Marine

Air traffic controllers in Washington and the pilots of President Trump’s helicopter met to discuss communication issues one week before a jet was allowed to take off just as Marine One left the White House, federal investigators said Thursday.

Controllers reported not receiving the standard three-minute warning call ahead of Marine One flights, and both sides agreed to an alternative in those instances — but that plan to relay the radio call through someone else also was unsuccessful on the day of the Aug. 4 incident near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, the National Transportation Safety Board’s preliminary report shows.

Having both the jet and helicopter in the air at the same time seemed to violate safety procedures put in place after last year’s midair collision near the busy airport that killed 67 people, but officials stressed that the president was never in danger. The Pentagon also has a long-standing agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration to provide controllers with a three-minute warning before the president’s helicopter takes off that predates last year’s crash.

The NTSB said recordings from the tower showed that the controllers never heard the calls from Marine One’s pilot that day warning that the helicopter was getting ready to take off, but separate recordings posted by ATC.com show the helicopter did make those calls.

The helicopter pilots tried to relay their three-minute call through the helicopter facility at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, but that also was unsuccessful.

After an airliner collided with an Army Black Hawk helicopter on Jan. 29, 2025, the FAA decided all takeoffs and landings at the airport would be halted anytime a helicopter passes by on a conflicting route. The airspace near the White House and Reagan is heavily congested with military and commercial aircraft.

The FAA acknowledged the helicopter and airliner briefly got too close before the two aircraft started to move away from each other. The airplane quickly climbed above the helicopter after Marine One’s pilots saw the plane and paused until it safely left the area.

The NTSB said preliminary estimates show the helicopter and plane were about eight-tenths of a mile apart laterally and about 700 feet apart vertically at their closest. The crew of the Envoy Air flight told investigators they received a traffic warning from their collision avoidance system right after they took off, but they never saw the helicopter.

The official FAA recordings from the tower at Reagan did not include the warnings that Marine One was getting ready to head to Andrews Air Force Base with the president aboard.

A recording posted by ATC.com showed the Marine One pilot telling the tower that the helicopter was “three minutes to life” just like the 2013 agreement between the FAA and the military calls for. But the controller seemed surprised a few minutes later when the helicopter took off.

“Uh, Marine One, you said, uh, you’re proceeding as briefed?” the controller asked before giving the helicopter directions and commenting, “OK, no three minutes, roger, proceed as briefed.”

After the controller warned the helicopter about the plane taking off, the Marine One pilot said he saw the traffic and declared, “We’ll be doing a momentary delay.”

After last year’s midair collision, it became clear that poor communication between air traffic controllers and the military had been a long-standing issue. During a congressional hearing, it came out that a hotline connecting the Pentagon to the tower at Reagan hadn’t been working for more than three years, and the FAA hadn’t even realized it.

The NTSB said that after this incident involving Marine One, FAA technicians determined there wasn’t an adequate line of sight between the radio receiver at the airport and the location where the helicopter takes off at the White House. So those radios were moved from the neighborhood where they had been located to the top of the tower at Reagan. Subsequent tests showed the radios working well after that change.

Funk writes for the Associated Press.

Faced with having to fight as technology rapidly transforms the nature of warfare, the U.S. Marine Corps on Wednesday unveiled its vision for the future of ground combat. Dubbed Ground Combat Element (GCE) 2040, the document lays out how Marines will fight and what kinds of equipment and training they will need to succeed, down to the squad level. Though the document doesn’t mention a specific adversary, it focuses heavily on the kind of littoral, anti-access battle a future Pacific fight would entail.

“I think that you would agree that the global security landscape today demonstrates an intensity for that kind of modernization,” Lt. Gen. Jay M. Bargeron, Deputy Commandant, Plans, Policies, and Operations, said today during a media roundtable to introduce GCE 2040 that TWZ attended virtually. “It’s a landscape that’s defined by rapid technological change and the reemergence, importantly, of peer-level adversaries like China and Russia.”

