Missile

The U.S. Air Force is set to hold a classified meeting with defense contractors to share its requirements for a new air-to-air missile with a maximum range of at least 1,000 nautical miles. This is roughly 10 times the reach afforded today by the latest versions of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). An anti-air missile with this kind of extreme range would be especially well-suited for attacks on critical airborne early warning and control planes, as well as tankers and other high-value aerial assets operating in rear areas. The Air Force is also already interested in an air-to-surface version of this new weapon, which it has dubbed the Air Force Long Range Weapon (AFLRW).

The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s (AFLCMC) Armament Directorate (EB) issued a notice yesterday regarding the planned AFLRW industry day gathering. The two-day meeting is currently scheduled to take place at the Guided Weapons Evaluation Facility (GWEF) at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida on August 25 and 26. The Air Force says the event will be held at the Secret classification level and that all attendees have to have appropriate security clearances.

“The AFLRW is aimed at addressing the next generation of Air-Launched Standoff Weapon variants in line with Department of War priorities,” according to the industry day notice. “AFLRW may select multiple vendors for both the Air-to-Air (A/A) and Air-to-Surface (A/S) variants with a focus on A/A solutions for Initial Operational Capability.”

“Both [AFLRW] variants will have a threshold minimum range of 1,000 NM [nautical miles] and be capable of striking respective A/A and A/S targets in Defense Planning Scenario 2.1 and 7.1 environments in a responsive manner,” the notice adds. It does not elaborate on what those specific scenarios entail.

The notice also puts particular emphasis on modular components and open-architecture systems, and finding a “Master Integrator” to combine the various elements into a complete missile, or all-up-round.

“Industry should expect a quick-turn Whitepaper Request for Information following the event focused on the 2 solution types above for both variants,” per the notice. “AFLCMC is seeking the next generation of Air-Launched Long-Range Weapon variants that expand the United States’ ability to hit priority air, land, and sea targets far and fast!”

Beyond the range threshold, the notice does not include any other details about requirements the Air Force may have now for the AFLRW. That being said, a desire for an anti-air missile able to hit targets at least 1,000 nautical miles away is very notable by itself.

Though the exact figures are classified, the AIM-120D-3 version of the AMRAAM, the latest model in widespread U.S. service, is generally understood to have a maximum reach of around 100 miles (close to 87 nautical miles). There have been hints that it may be able to fly out further than that, at least against targets in certain envelopes. Longer-range versions of the AIM-120 may now be in development. A known key requirement for the new AIM-260A Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM) has also been extended reach over the AMRAAM. Still, even the JATM, which the U.S. Navy and Air Force are developing together, is not expected to have anywhere near the range required for the AFLRW.

It is worth noting here that the Air Force almost adopted a very long-range, high-speed missile designed to engage both air and surface targets during the Cold War. However, the maximum range of that Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile (ASALM) was still only expected to be 300 miles (260 nautical miles).

Starting in the mid-2000s, the Air Force and the Navy also worked together on a Joint Dual-Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM), intended as a single weapon to supplant the AIM-120 and variants of the AGM-88 anti-radiation missile. This evolved into the Next Generation Missile (NGM), which came to a close, at least publicly, in 2013, ostensibly over rising costs. A more secretive Triple Target Terminator (T-3) program, which had initially been conducted in parallel with JDRADM/NGM, continued afterward for at least some period of time. In 2017, a possible successor to T-3, the Long Range Engagement Weapon (LREW), but the fate of that effort is unclear.

In February, the Navy put out its own new call for a long-range anti-radiation missile capable of engaging air and surface targets, dubbed the Advanced Emission Suppression Missile (AESM). However, the service did not say what its desired range for this weapon might be at that time. The Navy has already started fielding an air-launched version of the multi-purpose Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), designated the AIM-174B. TWZ has previously assessed the AIM-174B to likely be in the same range category, broadly speaking, as the Cold War-era ASALM. We have previously explored in detail how the AIM-174B slots into the Navy’s long-range kill chains.

How The Navy’s New Very Long-Range AIM-174 Will Pierce China’s Anti-Access Bubble

Nothing approaching a range of 1,000 nautical miles appears to have ever been discussed, at least openly, in relation to any of these programs. Interestingly, the Air Force did publicly talk about the prospect of anti-air missiles with ranges of up to 1,000 miles in a report to Congress in December 2024. However, the report mentioned them as part of a projected threat ecosystem the service envisions taking shape by 2050.

“Counterair weapons with ranges out to over 1,000 miles and supported by space-based sensors will place aircraft, such as tankers, that have traditionally operated with impunity, at risk,” the Air Force’s 2024 report said. This offers a hint at the kinds of capabilities it is looking to add to its own arsenal through the AFLRW effort.

After the Navy put out its AESM contracting notice, TWZ also highlighted the value of such a missile for targeting vital airborne early warning and control assets. This is often referred to as the ‘AWACS killer’ role, which references the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft. As we previously wrote:

“All that being said, the value of an ‘AWACS killer’ missile is clear-cut. AEW&C are critical surveillance and battle management assets. Shooting them down deprives an opponent of those capabilities, inherently reducing their ability to effectively maneuver air assets and share important information, including with other nodes on the ground or at sea, as well as in the air. Knocking out these flying radar stations, which can be especially well-suited to spotting lower flying threats from their high perches, just hampers an enemy’s overall situational awareness.”

“The issue, of course, is that AEW&C planes typically orbit well behind the front edges of a conflict, creating additional challenges for targeting them. This is where something like AESM could come into play. A weapon of this type could engage other aerial targets by zeroing in on the radiofrequency emissions they pump out. This could include electronic warfare aircraft, and potentially other aerial targets. AESM might be able to take on a more general anti-air role with the addition of an active radar and/or imaging infrared seeker, as well as datalinks allowing for the use of networked targeting data. [The AGM-88E] AARGM and [AGM-88G] AARGM-ER both feature an active millimeter-wave radar seeker to enable them to hit fleeing ground targets, but a similar concept could be adapted for air-to-air use.“

AARGM F-18

“For the Navy, as well as other branches of the U.S. military, this is all particularly relevant in the context of a potential future high-end fight with China, which has made major investments in its fleets of AEW&C and electronic warfare planes. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has also been pursuing ever-longer-ranged anti-air missiles, including types that could be used to target American AEW&C platforms, as well as other key support aircraft.”

In that piece, we also touched on the potential for the AIM-174B to help meet U.S. military needs for an ‘AWACS killer’ missile. With the ability to hit targets in the air, as well as down below, out to at least 1,000 nautical miles, AFRLW would be a dramatic step above even the AIM-174B in capability.

The Pacific region offers a host of practical examples to give a better sense of what this kind of reach means. The distance between U.S. bases on the Japanese island of Okinawa and Taiwan is roughly 390 nautical miles. The distance between Andersen Air Force Base on Guam and Taiwan is around 1,500 nautical miles. AFLRW-armed aircraft flying over the East China Sea or the northern end of the South China Sea would conceivably be able to engage targets with hundreds of missiles inside the Chinese mainland, as long as suitable targeting data was available. The AFLRW’s range would be relevant on other potential hotspots globally, as well.

AFLRW would give the Air Force a way to pick off airborne early warning and control aircraft, as well as tankers, bombers, other kinds of surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, and potentially even unsuspecting tactical jets. The missiles would be able to do so without necessarily alerting them to the fact that they are being targeted at all, at least till it’s too late to escape. Having air-to-air missiles that can go after targets at such great ranges means the need to project tactical airpower and support aircraft far forward and deep into harm’s way for the counter-air mission would be less critical, at least during the first opening stages of a conflict. By eliminating key force multiplying aircraft with long-range weaponry, conditions would be better for the survivability of traditional counter-air packages.

On top of offering a new way to hold higher-value targets in rear areas at risk, AFLRW would give Air Force aircraft added flexibility to engage targets closer to the tactical edge, but not necessarily near where they might be flying at any one time. In the aforementioned Pacific scenario, areas of active combat in the air and on the surface could easily be dotted across a broader zone spanning thousands of square miles.

As mentioned, the Air Force also sees anti-air threats being able to reach further and further out. This means stand-off munitions, in general, will need greater reach to help reduce the risk to launch platforms. The AFLRW’s range recommendation is a tacit admission that the U.S. military will face growing challenges piercing adversary anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) bubbles, especially the ones that China has established and is continuing to expand on. It also highlights the increasing risks to friendly airborne early warning and control aircraft, tankers, and other supporting aerial assets needed for sustained air combat operations. Chinese air-to-air missiles are already outreaching their American counterparts, and the U.S. is working to change that now with AIM-174, AIM-260 and other programs.

There are still questions about what it might take to develop a feasible AFLRW with at least a 1,000 nautical mile range, and what might be able to carry a missile with that kind of reach. It is worth remembering here that the Air Force has openly talked about the possibility of the B-21 Raider bomber taking on a greater role in air-to-air combat in the future, which might include acting as a ‘weapons truck’ loaded with anti-air missiles. The aforementioned ASALM was also intended primarily for employment from bombers. For bombers like the B-21, the AFLRW would also just offer a valuable organic way to address threats in the air and down below, potentially hours ahead of arriving over the target area.

The AFLRW will also have to cover the very long distances it flies at least relatively quickly, especially to be relevant for attacking time-sensitive or otherwise fleeting targets. This might require a multi-stage or air-launched ballistic missile-like design or even something more exotic.

There is also the question of targeting at such extreme distances. These weapons will not rely on the sensors and targeting information generated by the platforms they are launched from. Above all else, the AFLRW will, by default, have to be tied into a deeply networked ‘kill web’ that brings together tertiary sensors and other supporting elements across vast networking layers. That ‘web’ would be spread across the air, land, sea, space, and even cyberspace domains, and incorporate assets from other branches of the U.S. military beyond the Air Force.

Above all else, the space-based aircraft tracking layer will be very important when it comes to enabling this weapon. The Air Force’s 2024 report on future threats confirmed this. The U.S. military itself is actively working to field new distributed satellite constellations to provide potentially game-changing persistent air and ground moving-target indicator (AMTI/GMTI) capability globally, with exactly these kinds of long-range kill chains in mind, as you can read more about here. Very stealthy aircraft working farther forward that are in line-of-sight of potential targets are another way these weapons can be employed. The USAF also has just such a platform.

Much remains to be learned about the Air Force’s plans for the air-to-air and air-to-surface versions of the AFRLW, and what other requirements the service has for those missiles. The industry day gathering scheduled for August will provide the service with additional information about what options might be available and on what timeframe.

Regardless, the Air Force has now made clear publicly that it wants a solution that can kill planes a thousand miles away from the launch aircraft. This matches all the signals that the Pentagon has been sending indicating it is very concerned about its ability to pierce an enemy’s protective bubble in the years ahead. Above all else, it points to a new era of net-centric warfare where the kill web is truly king.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Several Russian regions are facing fuel shortages because of Ukrainian attacks.

A Russian missile attack on the central Ukrainian city of Kryvyi Rih has killed at least three people, as Moscow struggles with the economic strain of the four-and-a-half-year Russia-Ukraine war.

Oleksandr Vilkul, the head of the Kryvyi Rih defence council, said in a post on Telegram on Tuesday that 25 people had been wounded in the attack, which he said used a cluster munition warhead.

“People died within 200 metres [660 feet] of each other because of this barbaric weapon,” Vilkul said, adding that a day of mourning would be marked on Wednesday.

Kyiv has previously accused Moscow of using cluster munitions, which scatter into smaller explosives when dropped.

Reacting to the attack, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for more international pressure on Moscow to end the war and for quicker supplies of air defence systems.

“Every delay in implementing air defence agreements, every delay in supplies to protect Ukraine and Ukrainians is in effect a loss of life,” he wrote on Telegram.

Ukraine announced on Tuesday that its forces had targeted a railway bridge, a power plant and other key infrastructure in Russian-occupied Crimea.

Weakened rouble

Over the past few months, Russia and Ukraine have significantly ramped up attacks. As Moscow launches barrages of strikes on Ukraine, Kyiv in turn has targeted Russian refineries and infrastructure with its own drones.

Ukraine’s drone attacks have led to fuel shortages in Russia. Many regions across the country have reported restrictions on fuel sales and rising prices for oil products, creating concerns about the stability of Russia’s economy.

On Monday, the Moscow Exchange stock index fell by five percent before it rebounded slightly. It is still around its lowest level since March 2023, while the rouble weakened past the 75-mark against the US dollar for the first time since May 6.

The Kremlin dismissed concerns about the rouble’s weakness.

“The stability of the Russian economy, macroeconomic stability, is absolutely ensured,” government spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, efforts to end the war have remained effectively frozen as United States President Donald Trump has shifted his focus to Iran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told foreign envoys in Moscow on Tuesday that the Americans seemed to be “abandoning any claim to the role of an objective mediator and are instead pursuing a course of escalating sanctions pressure on Russia”.

