstow, Cornwall

To book a staycation by the sea, visit the Sykes Holidays Cottages website. You can also call 01244 617 683, or download the Sykes Holiday Cottages app.

You can also find accommodation for a list of UK locations on the Holiday Cottages website and on Cottages.com. The National Trust also has a collection of holiday cottages across the UK available to book.

Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com