A working concept of the plan was presented for the first time back in April during a panel at the Modern Day Marine Expo held in Washington, D.C. 

Ground Combat Element 2040 Teaser

In a future fight against enemies with ubiquitous sensors, advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) capabilities, waves of expendable drones, offensive and defensive electronic warfare systems and long-range precision weapons, smaller Marine units like rifle squads will have to act more independently to defend themselves and execute successful attacks.

The new plan recognizes that “widespread use of drones underscores the need for effective organic protective measures across the GCE, down to the squad level. The evolving drone threat presents the most significant risk to ground maneuver, requiring layered active and passive counter-UAS capabilities to retain the initiative. Survivability must be addressed by comprehensively encompassing improved training, updated doctrine, and technological advancements.”

You can see an example of how small drones are being used against Ukrainian forces in the following video.

The ubiquity of drones on the battlefield has devastated both Russian and Ukrainian forces, which are each using these weapons to create an ever-growing no-go zone. Bargeron acknowledged that providing protection from drones for smaller Marine units presents a major challenge.

“The ability for our lowest echelon units – squad, platoon, company – to defend themselves against one-way attack systems is really maybe one of the biggest holes in our swing, and so we’re working hard on that,” the general admitted.

Protecting these forces will require a forward, layered approach involving ground-based air defenses (GBAD) and other means, Bargeron explained. From longer ranges, systems like the Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS), Light Marine Air Defense Integrated Systems (LMADIS) and Medium-Range Intercept Capability [MRIC], will defend Marines, he said.

In addition, Bargeron said the Marines will also rely on a system called “Home Alone,” which a spokesman for the service told us “is a Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft System (CsUAS) that is a semi-fixed site GBAD solution that supports our layered defense structure.” The Marines declined to provide any details about how that system works, citing its classified nature.

For protection at the squad level, “the GCE 2040 integrates both active and passive measures to ensure organic protection,” a Marine official told us. “A key component of this is the Organic Counter-small UAS, or O-CsUAS, initiative. This program has fielded dismounted kits directly to the squads. These kits provide Marines with the ability to actively and passively detect drone threats and to defeat them using both kinetic and non-kinetic means.”

Those kits are “complemented by the use of frangible 5.56 ammunition for standard-issue rifles, which is more effective against aerial targets, and the continued employment of passive countermeasures like multi-spectral camouflage, dispersion, and displacement to degrade enemy targeting,” the official added.

Bargeron noted that the Marines have already purchased 400,000 of the frangible counter-drone rounds and that they are undergoing training on how to use them.

You can read more about the Marines’ emerging doctrine for devolving air defense down to the individual Marine in our story here.

Drone Round: The Next Evolution of Counter-UAS

As noted earlier in this story, GCE 2040 also calls for providing squads with longer-range offensive weapons.

“What we’re trying to do is to bring precision strike capabilities down to the lowest level,” the general noted. “That’s a great example of using advanced technology to enhance the lethality of Marines that are already doing that job. The OPF [Organic Precision Fires] increases the individual Marine’s or Marine rifle squads’ ability to strike targets, at ranges that you had previously needed fixed-wing air or aviation fire support or indirect fire.”

The goal is for squads to be able to strike targets at a range of about 20 kilometers, Bargeron stated. 

“So in the hands of the individual Marines to be able to strike targets like that…will be dramatic,” he exclaimed.

Bargeron added that the Marines are currently using the Neros Archer first-person view (FPV) drones for this purpose. They are “capable of carrying a 2 kg/4.5 lb payload over 20 kilometers,” the company asserts on its LinkedIn page.

They are also being sent to Ukraine, where the use of these systems by small units is a daily fact of life, not a vision for the future.

Bargeron offered no other details on specific offensive squad-level longer-range weapons options that will be developed and fielded over the coming years.

The plan itself is vague in terms of overall timelines, noting that there will be a “phased approach to modernization” occurring across “three overlapping time periods.”