The very first P-8A Poseidon aircraft is now assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 30 (VX-30), the “Bloodhounds.” TWZ was first to report last year that VX-30 was in line to get two P-8As to support long-range missile and other testing efforts. The aircraft will help the squadron address the increasing difficulties it is facing with its aging P-3 Orion aircraft. Only a handful of P-3s remain in service anywhere in the Navy, and are becoming increasingly challenging to operate and maintain.

VX-30 shared pictures of the P-8A arriving at its home base in Point Mugu, California, on its Facebook page last week. Naval Air Station Point Mugu, part of Naval Base Ventura County, sits right on the southern California coast with direct access to the expansive Point Mugu Sea Range. The Navy and other branches of the U.S. military, as well as defense contractors, regularly use the offshore ranges for missile and other tests, which the Bloodhounds support. Aircraft from VX-30 also often deploy to other locations around the world to support test and evaluation activities, including in other U.S. military range complexes in the Pacific Ocean around Hawaii and in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida.

As noted, the P-8A now assigned to VX-30 is actually the very first Poseidon ever built and is also known as T-1. The aircraft, which made its maiden flight in 2009, was used for years to support the Poseidon program. The Bloodhounds are also in line to get the second test P-8A, which is also still referred to as T-2. We will come back to this in a moment.

VX-30 already operates a variety of planes specially configured to support test missions, including the aforementioned P-3s. The unit also has KC-130T Hercules tanker/transports, as well as its one-of-a-kind NC-20G and NC-37B jets. The NC-37B was specifically acquired to replace one of the squadron’s NP-3D Orions, a variant nicknamed the “Billboard” because of its heavily modified tail. The NC-20G and the NC-37B reflect a larger push to revamp the Bloodhounds’ fleets in recent years.

Collectively, VX-30’s aircraft are equipped with a mix of radars, cameras, and other equipment to collect imagery, telemetry, and other data during tests. They have communications and data-sharing suites to be able to pass information along to test facilities on land to aid with live monitoring and for deeper analysis.

Aircraft assigned to VX-30 are also used for what is called range surveillance and clearance missions to keep unwanted visitors and errant bystanders out of the way in the air and down below during tests. This is where the P-8As will come in, at least initially.

“Both aircraft will perform the Range Surveillance & Clearance mission as well as dedicated testing for Naval Air Systems Command programs supported by P-3 today,” a NAVAIR spokesperson told TWZ last year. “T-1, the airworthiness P-8 aircraft, will have a radar modification to integrate an APY-10 in the airframe, as one does not currently exist.  This will provide T-1 with a supportable radar configuration and capability that mirrors the baseline P-8 fleet. T-2 will be unmodified.”

Raytheon’s AN/APY-10 is the standard maritime search radar used on the P-8A, and is primarily designed to spot and track vessels on the surface, as well as masts belonging to submerged submarines protruding above the waves. It also has a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode that allows it to capture still images, even through cloud cover, smoke, and dust, and at night. The SAR mode is one of several capabilities of the P-8As that allows it to be used for surveillance in coastal environments and over land, as well as while flying over open bodies of water.

Standard Poseidon aircraft also have a sensor turret with electro-optical and infrared full-motion video cameras, as well as signals intelligence capabilities, as you can read more about here.

The P-8A’s core capabilities are well suited to the range surveillance and clearance mission. In an unmodified form, the Poseidon’s other sensors might be capable of gathering additional visual and other data during testing, as well.

NAVAIR has also left the door open to potentially modify VX-30’s ‘new’ P-8As in the future to take on an expanded role with the squadron. The Poseidon is based on the Boeing 737 airliner, and offers swap space that could accommodate additional systems down the line. The Navy already operates several more deeply modified P-8s with additional intelligence-gathering capabilities. Those aircraft are notably capable of carrying the AN/APS-154 Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS), a large podded active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, under their fuselages, as you can learn more about here. Boeing has developed other add-on sensor packages for the P-8A over the years, as well.

Unlike the P-3, the P-8A also has the ability to refuel in mid-air via boom-equipped tankers. That is another capability VX-30 might be able to leverage to enable longer-duration flights, whether in support of range surveillance and clearance or other missions.

Overall, the “P-8 will go a long way to enabling range support operations and will provide new opportunities for future developmental programs,” the NAVAIR spokesperson told us last year.

On top of the P-8A’s inherent capabilities, even the older test jets are just younger and more modern, in general, than the P-3s that make up the core of VX-30’s fleet today. The Navy took delivery of its last new-production P-3C variant in 1990, and Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin) shuttered the line afterward. This means the very youngest Orion is 36 years old now. As noted, the Navy has been steadily withdrawing Orions from service in recent years.

Several Navy test squadrons do continue to operate P-3s, but that’s becoming an increasingly more complex proposition. This is not just because of the maintenance demands of aging aircraft that are no longer in widespread U.S. service, but also the availability of trained aircrews. As part of the transition of active and reserve Navy maritime patrol squadrons from the P-3 to the P-8, the service no longer has a Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) for the Orion. FRSs are the Navy’s ‘school houses’ that provide training specific to particular aircraft types to aviators and ground personnel before they are sent to operational units. VX-30 now has to do that training in-house.

“The two P-8s will reduce sustainment costs and increase availability over the four P-3 aircraft VX-30 currently flies. P-8s also help alleviate P-3 manning challenges now that the FRS and operational squadrons have all transitioned to P-8 or decommissioned,” the NAVAIR spokesperson told us last year. “P-3 aircraft require a Flight Engineer crew position, and as the P-3 model manager, the return on time invested to train incoming pilots or qualify Flight Engineers in the P-3 is rapidly diminishing for VX-30’s primary missions.”

It remains to be seen whether the configurations of T-1 and T-2 might evolve in the coming years to expand their ability to support testing over the Point Muge Sea Range or elsewhere globally.

In the meantime, T-1’s arrival already marks a new chapter for VX-30 and the Navy’s oldest P-8A Poseidon.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Ukraine says facility a ‘critical component’ in defence production as local Russian authorities confirm attack.

Ukraine’s military has said it struck a plant producing electronics for missiles in Russia’s Voronezh region, as well as the Dubna satellite communications centre in the Moscow region.

In a statement on Telegram on Monday, the Ukrainian General Staff said it had used air-launched cruise missiles to hit the plant in Voronezh, which it described as a “critical component” in Russia’s defence production.

Alexander Gusev, the Voronezh governor, said a production plant was damaged and three people were injured in the attack, without specifying the nature of the facilities.

Gusev said in a post on Telegram that air defence forces had destroyed several high-speed targets in the skies over Voronezh and warned residents of the danger of missile attacks.

The Ukrainian military also said it struck Russia’s Dubna satellite communications centre in the Moscow region, adding that heavy smoke was observed at the site and the extent of the damage was being assessed.

Eighty-four drones headed for Moscow were downed in the past 24 hours, the city’s Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said on Telegram.

He said emergency services had been dispatched to the areas where drones were downed, but gave no further information.

The airports of Sheremetyevo, Domodedovo and Vnukovo, as well as Zhukovskiy near the Russian capital, had temporarily suspended flights, the aviation watchdog said separately.

In total, Russian defence systems downed 301 drones overnight, local news agencies said, citing the Ministry of Defence. That tally included Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine.

The latest raids follow a drone attack that hit Moscow’s sole oil refinery last week, in one of the biggest air attacks on the city since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Teenager killed in Ukraine

In Ukraine, authorities said a Russian drone attack early on Monday in the Sumy region killed a 13-year-old boy, his 36-year-old father, and his 73-year-old grandmother.

Regional governor Oleh Hryhorov said the 73-year-old was the mother of the man’s roommate.

Russian drone attacks in the southeastern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia overnight and early on Monday killed two people and injured a further seven, Ukraine’s emergency services said.

Russia also hit the southern Odesa region with an Iskander ballistic missile on Sunday evening, killing one and injuring three people, regional governor Oleh Kiper said on Telegram. Vehicles and fuel storage tanks caught fire after the strike hit an agricultural facility, he said.

Elsewhere, the city of Sevastopol in Russian-annexed Crimea cancelled all open-air public events on Monday and will keep streetlights switched off, its governor, Mikhail Razvozhayev said, as he called on people to curb electricity usage.

Russian drones hit a Turkish dry cargo vessel, the Victress, which was sailing under the Panamanian flag, Ukraine’s navy said.

Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Kuleba said a 58-year-old Egyptian cook was killed and eight other crew members, including Turkish and Indian nationals, had to evacuate on a lifeboat.

The leaders of Europe’s top military powers will meet on Wednesday in Berlin to discuss the Ukraine conflict and an upcoming NATO summit.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz plans to host the leaders of France, Britain, Italy and Poland, a spokesman said Monday, adding that the resignation announcement of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had not changed those plans.

Russia’s mysterious Burevestnik (also known to NATO as SSC-X-9 Skyfall) cruise missile likely leaves a trail of radioactive material in its wake, making the weapon even more alarming than was first thought. This is the conclusion of two scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who have recently published a detailed analysis of one of the so-called ‘super weapons’ revealed by Russian President Vladimir Putin back in 2018.

The report, from Jake Hecla, an MIT professor who covers aerospace and nuclear science and engineering, and co-author R. Scott Kemp, provides the most compelling analysis so far on how the Burevestnik is actually powered. Uncertainty around this has led to previous questions about whether Russia’s claims of nuclear propulsion for the weapon even stack up.

First, it’s worth recalling what we know about the Burevestnik program’s development milestones, which appear to have been punctuated by accidents.

It is also worth noting that there have been previous efforts to create nuclear-powered aircraft and missiles.

During the 1950s, both the Soviet Union and the United States tested airborne nuclear reactors aboard strategic bombers, the B-36 Peacemaker and the Tu-95 Bear, respectively. Neither of these trials actually saw the reactors drive the aircraft’s engines.

Under Project Pluto, the United States studied a nuclear-powered cruise missile and got as far as testing a reactor on the ground in 1964, before the idea was abandoned. The Pluto concept of operation was somewhat different to the Burevestnik, with the missile intended to fly at treetop level at Mach 3.5 and dispense nuclear weapons at different points along its flight path by performing “pop-up” maneuvers.

Fast forward to 2018, and Putin disclosed the Burevestnik’s existence, when it was presented as one of six ‘super weapons’ that also included hypersonic weapons and a nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed torpedo.

Soon after Putin’s 2018 announcement, the Norwegian-based environmental group Bellona suggested that a radiation spike in the Arctic that same winter may have been caused by a test of the missile.

Later in 2018, a U.S. intelligence report described the loss at sea of a Russian nuclear-powered missile during a 2017 test. The report added that Russia was expected to embark on a search and recovery mission to try to lift the missile’s wreckage from the seabed.

Then, in 2019, an explosion occurred aboard a barge in the White Sea, outside Nenoksa, killing five Rosatom scientists. It also led to a radiation spike in the Russian city of Severodvinsk, as you can read more about here. The explosion has been blamed on a reactor from a Burevestnik recovered from the sea, likely the one that was lost in 2017.

Last October, Russia’s Chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, announced that a successful test of the Burevestnik had been carried out, high above the Arctic Circle. Gerasimov said that the 15-hour flight “is not the [maximum] limit” for the missile. This appears to have been the first long-endurance test of the missile.

Hecla and Kemp agree that the October 2025 test was a success and that, moreover, it marks the first time a true nuclear-powered aircraft has ever flown for a sustained period.

This leads to the question of how the Burevestnik actually converts energy from its nuclear reactor into propulsive power to keep it in the air.

Hecla and Kemp may well have provided the answer.

Based on data that the researchers gathered, the size, shape, and performance of the Burevestnik indicate a different kind of propulsion system than envisaged for Project Pluto. The U.S. concept involved a ramjet, required to ensure supersonic performance in the atmosphere.

In the 1960s, the U.S. Air Force explored this idea with its Supersonic Low Altitude Missile, or SLAM. This weapon employed a nuclear-powered ramjet along with conventional rocket boosters to kickstart the system. Once at the appropriate speed, the engine would blow air over the reactor, which could have enough fuel to operate for weeks or months on end, and then force it out of an exhaust nozzle to produce thrust.

The Burevestnik is “very obviously a subsonic system,” Hecla told NPR.

By comparing open-source imagery of the Burevestnik, the researchers calculated that the missile is approximately 31 feet (9.5 meters) in overall length, with a wingspan of approximately 18 feet (5.6 meters). It likely flies at a speed of around Mach 0.75.

They conclude that the Burevestnik is “almost certain” to use a direct-cycle air-breathing nuclear propulsion system, which probably drives a turbojet.

In a direct-cycle system, air is drawn from the atmosphere and passes directly through the reactor core. A compressor forces the air through thousands of narrow, tube-like channels surrounding the nuclear fuel, where the heat generated by nuclear fission raises the air’s temperature. As the heated air expands, it exits the rear of the engine to produce thrust.

This approach differs fundamentally from most nuclear reactors, which use an indirect, closed-loop design. In those systems, a sealed coolant — typically water or another heat-transfer fluid — circulates through the reactor to carry heat away while keeping radioactive materials contained and minimizing radiation exposure.

While some kind of indirect loop design is not impossible, the researchers consider that it’s highly unlikely, due to the simple fact that these systems are considerably larger, heavier, and more complex and couldn’t be accommodated in what is by no means a huge missile.

This means that the Burevestnik is likely propelled using heated air that is drawn directly through the reactor core.

The resulting powerplant is simpler and more compact, but it comes with a serious drawback: “The direct cycle is very likely to result in a large quantity of radioactive material in the exhaust,” Hecla contends.

Essentially, as clean atmospheric air passes through the tiny tubes in the reactor, it gets irradiated and infused with fission decay products from the nuclear fuel.

The hot air that passes out of the end of the turbojet would be filled with radioactive isotopes of argon, krypton, and carbon, all of which would be scattered in its wake.

The longer the missile flies, the more of this harmful waste it would pump into the atmosphere, and onto the surface below.

The researchers highlight another problem, too.

Namely, any kind of prolonged flight is likely to result in corrosion of the reactor core, through a combination of heat and compressed air. This would create yet more radioactive particles.

Based on previous evidence, it seems that Russia might already be battling with the problems inherent in handling, loading, and testing a missile with this kind of propulsion system.

The Russian Ministry of Defense released the video below in 2018, saying that it showed an earlier Burevestnik test launch, as well as examples of the missiles themselves.

Крылатая ракета с ядерным двигателем «Буревестник»

The MIT researchers consider that the fatal 2019 explosion in the White Sea was likely a failed attempt to recover a prototype Burevestnik reactor. The reactor is presumed to have restarted as it was being raised from the seabed, leading to an explosion.

Bearing all this in mind raises the question of why Russia set about developing the Burevestnik, especially when it has so many other ‘novel’ weapons in the works or already fielded.

Ultimately, the major advantage of the Burevestnik is almost unlimited range, something that we have discussed in the past:

“The missile can be launched preemptively and approach its target from any vector long after launch. For example, it could be launched from the Arctic, stay aloft for many hours, and then attack the United States from the south. Once launched, its flight path is entirely unpredictable, and it could exploit holes in defenses and weaker spots in early warning capabilities. It provides another reason why space-based tracking layers, including those that can spot low-flying aircraft, are currently very much on trend.”

Conclusions:

1. Burevestnik is not a strategic game-changer, and does not provide decisive warfighting advantages beyond existing nuclear forces.

2. It is likely a hedge against missile defenses with a niche capability complicating warning, tracking, and defense planning. 3/5 pic.twitter.com/nYzbZquthK

— William Alberque (@walberque) June 18, 2026

On the other hand, the Burevestnik doesn’t appear to be very fast or difficult to intercept once detected.

There is also its inherent inflexibility, since Russia has said it is only envisaged as being used with a nuclear warhead. While this could change, the size and weight of a conventional warhead would be more limited, and it’s questionable if Russia would risk employing such a complex missile to deliver a relatively modest conventional charge, especially since it would leave a potentially lethal radioactive footprint regardless.

“It leaks radiation, making it easy to track; it’s slow and un-stealthy, making it easy to shoot down; and the inside of the missile degrades during reactor operation, calling into question its ‘unlimited’ range,” William Alberque, a former director of strategy, technology and arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), told TWZ.

“There are so many reasons everyone abandoned this concept in the Cold War,” Alberque added.

Conclusions (con’t):

5. It is 9.5m long with a reactor core diameter of 50 cm and requires regular boosters for launch and terminal phases.

6. In short, Burevestnik is a costly and hazardous symbol system with the potential to kick off a broader nuclear-propulsion race. 5/5 pic.twitter.com/NOdZ1lz6ZG

— William Alberque (@walberque) June 18, 2026

Hecla and Kemp assess that Russia’s reason for embarking on the Burevestnik is likely more to do with proving technologies for more ambitious and advanced programs further down the line. These could include nuclear-powered surveillance drones or space-based nuclear systems that would have considerably more military value.

People are asking what’s the purpose of Burevestnik and why develop a system that is very much useless as a weapon. The answer has always been right there, in the 1 March 2018 address. Russian president has always wanted to say these words. The rest doesn’t matter really. pic.twitter.com/0Q7JUGBqo3

— Pavel Podvig (@russianforces) October 26, 2025

Another possibility is that this is a ‘pet project’ of Putin himself, the Russian leader having been wooed by the idea of a missile with near-limitless range, regardless of the practical utility.

On the one hand, the latest analysis does suggest that the test last October means that the Burevestnik is the first aircraft ever built and flown in a sustained manner using nuclear power.

That is a landmark, but it’s one that’s tempered by very significant questions about the safety of anyone in its vicinity, and the environment at large, not to mention its somewhat limited military value.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Ukraine is increasingly emerging as a potential player in Europe’s race to build-up its long-range conventional strike capabilities. New partnerships centered on the Ukrainian Flamingo and Neptune cruise missiles underscore how the European defense industry is moving from supplying Kyiv to co-developing and manufacturing combat-proven Ukrainian missile technology for NATO’s own future arsenal.

Diehl Defense recently confirmed that it plans to launch production of Ukraine’s Flamingo cruise missile in Germany. Diehl’s chief executive, Helmut Rauch, said that his company was planning talks in the coming weeks with Fire Point, the manufacturer of the Flamingo. Previously, Diehl had signed a technology agreement with Fire Point but had not disclosed any details.

Meanwhile, another European missile manufacturer, MBDA, the largest company of its kind in Europe, has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Ukrainian defense firm Luch to expand collaboration on deep-strike capabilities by focusing on the Neptune family of cruise missiles. Under the agreement, MBDA and Luch will work together on the so-called Neptune 2 missile, via what the European missile house describes as a process of “disruptive innovation.”

Reflecting this broader trend, during a visit to Kyiv last month, German Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius noted Ukraine’s “remarkable” wartime technological advances and said that Berlin was looking at joint ventures that included long-range drones, air defenses, and electronic warfare.

Looking at these Ukrainian cruise missiles in more detail, Luch’s Neptune first emerged as an anti-ship missile, based on the Soviet-era Kh-35, known to NATO as the SS-N-25 Switchblade in its surface-launched form. The Neptune came to prominence when it was used to sink the Russian Navy’s Slava class cruiser Moskva in 2022.

Ukraine reportedly began work on a new land-attack version of the Neptune in 2023. A Ukrainian defense official told TWZ that this version has a range of up to 225 miles (360 kilometers). This compares to a reported maximum range of around 190 miles (300 kilometers) for the anti-ship version.

Subsequently, Ukraine introduced the extended-range Long Neptune, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated has a range in the region of 620 miles (1,000 kilometers). The Long Neptune features an extended body to accommodate additional fuel for its turbofan engine. It has reportedly been used against dozens of targets inside Russia.

The land-attack versions of the Neptune reportedly use a GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS) and an imaging infrared sensor in place of the anti-ship missile’s active radar seeker.

At least one more version of the Neptune has also been developed, this one apparently featuring fuel tank ‘bulges’ for increased range. As you can read about here, this model appears to be something like an intermediate-range version, falling between the original land-attack Neptune and the Long Neptune.

Turning to the Flamingo, also known as the FP-5, this was designed from the ground up to hit targets deep within Russia, the missile having a reported range of 1,864 miles (3,000 kilometers). The Flamingo is significantly bigger than the Neptune series, being launched from rails mounted on a trailer, rather than from canisters on the flatbed of a truck.

The Flamingo also features a notably larger warhead, reportedly weighing around 2,205 pounds (1,000 kilograms).

A video of the Flamingo cruise missile in action:

Випробувальний пуск ракети “Фламінго”

In terms of guidance, the Flamingo is said to use a combination of methods, including various types of satellite navigation. An underlying inertial navigation system is likely to be present. The missile is powered by an AI-25 turbofan engine, a type produced in Ukraine for military and civilian aircraft, including the L-39 Albatros trainer and the Yak-40 feederliner.

Ukraine’s development of increasingly long-range land-attack cruise missiles is driven by the requirement to strike targets deeper inside Russia. Kyiv has received standoff missiles from its allies, including the air-launched Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG from the United Kingdom and France, respectively, as well as the U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missile. However, these are not available in large numbers and are limited by restrictions imposed upon their use. Additionally, none of them have the kind of range or warhead capacity offered by the Flamingo.

Kyiv has long been campaigning to receive Tomahawk cruise missiles from the United States, but so far, Washington has refused these requests, with U.S. President Donald Trump saying he is “not looking to see an escalation” in the conflict. These highly accurate missiles would be able to hit targets roughly 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from Ukraine’s borders.

As well as cruise missiles, Ukraine has also developed a huge variety of long-range one-way-attack drones, and other designs that blur the line between long-range kamikaze drones and cruise missiles, including Palianytsia, Peklo, and Trembita.

Kyiv has also been working on developing new ballistic missiles. However, the longest-range one of these, as far as is known, is the Hrim-2, which can hit targets at 174 miles (280 kilometers) or possibly up to 310 miles (500 kilometers).

Meanwhile, Fire Point has developed the FP-7 ballistic missile, a weapon with a stated range of around 124 miles (200 kilometers), and a warhead of approximately 331 pounds (150 kilograms).

In both cases, however, these ballistic missiles lack true strategic reach. This would be partially addressed by the FP-9, which Fire Point aims to start testing this summer, and which is expected to have a range of 530 miles (855 kilometers).

🇺🇦 Fire Point’s at the Paris exhibition:

• FP-5 Flamingo

• FP-7

• FP-9 (ballistics at 700+ km)

• FP-1/2 pic.twitter.com/3OzjHEpM7h

— MAKS 26 🇺🇦👀 (@Maks_NAFO_FELLA) June 16, 2026

Ukraine’s efforts to develop new and more destructive missiles, and to build them at scale, come as Europe’s NATO members also increasingly look to field weapons in this class.

The scale factor is an important one, since Ukrainian wartime weapons development stresses equipment that can be produced rapidly, in large numbers, and at a lower cost point. Fire Point has said that it aims to increase Flamingo production to a daily rate of at least seven missiles by October of this year. This would translate to 2,555 built annually. It remains questionable whether this is a realistic target, but the prospect of additional production lines elsewhere in Europe would change things.

Additional details have been released about Ukraine’s new domestically-produced long-range cruise missile, dubbed the FP-5 “Flamingo” which is manufactured by Fire Point. According to an interview with Chief Technical Officer Iryna Terekh, the “Flamingo” has entered serial… pic.twitter.com/2D5GisrmFP

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 21, 2025

At the same time, it should be noted that the Flamingo and Neptune cruise missiles, for all their capabilities, are not especially sophisticated. They both fly at subsonic speed and do not appear to have any attempts at signature control. While they are certainly destructive, they are far from immune to interception.

Their effectiveness can be increased by using them in missile barrages and combined with drones and potentially decoys, to overwhelm air defenses. Here, too, is an area in which Ukrainian experience could help, creating a mix of high-end missile capabilities with combat mass from lower-end drones.

With this in mind, it is perhaps not surprising that Diehl is already looking at how it can improve the Flamingo.

Diehl’s Helmut Rauch has said that his company could outfit the Flamingo with a much more advanced seeker, leveraging the German firm’s experience in this area.

An unverified video that appears to show a Flamingo cruise missile strike on a military factory in Cheboksary in western Russia:

Similarly, MBDA’s expertise in missile development and production could potentially be incorporated in future versions of the Neptune.

Either way, Ukraine would benefit from advanced technologies that otherwise might not be immediately accessible.

What is clear is that European NATO allies are increasingly looking to address their lack of land-based long-range strike capabilities. As well as facing an increasingly belligerent Russia equipped with an expanding arsenal of long-range missiles, Europe is also confronting the prospect of its U.S. ally being unwilling to provide the same kinds of capabilities.

Ukraine is not alone in being unable to secure U.S.-made Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Berlin, in particular, is looking for alternatives to the U.S. Army long-range fires battalion equipped with various conventionally armed standoff missiles — including Tomahawk — that was expected to be deployed in Germany on a rotational basis, starting this year. The U.S. move was an apparent response to disagreements with Germany over the Iran war as well as ongoing tariff tensions. 

While Europe does have new long-range strike programs underway, they are not expected to bring new systems into service until the 2030s. At the same time, efforts like the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA), which involves France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, still have to agree on common requirements, provided that is even possible.

Separately, Germany and the United Kingdom have unveiled plans to jointly produce a “deep precision strike” weapon with a range of over 1,240 miles (2,000 kilometers). At this point, however, no industrial framework has been agreed on. Potentially, an advanced version of the Flamingo could meet that requirement, even if only as an interim measure before a more bespoke solution can be developed.

Russia’s extensive use of ground-launched missiles in Ukraine, along with its deployment of long-range weapons in Kaliningrad, has only highlighted the deficiencies in Europe’s deep-strike capabilities as NATO seeks to strengthen conventional deterrence against Moscow.