• Near-Term (2026-2030): This period focuses on refining and accelerating ongoing Force Design modernization efforts, addressing the immediate threat of drones, and setting conditions for future investments.
• Mid-Term (2031-2035): Investments in AI and autonomous systems will mature, enhancing headquarters functions, streamlining logistics, and improving operational tempo. Drone/unmanned formations and layered counter-UAS capabilities become critical.
• Long-Range (2036-2040): The GCE is transformed by AI-enabled command and control, widespread Human-Machine Teaming, and resilient, dispersed formations. It operates with increased combat power and survivability, providing the Joint Force with a decisive advantage on key littoral terrain.

Ukraine has shown American troops up close and personal how difficult it is to defend against drones. In a recent training exercise in Germany, U.S. Army soldiers were trounced by Ukrainian drone operators, only improving their performance after the lessons learned from initial engagements. While there are still many unknowns about the goals and rules put in place for that exercise, which accomplished its mission of learning, it underlines long-standing questions about why the U.S. military has taken so long to adapt to a glaringly different battlefield. Whether the new Marine Corps plan will do so fast enough, especially as major foes, especially China, are moving aggressively in employing new weapons and tactics based on lessons learned in global conflicts, is still up for debate.

That being said, the Marines acknowledge that GCE 2040 is a work-in-progress, but the changes it is trying to address are critical to operating against threats the U.S. military has yet to face at the scale it would against China or Russia.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

We now have our first look at the Ancillary Surface Craft (ASC), a new medium landing craft for the U.S. Marine Corps. Australia-headquartered firm Birdon announced last year that it would be supplying two of these vessels to the Marines to help the service further refine its concepts for future distributed island-hopping operations.

The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) released pictures yesterday of what appears to be the first ASC, based on the hull number (ASC-1), in Bayou La Batre, Alabama. The photographs of the vessel, also sometimes referred to as the Ancillary Surface Connector, were taken last week during a distinguished visitor day event. Marine Corps personnel, as well as representatives from the Australian Army and industry, were in attendance.

It is unclear whether or not the Marines have formally taken delivery of ASC-1 and when the second example might be set to arrive. TWZ has reached out to the Marines and Birdon for more information.

“The [distinguished visitor day] event provided an opportunity for senior leaders, Marines, allied partners and industry personnel to observe the ASC’s capabilities and discuss its potential to support distributed maritime operations and sustainment in contested littoral environments,” according to the caption accompanying one of the pictures. “The ASC is being developed through U.S.-Australian industry collaboration to support experimentation and inform future amphibious modernization.”

“The ASC is a significant step towards achieving a capability organic to the Marine Corps for maneuver in the littorals without reliance on large high value Naval assets,” it continues. “This craft, coupled with smaller landing craft, will demonstrate the capability needed by the Corps to maneuver medium, light, and ultra-light tactical vehicles from shore-to-shore and distribute all classes of supply to disbursed forces in archipelagic regions.”

The overall design of the vessel reflects what was seen in a rendering that Birdon released last year when it first announced that it would be supplying the two ASCs to the Marines. However, that rendering did show the vessel with at least two remote weapon stations armed with 30mm automatic cannons, at least one .50 caliber M2 machine gun on a traditional deck mount, and an angular mast structure on top of the pilot house, features that are not present in the images that have now been released of ASC-1.

There is a pole-like mast, as well as rotating maritime navigation radar and what looks to be a searchlight, on top of ASC-1’s pilot house. The actual vessel also has truncated catwalks around the pilot house, as well as an additional boxy structure with ventilation slats on top, compared to what is depicted in the rendering. It is very possible that Marine ASCs could gain additional features as time goes on.

Birdon has previously said that the ASC can carry up to 40 troops and 54 tons of cargo in its open main deck area. The vessel is also reportedly 150 feet long and 30 feet across, with a bow ramp that drops down for loading and unloading right onto a beach.