For Europe, Ukrainian missile developers like Luchs and Fire Point bring the valuable experience of wartime innovation, while established defense firms like MBDA and Diehl provide additional industrial capacity and advanced technologies. If either of these projects succeeds, they could not only help Ukraine field more advanced and capable cruise missiles, but also help address one of NATO’s most pressing capability gaps.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Norwegian missile-maker Kongsberg has finalized its acquisition of a majority stake in Zone 5 Technologies, bringing under its umbrella the U.S. start-up’s Rusty Dagger low-cost cruise missile, among others. With both those weapons already moving into large-scale production, the two companies are making the case for combining Kongsberg’s stealthy Joint Strike Missile (JSM) cruise missiles in operational scenarios. Zone 5 has also now confirmed that the Rusty Dagger, which is already being supplied to Ukraine, is now cleared for use on four different types of fighter aircraft, including the F-16.

At the ILA Berlin airshow yesterday, where TWZ was in attendance, officials from the two companies announced that Kongsberg has now formally acquired a 90 percent stake in Zone 5. California-based Zone 5 will continue to operate as an independent subsidiary under the Norwegian contractor. As well as discussing the industrial acquisition, the officials provided details of how the Rusty Dagger fits into the new-look portfolio, and updates on how that program is progressing.

Zone 5 Technologies – Rusty Dagger

Founded in 2011, Zone 5 is one of an emerging class of defense companies gaining prominence for developing low-cost, rapidly deployable capabilities. In many ways, they represent the inverse of traditional defense contractors, favoring speed, scalability, and cost efficiency over highly customized, high-priced systems.

Kongsberg first announced the acquisition in December, with executives noting that buying a stake in Zone 5 offered the fastest path to offering lower-cost missiles that still deliver meaningful combat capability, especially in terms of bringing these to the European market.

“What we’re doing here is that we’re combining Kongsberg’s niche, exquisite technologies with a company very capable of designing for cost efficiency and mass production,” explained Thomas Akers, founder and CEO of Kongsberg.

As to why Kongsberg didn’t choose to develop its own equivalent to the Rusty Dagger, Harald Aarø, Kongsberg’s executive vice president for business development and strategy, provided the following answer:

“Technically, could we be capable of doing it? Yes, but we are not as capable, as we will probably spend a longer time, and perhaps not strike as smart solutions,” Aarø said. “That doesn’t mean that our engineers aren’t just as smart. Our engineers are just as smart, but on a different sports field, so to speak.”

Aarø also described how the specific combination of the Rusty Dagger and the JSM makes for “a very effective future strike solution.” Namely, the Rusty Dagger provides cost-effective but still highly capable standoff strike, while the more exquisite JSM comes with a heftier price tag but offers a greater chance of making it through to even heavily defended targets, on account of its sophisticated guidance and low-observable characteristics.

As well as being launched from a pylon on a fighter, the Rusty Dagger can be configured for palletized employment from a cargo aircraft, reflecting growing interest in this type of munition employment. It can also be surface-launched both on land and at sea.

According to Tom Kanewske, Zone 5’s chief strategy officer: “What’s interesting about our missile is that the same base, light cruise missile is field retrofittable for all employment modes, and that puts us in a very unique space, in that a country and their [armed] services are able to purchase the same munition and field retrofit for that to be surface launched, whether from land or the deck of a ship, or pylon launched from a fighter aircraft, or palletized.”

Since larger numbers of Rusty Daggers can be launched in any given scenario, they can overwhelm enemy air defenses and improve the chances of success.

According to Kanewske, Rusty Dagger and JSM “offer a weapon pairing that truly no other missiles in the world do.”

While the JSM can be carried internally in the F-35, the same is not currently the case for the Rusty Dagger, although Kanewske said that this is “something that is of keen interest to the [U.S. military] services and several of our international partners.”

When it comes to utilizing the Rusty Dagger and JSM together in a combat scenario, Kanewske noted the possibility of integrating capabilities that would allow the Rusty Dagger to offer “cooperative behaviors” with the JSM. This reflects a growing trend toward leveraging artificial intelligence to help make all munitions more effective and survivable, something that has been demonstrated via Golden Horde and follow-on programs.

Both missiles fly at high-subsonic speeds, the Rusty Dagger being able to strike targets at a range of 250 miles, according to Zone 5, while the JSM has a range of more than 215 miles.

In one highlighted scenario, F-35s could penetrate closer to the target, with their JSMs carried internally to preserve their low-observable features. Meanwhile, much larger numbers of Rusty Daggers could be pylon-launched from fighters, and dropped in palletized form out of the cargo holds of transports, from outside of the range of hostile air defenses.

Kanewske confirmed that, this year, its first year of production, “well above 1,000 units for Rusty Dagger” will be completed, including for the U.S. Air Force, as the AGM-188, under the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program. The Air Force’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year laid out plans to buy nearly 28,000 FAMM munitions over the next five years.

Last month, the Pentagon laid out plans to acquire at least 10,000 lower-cost cruise missiles over the next three years, as part of a broader strategy to dramatically bolster its stockpiles of standoff strike munitions and prepare the industrial base to sustain those inventories going forward. This is seen as especially critical for supporting the demands of future high-end fights, such as one in the Pacific against China, and doing so in a cost-effective manner.

The Rusty Dagger has so far been cleared for use from four different types of fighter aircraft, Kanewske said. One of these is the F-16, which used the weapon in end-to-end live-fire trials at the Eglin Test and Training Range in Florida earlier this year. Another platform may be the A-4, with a contractor-operated example of the attack jet having been used in company trials. Then there is the Ukrainian Air Force, which is using the Rusty Dagger, under the Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program, although the specific platforms have not been disclosed. Any of the MiG-29 Fulcrum, Su-25 Frogfoot, and Su-27 Flanker are likely candidates — as well as its own F-16s.

A series of unverified photos, first published by Russian sources, showing purported parts of Rusty Dagger missiles retrieved after being used by Ukraine:

It appears that the AGM-188A “Rusty Dagger” cruise missile has undergone field testing in Ukraine.

Russian sources are publishing photos of an unknown 8-element CRPA antenna. On the back side of the unit there is a circuit board with a large heatsink, which carries the CAGE code… pic.twitter.com/phZeOJfHJ0

— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱△ 🇬🇪🇺🇦🇺🇲🇬🇷 (@TheDeadDistrict) June 7, 2026

In the case of the F-16, Kanewske said that only 72 hours were required to integrate the Rusty Dagger on the jet during the trials at Eglin.

“We’re the only affordable mass munition that is currently on contract with an export international customer, and we are actively involved with them at this time,” Kanewske said, clearly referring to Ukraine.

Zone 5 is currently under U.S. Air Force contract for both FAMM and ERAM, and is also under contract with the U.S. Army for its Low-Cost Containerized Missile (LCCM) program, and for the U.S. Navy as part of its Coalition Heterogeneous Affordable Offensive Strike (CHAOS) program, which seeks a low-cost anti-ship cruise missile to provide to partner countries. Both LCCM and CHAOS involve surface-launched missiles.

As well as the ability to rapidly scale up production and a relatively low unit cost, the Rusty Dagger brings with it an open-architecture concept, applying to both software and hardware. This means new, sovereign features and capabilities can be introduced at short notice by customers. In the past, an operator might have to wait up to five years for unique subcomponents to be integrated in a similar weapon, Kanewske contended. With the Rusty Dagger, Zone 5 has demonstrated that this can be achieved in under 12 months.

Then, when it comes to producing the missile at mass, rather than having to “make that factory bigger and bigger,” Kanewske explained that the company offers a franchise model “that allows us to roughly parachute in the design, the equipment, the tooling, the fixtures, the quality control, so that countries can drop in their own subsystem capabilities, and we can achieve manufacturing at pace and at scale.”

Speaking in Berlin yesterday, Kongsberg’s Harald Aarø confirmed that Germany is a particular target for this franchise model, including for the Rusty Dagger. He identified Germany as having “probably the best manufacturing capabilities on this planet,” making it an obvious choice for a European manufacturing footprint.

Reflecting on the changing security situation on the continent since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Aarø said that now is “a natural time to start looking at a production site in Europe,” providing nations there with national sovereign capabilities based on the Kongsberg/Zone 5 joint portfolio.

Kongsberg’s acquisition of a majority stake in Zone 5 evidences a broader shift in Western defense planning toward affordable, mass-produced precision weapons that can be fielded at scale alongside more sophisticated strike systems.

The war in Ukraine has exposed the harsh reality that Europe needs far more standoff weapons than it currently possesses, and it needs them at a price point that allows stockpiles to be measured in the thousands rather than the dozens. Rusty Dagger is very much indicative of a new generation of systems designed around that requirement, prioritizing low-cost mass production over the exquisite but scarce munitions that have traditionally dominated Western arsenals.

As conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East continue to highlight the operational value of low-cost, long-range munitions, demand for capabilities such as the Rusty Dagger is likely to grow. In an increasingly crowded marketplace, Kongsberg and Zone 5 will hope they can leverage their partnership, the Rusty Dagger’s combat use in Ukraine, and the potential to harness its capabilities in combination with the JSM, to build on the missile’s success.

At the same time, Kongsberg’s interest in establishing European production reflects a wider recognition across the continent that long-range strike capacity, industrial resilience, and the ability to sustain missile inventories are becoming increasingly important elements of national and collective defense.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

A novel kind of drone-based air defense system has been shown for the first time by German weapon manufacturer Diehl Defence. The Cobra 600, which has not previously been seen in public, combines a jet-powered drone platform with a missile rail armed with one of the company’s IRIS-T missiles, a weapon already used in short-range air defense systems and air-to-air applications. The new system immediately recalls recent Russian developments, which add short-range air defense missiles to its versions of the Shahed-136 long-range one-way attack drone, known locally as the Geran.

Cobra 600 is being presented at the ILA Berlin airshow, taking place this week in the German capital. The Cobra 600 is also known as the Airborne Launching and Attack System (AirLAS), and the program was launched last year.

The concept behind the Cobra 600 is that of a ‘missile taxi,’ in which the drone platform carries the IRIS-T missile over a considerable distance. All the while, the drone is meshed with a ground-based air defense system. Typically, this would be one of Diehl’s IRIS-T SLM or IRIS-T SLS systems. Of these, the IRIS-T SLS employs the same missile as the air-to-air variant — and therefore the same missile as the Cobra 600. The physical interface between the drone and the missile is a standard pylon as used on the Eurofighter jet.

As for the drone platform, this is provided by another German firm, the Polaris Raumflugzeuge aerospace start-up. It has a similar kind of efficient delta planform as the Shahed-136, with a modified flying-wing-like design. On the wingtips are mounted endplate vertical stabilizers. As displayed, the drone is powered by a pair of JetCat-P1000-PRO micro turbojet engines, each of which provides a maximum thrust of 20 pounds. However, the drone has intake ports for another two engines. It’s not clear if these are only intended to be fitted if heavier payloads are being carried, but it’s certainly a possibility. Concept artwork released by Polaris, as seen at the top of this story, shows a four-engine configuration, with the turbojets buried in the airframe and fed by much longer intakes, helping to shield them from detection.

Polaris Raumflugzeuge has already built a variety of drones in the same configuration, and the company eventually aims to scale this up to produce a spaceplane.

Drawing on its design heritage, the Cobra 600 drone has retractable wheeled tricycle landing gear, meaning that it can be reused in some scenarios. The drone therefore takes off and lands from runways, although it is also able to operate from suitable shorter airstrips, such as stretches of highway. It’s also intended to be cheap enough that commanders will also be willing to risk losing it in combat, or after it runs out of fuel.

The concept of operations has the Cobra 600 serving as an adjunct to a ground-based air defense system, extending its range considerably.

With the missile fitted, the Cobra 600 has a range of around 250 miles. This compares to around 25 miles for the ground-launched missile used in the IRIS-T SLM, or approximately eight miles for the missile used in the IRIS-T SLS.

As such, the Cobra 600 has the potential to turn the ground-based IRIS-T into something a little closer to a long-range surface-to-air missile, in terms of the distance it can cover. Of course, this is only true in terms of absolute range, with the speed and maneuverability of the drone being far inferior to a long-range missile. Unless the target is nearby, or the Cobra 600 has been pre-positioned based on known target vectors, the reaction time it offers is strictly limited. The missile itself is also able to tackle a more limited range of potential targets than a dedicated long-range surface-to-air missile, some of which offer an anti-ballistic missile capability, for example.

On the other hand, the Cobra 600 offers the distinct advantage of being able to loiter in a given area, waiting for threats to emerge, or to perform combat air patrols to screen certain sectors. It is best viewed as a forward-positioned additional launcher for the ground-based IRIS-T, and is also entirely reliant upon that system (or a similar one) for its effectiveness. At the same time, leveraging existing ground-based air defense systems as a force multiplier is a clear advantage. Another possible operational scenario would involve setting the Cobra 600s up as interceptors on a runway, sitting ready for launch on a runway to defend against lower-end threats.

In its current form, the Cobra 600 has no onboard sensors to detect targets other than the imaging infrared seeker head that’s integral to the standard IRIS-T missile.

In an operational scenario, a target for the Cobra 600 would be detected and identified by the ground-based air defense system to which it is ‘tethered.’ Connected via datalink, the ground-based system would vector the drone to the appropriate location. Using its own seeker, the IRIS-T would lock onto the target and be commanded to launch by the operator of the ground-based system. Of course, this presupposes that the datalink is not compromised by hostile interference or due to line-of-sight limitations, although SATCOM capability, like Starlink, would help keep redundant control over the drone beyond line-of-sight.

At this point, the mode of engagement is not dissimilar to the ground-based IRIS-T SLS, which features a lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) capability. This means it can fire missiles without first establishing the weapon’s lock on the target. After receiving target information in the form of three-dimensional coordinates, the missile uses inertial guidance during the initial stage of flight. Upon reaching the designated engagement altitude, its imaging infrared seeker activates and begins searching the predicted target area.

Diehl Experts | Ulrike Bartel | IRIS-T system | Diehl Defence

Another conceivable option would be to add some kind of sensor, such as an infrared camera, to the Cobra 600 drone platform, meaning that a ‘person in the loop’ could establish that the missile had locked onto the correct target.

A further option could be to ‘uncage’ the missile seeker and let it search across its field of view only when the Cobra 600 is in a designated ‘kill box,’ within which it would have authority to engage any target it acquires, reactively, and autonomously. Issues such as this clearly need to be addressed, based on combat requirements and ethical concerns.

As well as operating the Cobra 600 in conjunction with the IRIS-T SLM/SLS, it could also be integrated with other ground-based air defenses. According to Polaris, it could also be embedded with aircraft or in a maritime environment.

The Cobra 600 has already completed its first flight tests, with a dummy IRIS-T missile fitted. Currently, the development effort is mainly funded by the company, but there has also been investment from at least one interested nation.

With the IRIS-T SLM/SLS combat-proven in Ukraine, experiences from this conflict have almost certainly helped inform the development of the Cobra 600.

The war in Ukraine also provides an interesting parallel to the Cobra 600, in Russia’s missile-armed adaptations of its Shahed/Geran drones.

Russian developments have seen the fielding of these drones carrying either a single R-60 air-to-air missile, a much older and less capable equivalent to the IRIS-T, or man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).

According to Ukrainian accounts, as well as the rail-mounted missile on the top, these drones are equipped with a camera and a radio-frequency modem.

Russian forces are mounting Igla MANPADS on Shahed drones to target Ukrainian helicopters that intercept them. The drones carry a camera and radio modem, and the missile is launched remotely by an operator in Russian territory. pic.twitter.com/T5TKPHyhVu

— WarTranslated (@wartranslated) January 4, 2026

However, the concept of operations for the missile-armed Russian drones is very different. While it gives the drones a means to engage Ukrainian fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, it works more as a deterrent than as a genuinely useful tactical application. As we have noted in the past, the difficulty in obtaining a high degree of situational awareness and the limited agility of the drone raises questions about the effectiveness of these solutions. On the other hand, Russia has been working on a man-in-the-loop (MITL) control capability for the Shahed/Geran, which could potentially be used to operate the missile.

Considerably larger than the Shahed-136 design, the Cobra 600 will provide a higher performance delta overall. It is also jet-powered, and, with up to four engines, this would give more impressive response times and maneuverability than the Russian system.

It should be noted that there are other previous precedents for arming drones with air-to-air missiles. In at least one instance from 2002, a U.S. Air Force MQ-1 Predator drone fired a Stinger heat-seeking anti-air missile at an Iraqi MiG-25 Foxbat fighter that was trying to shoot it down, which can be seen in the video below.

Dogfight between MQ-1 Predator drone and Mig-25 Foxbat.mp4

The fast pace of development of the Cobra 600 reflects a growing need for ground-based air defenses more generally, after decades of neglect. There is also a need for less-expensive, less-exquisite solutions in this area, something that the Cobra 600 also addresses, with a price point that is significantly lower than a long-range surface-to-air missile (although with the various disadvantages outlined above). At the same time, the Cobra 600 may well end up being used against even lower-cost drones, for which the IRIS-T is still a very expensive solution.

The Cobra 600 reflects a broader shift in air defense thinking driven by the lessons of recent conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East, where persistent drone threats, as well as cruise missiles, have exposed the limitations of traditional ground-based air defense architectures.

By combining the endurance and flexibility of a drone with the proven, off-the-shelf IRIS-T interceptor, the Cobra 600 offers a potentially cost-effective way to extend defensive coverage over greater distances and to put ‘shooters’ into contested areas that crewed systems would not be able to venture. While some questions remain about how the Cobra 600 would be integrated with existing operational doctrine, the concept highlights the growing demand for innovative, layered, and resilient air defenses as militaries seek to counter increasingly varied and numerous aerial threats.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Iran has launched a new barrage of missiles at Israel, according to the Israeli Defense Forces. Iranian officials say the attack, the first such strike since the April 8 ceasefire, was in response to Israel bombing Beirut a few hours ago. With Israel under direct attack from Iran, how much longer the ceasefire will hold is an open question.

“A short while ago, the IDF identified missiles launched from Iran toward the territory of the State of Israel,” the IDF stated on Telegram.  “Defensive systems are operating to intercept the threat.”

Iran acknowledged launching missiles at Israel.

Videos emerged on social media showing Israeli air defenses working to intercept the missiles.

Tests of Ukraine’s new FP-7.X missile could pave the way to a cheaper and more plentiful, albeit far less capable, alternative to the U.S.-made Patriot air defense system effectors. A recent uptick in Russian missile and drone attacks against Ukraine, combined with a critical shortage of Patriot interceptors, underscores the need for more robust air defenses, especially with anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The development parallels a similar program in the United States, which seeks a drastically lower-cost interceptor for the Patriot system.

A video showing a test launch of an FP-7.X missile was published yesterday by its manufacturer, Fire Point, also responsible for the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile and a series of long-range one-way attack drones. Fire Point’s chief technology officer Iryna Terekh described the depicted test as a “fully controlled maneuvering flight” conducted “just the other day.” The pink-painted missile recalls the early Flamingoes, and now seems to have been adopted as something of a company trademark.

The FP-7.X missile is planned as the stepping-stone toward the productionized Freyja missile, which is primarily intended to provide Ukraine with its first homegrown anti-ballistic missile defense system. While ballistic missile threats are being prioritized here, the system would be equally able to defend against a variety of crewed aircraft threats, as well as drones and cruise missiles.

“No matter how unrealistic and ambitious this goal may sound today, we are exerting all possible and impossible efforts to make it a reality as soon as possible, so that Ukraine can close its skies on its own,” Terekh wrote.

Back in April, Fire Point’s co-founder and chief designer Denys Shtilierman told Reuters that the company was aiming to develop an anti-ballistic missile with a unit cost of less than $1 million.

“If we can decrease it to less than $1 million, it will be … a game changer in air defense solutions,” Shtilierman said. “We plan to intercept the first ballistic missile at the end of 2027,” he added, apparently referring to the aim to field the Freyja system by that date.

This compares to a unit price of approximately $5.3 million for each example of the most modern and highly capable PAC-3 MSE variant, which is one of the types provided to Ukraine. This figure comes from the Army’s latest proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. This is up from a historical average of around $4 million for each one of these missiles. These munitions also take years of lead time to produce, meaning that managing limited stocks is a big challenge.

Fire Point has developed the FP-7.X missile on the basis of the previous FP-7 surface-to-surface ballistic missile, a weapon with a range of around 124 miles, and a warhead of approximately 331 pounds. Deriving an anti-ballistic missile from a ballistic missile is an unusual move, but Fire Point will hope that the commonality should accelerate the process.

As it stands, Ukraine’s anti-ballistic missile capabilities are strictly limited. It relies heavily upon the Patriot, batteries and components of which have been provided by Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States.

When the Patriot began to arrive in 2023, it provided Ukraine with an enhanced long-range, high-altitude engagement capability that was previously only offered, to a lesser degree, by Ukraine’s S-300s, with their depleting stocks of missiles. Importantly, the Patriot also brought an anti-ballistic missile capability, something that was previously only provided by the small number of Ukrainian S-300V1 systems, and even those don’t come anywhere close to the Patriot in this regard.

And another S-300V engagement, released as part of the same video.

From what I have seen, these are the third and fourth Ukrainian S-300V engagement videos released since the start of the war. pic.twitter.com/wPHnYbCQKP

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) February 9, 2025

Providing somewhat similar capabilities to the Patriot is the SAMP/T, a joint Franco-Italian SAM system, which has also been supplied to Ukraine, but only in limited numbers. Overall, the SAMP/T is limited simply by the fact that it is produced in relatively small numbers.

As for the Patriot, this has claimed notable successes and high-profile victims in Ukrainian hands. However, as Russia has adapted its ballistic missiles, specifically adding enhanced maneuvering capabilities, the effectiveness of the U.S.-made system has been reduced.

According to Shtilierman, the Patriot system often requires two or three air defence missiles, each costing several million ​dollars, to bring down a ballistic projectile. This is a mismatch that Fire Point also hopes to address with the Freyja.

It is notable that the U.S. Army is currently also pressing defense contractors to come up with proposals for a new interceptor for the Patriot system with a unit cost under $1 million, as you can read more about here. Whether by design or coincidence, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, the Army’s Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Fires (PAE Fires), included a rendering of the FP-7.X in a recent LinkedIn post, as seen below, to illustrate a notional low-cost interceptor.

hahah look at that! Good find!

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) May 18, 2026

The latest development comes as Ukraine’s political and military leaders continue to warn about critical shortcomings in the country’s air defense capabilities. As well as expending the missiles it already has, the United States has reportedly suspended further Patriot deliveries to Ukraine because of concerns over the state of its own stockpile.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly urged U.S. President Donald Trump and members of Congress to provide additional missiles for its Patriot systems, warning that Ukraine faces a severe air defense shortfall.

We were receiving PAC-3 missiles from our partners in certain quantities, but later that monthly volume was cut several times over. It wasn’t due to a lack of funding, but because of the war in the Middle East. This affected different types of weapons. Whatever we could, we… pic.twitter.com/qwPFydwAzC

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 3, 2026

Yesterday, Zelensky said that Ukrainian officials have one week to finalize outstanding legal, financial, and technical issues related to the purchase of additional Patriot systems.

Zelensky said that a political agreement to buy the systems has already been reached, but the process has stalled.

Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Olha Stefanishyna, added that Kyiv is prepared to finance additional Patriot systems and interceptor missiles if Washington agrees to deliver them.

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrsky also recently pointed to Ukraine’s lack of sufficient modern air defense systems and interceptor missiles.

Clearly, continued Russian missile and drone strikes are putting a heavy strain on Ukraine’s air defenses.

Plugging the gaps with the Freyja system would make a lot of sense, providing a locally developed and manufactured solution to the problem, provided that the technical hurdles can be overcome.

Even so, the deadline of the end of 2027 is very ambitious for such a project.

With that in mind, Ukraine is also looking to foreign support for the Freyja program.

Earlier this year, Fire Point confirmed it was in talks to get European and Middle Eastern companies onboard the program. With various nations struggling to meet their air defense needs amid the demands of the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, investing here could also bring dividends.

Shtilierman told Reuters in April that he was awaiting government approval for an investment in Fire Point by a Middle Eastern conglomerate, which would provide a major boost to Freyja and other programs, including longer-reaching ballistic missiles.

In terms of European companies, Shtilierman mentioned his interest in collaborating on radar, missile target-seeking, and communications systems. He named Hensoldt, Saab, and Thales as potential suppliers of radar solutions, an area where Fire Point lacks expertise.

Fire Point has also previously described the Freyja interceptor being fitted with an infrared imaging seeker for the terminal phase, as well as a semi-active radar homing seeker from Diehl Defence of Germany.

Few details are available about the launch system, other than reports of a lightweight, mobile launcher of domestic origin.

Globally, there is a clear demand for alternatives to the increasingly hard-to-source Patriot, especially for anti-ballistic missile defense.

A video shows a PAC-2 in a test against a Lance ballistic missile:

MIM-104C Patriot PAC-2 vs. Lance TBM

Ukraine’s combination of battlefield experience, rapid innovation, and low-cost defense technologies could put it in a good position to fill the gap. Even if the Freyja ends up with a significantly lower kill rate per missile than the Patriot, if it is far cheaper, that would be less of a problem.

At the same time, it remains unclear if Fire Point is able to fulfil the promises it has made in terms of output. In the past, the company has said it aims to build at least seven of its Flamingo cruise missiles per day, for a total of 2,555 built annually. To reach this target, the firm might need to call upon foreign partnerships to help expand its production capacity. The same would likely be the case for Freyja. By way of comparison, in 2024, Lockheed Martin produced more than 500 PAC-3 MSEs, with a plan to increase this to 600 in 2025.

A video of the Flamingo cruise missile in action:

Випробувальний пуск ракети “Фламінго”

One unknown factor in this is the possibility that Ukraine and/or NATO allies in Europe might obtain additional licenses for local production of Patriot missiles. Zelensky wants Patriot production in Ukraine and has said he has been discussing it with the United States. Still, while these might address the production capacity issues for the weapons, it would still be a more expensive solution than what Fire Point is proposing and it would take years to realize any output.

For now, the FP-7.X appears to be an early-stage technology demonstrator, and turning it into the operational Freyja interceptor by 2027 will require overcoming massive technical and logistical hurdles — as well as holding off Russian air attacks in the meantime.