“To ensure safe landings on uncharted beaches, Birdon worked with a specialist sonar company to develop and integrate an advanced forward-looking sonar system, allowing operators to detect obstacles and assess beach gradients well ahead of the vessel,” the company also said of the ASC in a press release last year. “The vessel is designed to beach and de-beach in gradients significantly shallower than existing landing craft can support, providing enhanced, safe amphibious operations capability.”

“Birdon’s ASC design also features a cutting-edge fuel delivery and transfer system that allows for efficient vessel-to-vessel or vessel-to-land fuel transfer, supporting extended operational range and flexibility in challenging environments,” the release added.

The ASC is broadly in line, at least in terms of general dimensions, with other existing medium landing craft designs on the market globally. As a point of comparison, the new Landing Craft Utility (LCU) 1700s that the Navy is in the process of acquiring from Austal are around 139 feet long and 31 feet wide, but have a higher stated payload capacity (350 combat-equipped troops or 170 tons of cargo). Birdon itself is also developing a new Landing Craft Medium (LC-M) for the Australian armed forces, renderings of which show a similar, but larger design compared to the ASC.

As noted, the Marines’ stated plan is to use the two ASCs to help with the development of its still-evolving expeditionary and distributed concepts of operations, collectively referred to as Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO). A central aspect of EABO is to rapidly position and reposition relatively small units between what could easily be far-flung forward locations, especially small islands dotted across parts of the Pacific. These so-called ‘stand-in forces’ would be readily deployable as a deterrent ahead of a potential conflict, and then be better placed to act if needed. The distributed nature of the EABO concept would also create targeting challenges for opponents and, by extension, reduce the vulnerability of friendly forces.

As TWZ wrote after Birdon’s initial announcement about the ASC in May 2025:

“Not having to rely on large traditional Navy amphibious warfare ships to conduct these maneuvers in littoral environments, where established port facilities are also likely to be absent, is essential to the EABO concept. Depending on the exact distribution of Marine forces and the distance between operating locations in a particular area, vessels like the ASC-M could be used to move personnel and materiel between sites and/or act as ‘connectors’ between larger ships and the shore.”

“For years now, the Marines have also been working with the Navy on plans for the latter service to acquire a fleet of at least 18 and up to 35 Medium Landing Ships, or LSMs, to support the EABO construct. However, concerns about the costs of prospective designs and other issues have continually pushed back the LSM program schedule, with the first of those vessels now not set to arrive until the end of the decade at the earliest.”

In December 2025, the Navy did announce that it had selected Dutch shipbuilder Damen’s LST-100 design to be the basis of a new class of LSMs, and that it was hoping to accelerate the delivery schedule for those ships. However, the first LSM is still only now scheduled to arrive in 2029. At that time, the Navy also told us it was planning to buy at least one LSM of a separate design from Bollinger Shipyards, which could be based on the Israeli Logistics Support Vessel (ILSV) developed for Israel. The ISLV is itself a derivative of the open-ocean-optimized subclass of the General Frank S. Besson class Logistics Support Vessel (LSV) now in service with the U.S. Army as part of its obscure watercraft fleet, which you can learn more about here.

There may be a possibility for the Marine Corps to acquire more ASCs, or a further evolution of the design, depending on how experimentation with the initial examples proceeds. The partnership with Australia on this effort also underscores the potential for that country, as well as other U.S. allies and partners, to further leverage this work.

In 2024, Birdon announced another deal to provide a heavy landing craft, called the H260, based on a design the company had already been working on for the Australian military, to the Marines, at least for testing and evaluation. The current status of that effort is unclear. The Marines have already been using chartered stern-landing ships for years now to inform the LSM program and otherwise help refine littoral logistics requirements in support of EABO.

Vessels like the ASC and the LSM are just some of the components the Marines envision as supporting the logistics ecosystem necessary to enable its future distributed operations. The service is also acquiring a new family of cargo-carrying uncrewed aerial vehicles, as well as small uncrewed surface vessels, as part of those plans.

The first new ASC for the Marines has now been built, if not formally delivered, and will only help the surface further prove out its expeditionary and distributed operations vision.