However, the program reflects a broader trend in Ukraine’s wartime defense sector: rapidly developing indigenous capabilities to fill critical gaps left by limited and/or unreliable foreign supplies. If Fire Point can translate its ambitions into a viable anti-ballistic missile system, Ukraine could gain not only a more sustainable means of defending its skies, but also a potentially attractive export alternative in a global market increasingly hungry for affordable air defense solutions.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Kuwait and Bahrain have condemned an Iranian missile and drone attack, which Tehran says targeted US military facilities in the Gulf. A strike hit Kuwait’s airport, causing at least one death, dozens of injuries and flight suspensions. Tehran says the strikes are retaliation for US attacks on Iran.

France requests UN Security Council meeting over Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, as Iran says talks with US continue.

WASHINGTON — A framework agreement to end the U.S. war with Iran is all but settled, pending sign-off from the presidents of the two warring sides, President Trump said Friday, projecting optimism that a deal could finally be at hand.

Yet doubt cast a shadow over the diplomatic process entering the weekend as Trump faced a politically fraught decision to enter an agreement that would invariably require significant concessions to Tehran.

The negotiations have faced severe headwinds in recent days, with both sides accusing the other of violating a fragile ceasefire that has largely stopped the fighting since April.

On his Truth Social site, Trump said he had summoned his top aides to the White House Situation Room to decide on the deal.

The agreement would see an end to the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports and the removal of Iranian mines from the Strait of Hormuz, an international waterway through which 20% of the world’s energy supply passes each day. The strait, Trump wrote, will reopen with “no tolls” for “unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions.”

And “Iran must agree that they will never have a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb,” Trump wrote, noting that Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for nuclear weapons, “will be unearthed by the United States (which, it is agreed, is the only Country, along with China, with the mechanical capability of doing so!), in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”

“No money will be exchanged, until further notice,” he added.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said the deal would require Iran to disavow the continuation of its domestic nuclear program — a diplomatic feat never before achieved throughout a quarter century of international negotiations over Iran’s nuclear work.

It is unclear whether Tehran would go that far. And Iran’s negotiators expressed defiance on Friday, stating that there was “no trust in guarantees or words” from the American side.

“No step will be taken before the other side acts first,” said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s Parliament. “We do not gain concessions through dialogue, but through missiles.”

It remains unclear when the Trump administration would ease sanctions on Iran, how extensive that relief would be, or what form it would take — questions that fueled Republican criticism of the Obama-era nuclear deal more than a decade ago.

The working diplomatic document would formally extend the existing ceasefire for 60 days, allowing for a more detailed negotiation to take place over Iran’s nuclear program. But the truce as it currently stands is on perilous ground. Iran launched a ballistic missile on Thursday at Kuwait, a close U.S. ally, after American forces took “defensive” actions against Iranian missile launchers and mine laying boats it had launched in the strait.

The war has proven historically unpopular with the American public, and has seen oil prices soar since the U.S. military, in partnership with Israel, launched its first strikes against Iran in February.

Bessent said he is hopeful that oil prices would drop quickly once an agreement is signed. But industry analysts say the effects of the war on the oil market could last for months, if not years, with the stability of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz now in question for commercial shippers.

While oil has dropped to under $100 a barrel, markets appeared skittish on Friday over the prospects for a deal, with mixed messages appearing to emerge out of the region.

It is also unclear whether a U.S. agreement with Iran would in any way bind Israel’s hands in its military operations, either in Iran or in Lebanon, where an Iranian proxy militia, Hezbollah, has vowed to keep up the fight.

Israel has ramped up strikes against Hezbollah targets in recent days, jeopardizing a delicate ceasefire negotiated with the Lebanese government, a deal encouraged by the Trump administration in order to grease the wheels for its talks with Tehran.

Trump has been uncharacteristically silent on the prospects of an agreement in recent days, expressing cautious optimism in limited exchanges with reporters.

“It’s hard to say exactly when or if the president’s going to sign,” Vice President JD Vance, who has led the U.S. diplomatic team, told reporters, noting that “the nuclear stuff” is still subject to negotiation. “We’re going back and forth on a couple of language points.”

“I do think that we’ve made a lot of progress here,” Vance added. “Hopefully we’ll continue to make progress, and the president will be in a position where he can endorse the agreement. But obviously, that’s still TBD.”

Russia pounded Ukraine’s capital overnight on Saturday with drones and ballistic missiles, including a powerful hypersonic Oreshnik missile, killing at least four people and damaging residential buildings. Footage shows people sheltering underground, while firefighters work above.

May 22 (Asia Today) — Concerns are growing over possible security gaps in East Asia after the United States used large numbers of advanced interceptor missiles while defending Israel during the Iran conflict, according to a report published Wednesday.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday, citing recent Pentagon assessments, that the United States fired more than 200 THAAD interceptors during Operation Epic Fury to block Iranian ballistic missile attacks.

The figure reportedly amounts to about half of the Pentagon’s total THAAD interceptor inventory.

The United States also used more than 100 Standard Missile-3 and Standard Missile-6 interceptors launched from Navy warships, the report said.

By contrast, Israel reportedly used fewer than 100 interceptors each from its Arrow and David’s Sling missile defense systems, preserving more of its own stockpile and raising questions about uneven resource consumption between the allies.

Military experts told the newspaper the imbalance stemmed from a prearranged ballistic missile defense structure under which the United States assumed responsibility for the most advanced interception missions.

Israel has increasingly relied on the United States for ballistic missile defense while fighting simultaneous conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen, stretching its military capabilities.

The report said growing U.S. missile consumption, combined with limited production capacity, is heightening anxiety in East Asia, where countries such as South Korea and Japan depend heavily on U.S. deterrence against threats from North Korea and China.

Kelly Grieco of the Stimson Center warned that “the bill could come due in a theater completely unrelated to Iran,” referring to East Asia.

The concerns follow earlier reports that U.S. Patriot missile stockpiles had fallen to about 25% of required levels, fueling fears of weakening missile deterrence across the region.

Analysts said any renewed hostilities involving Iran could deepen global security vulnerabilities further.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260522010006688

South Korea on Friday finalized a plan to acquire U.S. Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) shipborne missile interceptors and field them by 2034, in a bid to boost its missile defense capabilities, the state arms procurement agency said.

The Defense Project Promotion Committee, a decision-making body for arms procurement under the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), approved the 530 billion-won (US$351.5 million) project to acquire the SM-6 long-range ship-to-air missile interceptors and related equipment, the agency said.

An SM-6 interceptor is an advanced defense missile interceptor for warships that can track and destroy a wide range of incoming threats.

It has a maximum range of 460 kilometers, with an altitude of up to 36 km, and is built to directly track targets with its own radar, allowing ships to deal with multiple threats at the same time.

The military plans to equip the 8,200-ton Aegis destroyer ROKS Dasan Jeong Yakyong, which is scheduled to enter service later this year, as well as the ROKS Daeho Kim Jong Seo, another vessel of the same class, with the SM-6 interceptors.

The SM-6 interceptors will also be installed on the already-deployed ROKS Jeongjo the Great through future capability upgrades.

“The project is expected to enhance ship-to-air defense capabilities of Aegis destroyers against enemy anti-ship ballistic missiles, aircraft and cruise missiles, as well as improve their anti-ballistic missile defense,” the DAPA said.

In November 2023, the United States approved a $650 million sale of up to 38 SM-6 missiles and related equipment to South Korea through the government-to-government Foreign Military Sales program.

Friday’s announcement by DAPA suggests that the acquisition may have been scaled back from the earlier plan. The timeline for the acquisition has also been revised to 2023-34, from the original 2023-31 schedule.

“The negotiation process took time even though we have been pushing ahead with the project since 2023,” a DAPA official said. “The system will be rolled out in stages in accordance with the schedule agreed upon with the U.S. side.”

The committee also approved a research and development (R&D) plan for a new military communications satellite system to replace older satellite and ground equipment.

The plan calls for developing and acquiring a dedicated geostationary military communications satellite and related ground infrastructure through an R&D program led by the Agency for Defense Development.

The project will run from this year through 2032, with an estimated cost of about 1.27 trillion won. DAPA plans to sign a contract agreement with a prototype developer by March next year.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Just over three years ago, the U.S. Air Force moved to cancel the AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) hypersonic missile. ARRW had been in line to be the U.S. military’s first operational hypersonic weapon. Now, the program has not only reemerged from purgatory, with missiles being ordered for operational use, but a new variant is on the horizon. The “Increment 2” ARRW is set to feature an all-new seeker, which would give it a moving target engagement capability. A version of the AGM-183 able to strike enemy ships at sea could be especially relevant in a future high-end fight against China in the Pacific.

The U.S. Air Force is asking for just over $296 million to support work on the new ARRW variant in its 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. This money would fund “the design, test, and evaluation of Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) Increment 2 with terminal seeker and data link capability and other cost reduction production initiatives into ARRW,” according to official budget documents.

The Air Force’s budget documents also indicate that prior work has already been done that “integrated Air Force and DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] enabled system technologies into a prototype that demonstrated the viability of this concept to be fielded as a long range prompt strike capability.”

Furthermore, the “ARRW [program] designed, developed, manufactured, and tested, [sic] a number of prototype vehicles to inform decisions concerning ARRW acquisition, production, and leave behind capability,” the budget documents add. “ARRW Inc.2 adds enhanced capability.”

“FY27 [Fiscal Year 2027] plans to begin [ARRW] INC 2 technology efforts such as but not limited to integrating pre-planned product improvements, design, trade studies, hardware upgrades, facilitization, affordability initiatives, and testing,” the documents also note.

To take a step back quickly, ARRW is known as a boost-glide vehicle-type hypersonic weapon. Designs of this type use a rocket booster to get an unpowered glide vehicle to an optimal speed and altitude. The glide vehicle then detaches from the rest of the weapon and proceeds to its target along a relatively shallow flight path within the Earth’s atmosphere. The vehicle is also designed to maneuver along the way, sometimes erratically. The combination of speed, flight trajectory, and maneuverability creates particular challenges for opponents when it comes to spotting and tracking incoming glide-vehicles, let alone attempting to intercept them or otherwise reacting to the threat. It is this ability to pierce enemy air defenses and very rapidly strike very high-value targets that makes hypersonic weapons so attractive.

“The Air Force will employ units equipped with ARRW to provide an offensive, high-speed strike capability to destroy high-value, time-sensitive, land-based targets in anti-access/area-denial environments,” according to a report from the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation that was released in March. “Launched from bomber aircraft, ARRW provides standoff capability to prosecute targets in a timely fashion.”

To date, the Air Force has disclosed plans to integrate ARRW onto its B-52 and B-1 bombers, but other aircraft could potentially carry these weapons, or variants thereof, in the future.

ARRW, in its current guise, is also understood to only be capable of engaging static targets. Adding a terminal seeker would open up the ability to hit targets on the move, including ones at sea. The budget documents do not provide any further details about what kind of seeker the Air Force is looking to add to the Increment 2 variant. Imaging infrared sensors, radars, or passive signal homing seekers – or some combination thereof – could be potential operations.

The extreme heat and physical stress that hypersonic weapons experience in flight, as well as the shape of the glide vehicle, would make integration of any seeker system of these more complex. It is worth noting that ARRW’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, is already developing an anti-ship-optimized version of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) short-range ballistic missile for the U.S. Army. A key element of the new PrSM variant is the addition of a multi-mode seeker system to enable engagement of moving targets. It is possible that some of that technology could be applicable now to work on the new iteration of the AGM-183.

A data link would also allow targeting updates to be sent to Increment 2 ARRWs in flight, helping to get it first to a general area where the enemy is, or at least believed to be, before its seeker takes over. That system would also need to be able to communicate under hypersonic flight conditions. Given the AGM-183A’s range, off-board platforms would be required for initial target detection and tracking. The weapon’s ability to close that distance very quickly does limit the time available for the target to try to leave the area.

The Air Force did demonstrate exactly the kinds of networks that would be required to close this extremely long-range kill chain in a simulated ARRW strike during Exercise Northern Edge 2021. The designated target was 600 nautical miles from the launch platform, a B-52 bomber. In that instance, no weapon was actually released.

Multiple ARRW flight tests have been conducted since then, including the launch of an AGM-183A with a live warhead from a B-52 flying from Andersen Air Force Base on Guam in 2024. As TWZ noted at the time, the Guam test sent clear signals to China. The Air Force has made no secret of how important it views the development and fielding of hypersonic weapons as part of larger preparations for a potential future high-end fight against the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the Pacific. This is further underscored by the fact that the mention of the “terminal seeker and data link capability” for Increment 2 of ARRW is actually contained in the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI) section of the Pentagon’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request.

In the context of a major conflict in the Pacific, there would also be a very high demand for prompt, long-range anti-ship capability. The ability to conduct those strikes even in the face of dense anti-air defenses would be even more attractive for engaging very high-value vessels, such as China’s growing fleets of aircraft carriers or big deck amphibious assault ships. The PLA Navy’s (PLAN) combat fleets, overall, continue to grow in scale and scope at a prodigious rate, as well. This, in turn, has put additional emphasis on the development and fielding of new and improved anti-ship capabilities that can be air-launched, as well as employed from the maritime and ground domains, across the U.S. military in recent years. Increment 2 ARRWs could also offer another means to strike mobile, high-value targets on land, such as ballistic missile transporter-erector-launchers.

For its part, the PLA has been actively developing and fielding various types of hypersonic weapons, including boost-glide vehicle designs. Its ever-growing arsenal of traditional ballistic missiles now includes several air-launched types, including ones with nuclear and conventional warheads. The latter are widely believed to be capable of being employed against enemy ships, as well as targets on land.

To reiterate, a plan now to develop an Increment 2 version of ARRW is also just an important step forward for the program as a whole. As mentioned, the Air Force had previously moved to cancel work on the AGM-183 in 2023. The announcement followed a number of failed flight tests of what had been expected to be the first operational hypersonic weapon anywhere within the U.S. military. The explicit intent at the time was to shift resources to the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) effort. HACM is an air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile that functions in a completely different way from ARRW.

In the years that followed, there were steady signs that the Air Force’s position on ARRW was changing and that it had not actually been axed in the end. Last year, it became clear that the service had rebooted the program when it requested funds to purchase missiles for operational use in its Fiscal Year 2026 proposed budget. The Air Force ultimately received $362.15 million for the procurement of ARRWs in the current fiscal year, and is now seeking a little over $452 million to continue doing so in Fiscal Year 2027. How many of the weapons the Air Force has ordered to date, and how many more it plans to buy in the coming years, is currently deemed to be Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) that is not releasable to the general public.

Depending on how ARRW and HACM programs progress, the former could still be the first hypersonic weapon to enter operational U.S. Air Force service, with an Increment 2 version able to hit targets on the move following close behind.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The first picture of the U.S. military’s new AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM) has emerged. Flight testing of the JATM is known to have started years ago, but it has never been seen publicly before now. The missile is expected to augment and ultimately replace the venerable AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) in U.S. service.

Photographer Jonathan Tweedy took pictures of several U.S. Navy test jets departing Eglin Air Force Base in Florida on May 13. This included an F/A-18F Super Hornet from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 31 (VX-31) carrying the AIM-260 on the fuselage station outboard of its right engine intake. The jet also has a modified FPU-13/A drop tank with an infrared search and track (ISRT) sensor on its centerline station, as well as flight data pods on its wingtips. The Aviationist was the first to publish Tweedy’s pictures of the VX-31 jet with the JATM.

Eglin is routinely used as a staging point for U.S. military aerial weapons testing, as well as other aviation research and development and test and evaluation work. The base is situated right next to extensive over-water ranges over the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of the Florida panhandle.

When it comes to the AIM-260, Tweedy’s picture confirms the design is very minimalist, at least externally, with only four fins at the tail. Unlike the AIM-120, it has no mid-body control surfaces, or even strakes running along the sides. The JATM’s overall configuration reflects optimization for maximum speed and range.

The JATM in this case looks to have a live high-explosive warhead, as indicated by a yellow band at the front end of the body. There are also two black bands toward the rear, which could point to the location of the missile’s rocket motor.

The nose cone has a distinct light gray color compared to the rest of the predominantly white body. There are square markings at various points at the rear of the body, which are often seen on aerial munitions and aircraft during testing to help with visual tracking, as well.

Overall, the AIM-260 seen in Tweedy’s pictures looks entirely in line with what had previously been depicted in official renderings of the JATM, both in terms of its design and markings.

The Navy is developing the AIM-260 in cooperation with the Air Force. In the past, officials have explicitly cited the growing reach of Chinese air-to-air missiles, and the PL-15 in particular, as key drivers behind the JATM program. China continues to develop and field more capable air-to-air missiles, as you can learn more about this past TWZ feature. A boost in maximum range is therefore known to be a central requirement for the AIM-260, which is reportedly designed to hit targets out to at least 120 miles, if not further.

Another known requirement for the AIM-260 is to have a form factor that is roughly the same as the AIM-120, making it easier to integrate on existing aircraft. Details about the JATM otherwise remain limited. As TWZ has previously written:

“An advanced rocket motor with highly loaded propellant has long been seen as a likely route to give the AIM-260A significantly greater range, as well as speed, over the AIM-120 without making the new missile larger. A core known requirement for the JATM is that it has to have the same general form factor as the AMRAAM, in large part to ensure that it can fit inside the internal bays on stealth fighters like the F-22 and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In addition to crewed aircraft, AIM-260As are expected to arm future stealthy drones like the ones under development under the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program.”

…

“The AIM-260A’s rocket motor is also likely to be a dual-pulse design that retains energy across the flight envelope to further extend range and help dramatically with endgame maneuverability. Thrust vectoring capability would also be a requisite to give the missile sufficient agility in the absence of additional control surfaces.”

…

“An active electronically scanned array radar (AESA) seeker is likely. Multi-mode seeker capability, potentially with imaging infrared and passive radiofrequency (RF) guidance capabilities, could be extremely valuable in the face of an ever-expanding countermeasure ecosystem, although we have no idea if this is a feature now or not. It’s also possible it could be introduced in later variants. Advanced networking capabilities would be a key feature, allowing the missile to get additional targeting information from an array of third party sources. This is especially imported for engaging targets beyond the reach of the launch platform’s own sensors and it can allow the aircraft firing the missile, especially a stealthy one, to avoid having to switch on its radar and increase its vulnerability to detection as a result. Multiple networked JATMs might even be able to prosecute engagements cooperatively.”

Overall, the JATM program, which traces back to at least 2019, remains largely classified. As noted, flight testing of AIM-260 has been underway for some time and has already included multiple live-fire shots. There has also been movement in recent years to get the missile into production and fielded operationally.

Navy Super Hornets, along with U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors, are expected to be the first types to fly operationally armed with AIM-260s. The missiles will surely be integrated onto a host of other aircraft, including the Air Force’s future F-47 and whatever design the Navy might choose to become its sixth-generation F/A-XX fighter.

What the projected timeline might be for the AIM-260 entering operational service now is unclear. When the program first emerged publicly in 2019, the goal was for the missiles to be fielded in 2022. There were reports late last year that JATM had suffered a new three-month delay due to funding issues, based on a fact sheet distributed by some members of the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services. However, the committee subsequently said that the information was incorrect.

As an aside, the Navy announced back in 2024 that it had begun limited fielding of another, different very-long-range air-to-air missile, the AIM-174B, which is derived from the surface-launched Standard Missile-6. The AIM-260 is expected to be complementary to the AIM-174B, as you can read more about here and check out our video below.

How The Navy’s New Very Long-Range AIM-174 Will Pierce China’s Anti-Access Bubble

The first public sighting of an AIM-260 this week certainly points to new progress toward finally fielding this new air-to-air missile.

Special thanks again to Jonathan Tweedy for sharing the pictures of the AIM-260 on the VX-31 Super Hornet with us.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy strongly condemned Russia after a missile strike on a residential apartment building in Kyiv killed at least 24 people, including three children.

The attack occurred during one of the heaviest aerial bombardments on the Ukrainian capital this year and further intensified international concern over the continuing war between Russia and Ukraine. Rescue operations continued for more than a full day before emergency workers completed searches through the destroyed structure in Kyiv’s Darnytskyi district.

The strike formed part of a broader wave of Russian drone and missile attacks across Ukraine that officials say targeted multiple regions over consecutive days.

Zelenskiy Visits the Site of the Attack

Zelenskiy visited the destroyed apartment building on Friday, laying red roses at the site and meeting rescue workers who had spent more than twenty eight hours searching for survivors beneath the rubble.

In remarks shared through social media, the Ukrainian president praised emergency responders for their continuous efforts and accused Russia of deliberately destroying civilian lives.

According to Zelenskiy, the missile strike effectively destroyed an entire section of the residential building. Ukrainian officials stated that initial analysis suggested the attack involved a recently manufactured Russian Kh 101 cruise missile.

The Ukrainian leader once again appealed to international allies for stronger air defence support and increased pressure on Moscow.

Heavy Civilian Casualties

Kyiv authorities declared Friday a day of mourning in memory of the victims. Flags across the capital were lowered to half mast, and public entertainment events were cancelled or postponed.

The Interior Ministry reported that rescue teams removed approximately 3,000 cubic meters of rubble during the operation. Hundreds of emergency personnel participated in the search efforts.

Officials confirmed that 24 bodies were recovered from the site, while approximately 30 people were rescued alive. Nearly 50 individuals were injured, and hundreds required psychological support following the attack.

The deaths of children among the victims further intensified public grief and anger across Ukraine.

Russia Intensifies Air Campaign

Ukrainian authorities stated that Russia launched more than 1,500 drones along with dozens of missiles during attacks carried out over two consecutive days this week.

The strikes extended beyond Kyiv and affected western regions of Ukraine located far from active frontline combat zones. Officials reported that six people were killed during attacks in western Ukraine on Wednesday.

The scale of the aerial assault highlights Russia’s continuing ability to conduct large coordinated attacks despite prolonged international sanctions and battlefield losses.

Moscow did not immediately comment specifically on the apartment building strike. Russia consistently denies deliberately targeting civilians, although residential buildings, hospitals, schools, and energy infrastructure have repeatedly been damaged throughout the conflict.

Ukraine Also Conducts Cross Border Attacks

The conflict has increasingly involved reciprocal long range attacks by both sides.

Russian regional officials stated that Ukrainian drone strikes killed four people, including a child, in the Russian city of Ryazan. Authorities reported damage to apartment buildings and an industrial facility during the incident.

Ukraine has expanded drone operations against targets inside Russia over the course of the war, aiming to disrupt military infrastructure, industrial production, and logistical operations linked to Moscow’s military campaign.

These developments reflect the increasingly transnational nature of the conflict, with civilian populations on both sides facing growing security risks.

The Continuing Humanitarian Crisis

The attack on Kyiv underscores the severe humanitarian consequences of the war, which began with Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced since the start of the conflict, while repeated strikes on civilian infrastructure have damaged homes, hospitals, schools, transportation systems, and energy networks across the country.

International organizations and human rights groups have repeatedly raised concerns about civilian casualties and the destruction of non military targets during the war.

At the same time, the prolonged conflict has placed enormous economic and psychological pressure on Ukrainian society as cities continue to face the threat of missile and drone attacks.

Analysis

The deadly strike on Kyiv demonstrates how the war between Russia and Ukraine continues to evolve into a prolonged campaign involving large scale aerial warfare and attacks far beyond frontline battle zones.

For Ukraine, the attack reinforces the urgent need for stronger air defence systems capable of intercepting missiles and drones before they reach urban areas. Zelenskiy’s renewed appeals to allies reflect growing concerns that Ukraine’s defensive capabilities remain under intense strain as Russia increases the scale and frequency of aerial assaults.

For Russia, sustained missile and drone attacks appear aimed at weakening Ukrainian morale, exhausting defence systems, and increasing pressure on the government through continued civilian disruption.

However, such attacks also carry significant international consequences. Civilian casualties, especially involving children and residential buildings, strengthen global criticism of Moscow and may encourage additional military and financial support for Ukraine from Western allies.

The conflict additionally illustrates the changing character of modern warfare, where advanced missiles, drones, and long range strikes allow both sides to target infrastructure and urban centers far from traditional battlefields.

Despite ongoing diplomatic discussions in various international forums, there remains little indication of a near term political settlement. Instead, the war increasingly appears locked in a prolonged phase of escalation, attrition, and humanitarian suffering.

The strike on Kyiv therefore stands not only as a tragic individual event but also as a broader symbol of the continuing devastation caused by one of the most consequential conflicts in modern Europe.

With information from Reuters.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, the admiral in charge of U.S. military operations in the Middle East pushed back against claims that Iran still possesses a large number of missiles and launchers. He spoke as the White House said U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping discussed the ongoing Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz and hours after Iran seized another ship. 

Iran can “no longer threaten regional partners, or the United States, in ways that they were able to do before, across every domain,” the commander of U.S. Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, explained.

On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that the “Trump administration’s public portrayal of a shattered Iranian military is sharply at odds with what U.S. intelligence agencies are telling policymakers behind closed doors.”

The newspaper cited “classified assessments from early this month that show Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers and underground facilities.”

“Most alarming to some senior officials is evidence that Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites it maintains along the Strait of Hormuz, which could threaten American warships and oil tankers transiting the narrow waterway,” the Times added. “Iran still fields about 70 percent of its mobile launchers across the country and has retained roughly 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile, according to the assessments. That stockpile encompasses both ballistic missiles, which can target other nations in the region, and a smaller supply of cruise missiles, which can be used against shorter-range targets on land or at sea.”

The Washington Post offered a similar assessment last week.

WaPo last week: “Iran retains about 75 percent of its prewar inventories of mobile launchers and about 70 percent of its prewar stockpiles of missiles” https://t.co/FpAhZQKPlG

— John Hudson (@John_Hudson) May 12, 2026

Cooper took issue with those figures when asked about them.