Update: 1:02 PM ET –

The U.S. Marine Corps has confirmed the “technical acceptance” of the first ASC.

“Technical specifications validated during the acceptance process highlight the craft’s exceptional ruggedness and operational utility. Engineered for demanding ocean transits, the ASC is fully operational in Sea State 5 and designed to survive extreme conditions up to Sea State 7,” according to a release from the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory. “To ensure safe navigation through uncharted, very shallow littoral waters, the craft is equipped with advanced forward-looking sonar that enables maneuverability across the battlespace. Furthermore, it can transport up to 46 tons of cargo and 40 combat-loaded Marines while executing vital shore-to-shore maneuver, mobility, and sustainment.”

The release also reiterates that the ASC represents a capability that would be complementary to the future LSMs, using its “very shallow draft to deliver logistical support to the ‘last tactical mile’ into landing sites beyond the reach of larger vessels, including shallow-gradient, unimproved, and unsurveyed shorelines where standoff would otherwise leave cargo stranded offshore.” ASC-type vessels and LSMs together will “give a Stand-in Force a route from an intermediate staging base to the beach without dependence on a port, a pier, or a causeway.”

“To support Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO), our forces must remain highly mobile and sustained without relying on fixed, vulnerable ports,” Col. Kenny Jones, Science and Technology Division Director at the MCWL, said in a statement. “This prototype allows MCWL to immediately execute hands-on experimentation, test tactical concepts, and put real hardware in the hands of Marines. By exploring the ASC’s traditional bow-first beaching physics alongside other experimental platforms, we are actively reducing programmatic risk and perfecting the requirements for the future naval fleet.”

“Following the technical acceptance of the ASC, the craft now moves into limited technical assessments (LTA) with Birdon America craft masters and engineers partnered with Australian Army crewing support and Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory oversight and assessments,” the MCWL release adds. “Initially, the craft will be operated by a hybrid crew pairing Marines with seasoned contracted mariners. This approach ensures that American service members are thoroughly trained as the Marine Corps prepares for an expanded role in the independent operation of small surface craft.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Aug. 19 (UPI) — A study released Wednesday shows that the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea are far hotter than normal, threatening ecosystems and coastal communities.

Parts of the oceans around Europe reached more than 42 degrees Fahrenheit above average this week in a marine heat wave hitting the area.

Climate change is the cause, said the World Weather Attribution consortium in the study.

This summer has been especially brutal in Europe, which has seen multiple heat waves with extreme temperatures and worsened by wildfires. Western Europe recorded its hottest summer on record.

In the water, the high temps harm marine life, raise jellyfish populations and increase the risk of stronger storms later in the year.

“This summer, we’ve seen some really exceptional ocean temperatures around Europe,” said Catherine Gregory, a climate scientist at the University of Bern who contributed to the study, Politico reported.

“By July, the average temperature of the entire Mediterranean Sea was just over 27C [80.6 degrees Fahrenheit], which was the highest July value on record,” she added. “We’ve had a buoy reading to the west of Mallorca measuring more than 33C [91.4F] in open water … and we’ve seen similarly extreme conditions in the North Atlantic.”

The scientists analyzed four regions: the Eastern and Western Mediterranean; the Atlantic around the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Peninsula; and the seas around Ireland and western Britain.

“We find it’s the most extreme July marine heat wave conditions in the record for the Western Mediterranean, the Celtic region and for the Bay of Biscay-Iberian Peninsula region,” Gregory told Politico.

The scientists found that climate change raised temperatures in both Mediterranean regions by 35.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and Iberian waters increased by 34.52 degrees. The Irish seas rose by 34.34 degrees.

Oceans absorb most of the excess heat from burning fossil fuels. The warming waters push some species to search for cooler water, while those that can’t move, such as corals or seagrasses, could see mass die-offs.

“We have what we call winners and losers. So a lot of species wane in abundance or completely disappear while others bloom and proliferate,” said John Bruno, an ecologist from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and one of the study’s co-authors.