“I think it’s appropriate in this forum not to discuss specific intelligence assessments,” he responded. “What I would say, from my perspective, is the numbers that I’ve seen in open source are not accurate. I think what also is not taken into consideration, it’s more than just the numbers. It’s the command and control that’s been shattered. It’s a significant degradation and capability, and it’s the lack of any ability to then produce any missiles…on the back end.”

Cooper was further pressed on Iran’s ability to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz because it still has missiles and fast boats and other assets.

“In each of those cases, their capabilities have been significantly degraded,” the admiral posited. “If I just use my own professional experience and 100 transits through the Strait of Hormuz, you would typically see 20 to 40 fast boats, and lately we’ve seen two or three. So the degradation means it’s been significant, but some residual capability does exist with respect to the threat that remains.”

CENTCOM forces recently sank about a half-dozen Iranian fast boats threatening ships in the Strait.

.@CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper: “[Iran’s] capability has been significantly degraded. If I just use my own professional experience, in 100 transits through the Strait of Hormuz, you would typically see 20-40 fast-boats; lately, we’ve seen two or three.” @centcomcdr pic.twitter.com/8pWaMFpKQ9

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 14, 2026

Though Cooper downplayed Iran’s current capabilities, he said Tehran posed significant new threats with its modern drones.

“The days of $35,000 drones that we saw in the last couple of years, particularly in the fight against the Houthis in Yemen, those days are behind us,” Cooper proffered. “Today we face an increased threat from drones that are highly sophisticated. They’re jet-powered. They have high-end sensors. They have electronic warfare…signals intelligence. So those days of using high value defenses to shoot down cheap targets are behind us.”

“Quite the contrary, what we have been doing lately is using our own low-cost one way attack drones, [to attack] Iran, making them use higher and more expensive weapons. So I can confidently tell you, we have flipped the cost curve in many ways. Always work to be done, but I like where we are in this regard.”

CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper says the U.S. has “flipped the cost curve” in drone warfare against Iran.

“The days of using high-value defenses to shoot down cheap targets are behind us.” pic.twitter.com/7iK4JKpL9N

— Kassy Akiva (@KassyAkiva) May 14, 2026

Cooper didn’t elaborate, but earlier in his testimony, he talked about the Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) kamikaze drones that TWZ has written frequently about. CENTCOM first began using these weapons, reverse-engineered from Iranian Shahed-136 drones, to strike targets in Iran.

The War Zone has advocated for the procurement of this exact class of drone by the American military and today, Cooper once again backed up that assessment.

The LUCAS drones are “an additional capability that we’ve now employed against an adversary very effectively,” Cooper commented. He declined to provide further details. 

“Vis a vis Iran, I think I would just like to keep that in the classified setting,” he noted.

Cooper provided additional statistics about Epic Fury to the committee.

• “We destroyed or buried much of Iran’s ballistic missiles, launcher vehicles, and long-range attack drones with more than 450 strikes on ballistic missile storage and systems and roughly 800 strikes on Iran’s drone-launching units and storage. In the air domain, Iran’s air and air defense forces are functionally and operationally irrelevant.” 

• “Before OEF, the Iranian Air Force flew between 30 and 100 sorties each day. Today that number is zero. We destroyed or rendered non-mission-capable Iran’s fixed-wing airfields, hangars, fuel storage, and munitions stockpiles, and we knocked out 82 percent of its air defense missile systems along with the radar and command architecture that tied them together.”

• “At sea, we destroyed 161 vessels in total across 16 classes of warships, effectively crippling the regime’s ability to operate.”

SASC @CENTCOM Posture Hearing

Admiral Cooper:
“At sea, we destroyed 161 vessels in total across 16 classes of warships, effectively crippling the regime’s ability to operate. We eliminated more than 90 percent of Iran’s once-massive inventory of over 8,000 naval mines, with more… pic.twitter.com/VmBwR8KIlM

— Charlie B (@supbrow) May 14, 2026

• “We eliminated more than 90 percent of Iran’s once-massive inventory of over 8,000 naval mines, with more than 700 airstrikes on Iranian naval mine targets. In sum, Iran’s navy can no longer claim to be a maritime power, and it cannot project into the Gulf of Oman or the Indian Ocean. Iran retains nuisance capability – harassment, low-end drone and rocket attacks, and residual proxy support – but it no longer possesses the means to threaten major regional operations or to deter U.S. freedom of action in the air or maritime domains.”

• “The second-order effects of OEF are significant. More than 2,000 strikes against Iran’s command-and-control structures created leadership vacuums, paralysis, and internal confusion.” 

• “We have seen reporting of desertions, personnel shortages, and signs of regime desperation in their attempts to compel discipline through arrest and execution. Most importantly for the region’s future: Iran will be highly challenged to proliferate advanced weapons to Lebanese Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, or the Iraqi militia groups. The supply chain from Tehran to the proxies has been broken.”

While Iran has clearly been battered by attacks from the U.S. and Israel, recent events show it can still inflict damage on its neighbors and shipping. As we previously reported, Tehran has repeatedly struck the United Arab Emirates (UAE) before and after the April 7 ceasefire. In previous coverage, we have pointed out how Iran has also attacked U.S. warships and commercial vessels they were helping guide through the Strait of Hormuz during the short-lived Project Freedom operation.

Hours before Cooper testified, “the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy seized the Honduras-flagged fishery research vessel Hui Chuan,” a maritime security official told us. “The Company Security Officer (CSO) reported that the vessel was taken by Iranian personnel while at anchor approximately 38nm northeast of Fujairah, UAE, at 05:45 UTC.”

The Hui Chuan was operating as a “floating armory” storing weapons for Chinese security firms who protect ships at sea from attack by pirates, the official told us. The ship is now “bound for Iranian territorial waters,” the UK’s Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) organization said.

The Honduras-flagged fishing research vessel Hui Chuan (IMO: 8316895), anchored off the UAE’s east coast, is believed to have been seized by the IRGC Navy.

The ship is reportedly operated by the Chinese private security company Sinoguards as a floating armory. pic.twitter.com/VlHpmkqFYw

— Egypt’s Intel Observer (@EGYOSINT) May 14, 2026

UPDATE: 8:06 PM EDT –

During an interview with NBC News, Rubio was asked what Trump asked Xi when it comes to Iran.

“He didn’t ask him for anything,” the secretary noted. “We’re not asking for China’s help. We don’t need their help… Our position is very clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

NBC: “What exactly did President Trump ask President Xi for when it comes to Iran?”@SecRubio: “He didn’t ask him for anything. We’re not asking for China’s help. We don’t need their help… Our position is very clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” pic.twitter.com/Hn7f3aqiUp

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 14, 2026

In a post on his social media platform responding to Xi’s remarks that the U.S. is essentially a declining power, Trump responded that the Chinese leader was referring to America under Biden and that things are much better now.

More interesting, however, is a hint Trump dropped about the future with Iran.

Among the accomplishments he claimed on Truth Social was “the military decimation of Iran (to be continued!).” 

The House voted for a third time against acting as a check on President Trump’s military powers in Iran, even as a growing number of Republicans express concern about the prolonged conflict, CBS News reported. 

Thursday’s vote on a Democratic resolution to rein in Trump’s authority was 212-212, falling just short of a majority. Originally introduced on March 4, the measure as written would have directed the president to remove U.S. forces from hostilities within 30 days of the start of the war, which began on Feb. 28.

The U.S. House voted 212-212 on a War Powers Resolution to restrict military action against Iran. The measure failed, needing a majority to pass. pic.twitter.com/NcRDvUIFyA

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) May 14, 2026

UPDATES

In a readout of the meeting in Beijing between Trump and Xi, the White House noted that the topic of the Strait of Hormuz came up in discussions between the two leaders.

“The two sides agreed that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open to support the free flow of energy,” the White House posted on X. “President Xi also made clear China’s opposition to militarization of the Strait and any effort to charge a toll for its use, and he expressed interest in purchasing more American oil to reduce China’s reliance on the Strait in the future.”

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was among those accompanying Trump, highlighted Xi’s opposition to allowing Iran to impose tolls on ships transiting the Strait. 

“President Trump raised the issue of Iran with China and it was important,” said Rubio. “The Chinese side said they are not in favor of militarizing the Strait of Hormuz and are not in favor of a tolling system, and that’s our position.”

SECRETARY RUBIO: President Trump raised the issue of Iran with China and it was important.

The Chinese side said they are not in favor of militarizing the Strait of Hormuz and are not in favor of a tolling system, and that’s our position. pic.twitter.com/9JYpbvztd8

— Department of State (@StateDept) May 14, 2026

The much-longer Chinese readout of the meeting mentioned improving trade and a warning that the U.S. “must exercise the utmost prudence in handling the Taiwan question.”

However, there was no mention of Iran or the Strait of Hormuz.

While that doesn’t mean these issues weren’t discussed, readouts are messaging and this reflected the emphasis Beijing places on the paused war and its aftermath.

“The two heads of state exchanged views on major international and regional issues, including the situation in the Middle East, the Ukraine crisis, and the Korean Peninsula,” was about as close as the statement from the Chinese Foreign Ministry came to addressing Iran.

Despite the Trump administration’s stance that China opposes allowing Iran to impose tolls on shipping, Beijing is paying for transits, the Guardian claims.

Tehran “says it has reached a deal with China that has already allowed a large number of oil tankers bound for China to go through the strait of Hormuz since Wednesday night, and this has been made possible by China agreeing to limited charging, undercutting US opposition to such moves,” the outlet reported. “The development suggests China has accepted Iran’s assertion that the shipping rules in the strait have changed, with reports suggesting the cost will be in the region of $1 per barrel.”

We cannot independently verify that and have reached out to the White House for details.

🇮🇷 🇨🇳 Iranian media reported on Thursday that naval forces had allowed a group of Chinese ships to pass through the strategic Strait of Hormuz since the night before. Iran has largely blocked shipping through the strait since the outbreak of war with the US and Israel ➡️… pic.twitter.com/PVjGJ0TY7t

— AFP News Agency (@AFP) May 14, 2026

Trump pushed back on claims that China is working to arm Iran.

“We discussed it,” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “I mean, when you say ‘support,’ they’re not fighting a war with us or anything. He said he’s not gonna give military equipment. That’s a big statement. He said that strongly. But at the same time he said they buy a lot of their oil there, and they’d like to keep doing that.”

HANNITY: Did you discuss China’s support for Iran with Xi?

TRUMP: We discussed it. Uhhhh. I mean, when you say ‘support,’ they’re not fighting a war with us or anything. He said he’s not gonna give military equipment. That’s a big statement. But at the same time he said they buy… pic.twitter.com/Lq677uoCfG

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 14, 2026

Trump’s claim that China told him it won’t give weapons to Iran followed The New York Times report that Beijing was working to ship arms to Tehran.

“Chinese companies have been discussing arms sales with Iran, plotting to send the weapons through other countries to mask the origins of the military aid,” the publication stated, citing U.S. officials.

The United States “has gathered intelligence that Chinese companies and Iranian officials have discussed the arms transfers,” the newspaper added. “It is not clear how many, if any, arms have been shipped or to what degree Chinese officials have approved the sales.”

Officials briefed on the intelligence “have reached different conclusions on whether the arms have already been sent to the third countries,” according to the Times. “But no Chinese weapons appear to have been used on the battlefield against U.S. or Israeli forces since they began their war against Iran in late February.”

The newspaper reported last month that U.S. intelligence agencies had obtained information showing that China may have transferred shoulder-fired man portable air defense systems (MANPADS) to Iran. Intelligence also showed that China was considering other shipments of the weaponry.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Wednesday pushed back on claims that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the heads of Mossad and Shin Bet visited the country during the now-paused war with Iran. The denial is a strong public rebuke amid a growing relationship between the two nations that has seen Israel supply the UAE with Iron Dome air defense batteries to protect against Iranian attacks.

“The United Arab Emirates denies reports circulating regarding an alleged visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the UAE or receiving any Israeli military delegations in the country,” the UAE Foreign Affairs Ministry posted on X Wednesday afternoon EDT. “The UAE reaffirms that its relations with Israel are public and conducted within the framework of the well-known and officially declared Abraham Accords, and are not based on non-transparent or unofficial arrangements. Accordingly, any claims regarding unannounced visits or undisclosed arrangements are entirely unfounded unless officially announced by the relevant authorities in the UAE.”

The ministry added that the “UAE calls on media outlets to exercise accuracy and professionalism, and to refrain from circulating unverified information or promoting misleading political narratives.”

UAE Denies Reports Regarding Visit by Israeli Prime Minister or Receiving Any Israeli Military Delegation pic.twitter.com/TRX9y5ZoVN

— MoFA وزارة الخارجية (@mofauae) May 13, 2026

Hours before the UAE announcement, Netanyahu’s office claimed the Israeli leader did travel to the Gulf Arab nation, confirming a CBS News report about the visit.

“In the midst of Operation ‘Roar of the Lion,’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a secret visit to the United Arab Emirates and met with the President of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed,” the office posted on X. “This visit led to a historic breakthrough in relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.”

לשכת ראש הממשלה מאשרת כעת:

בעיצומו של מבצע ״שאגת הארי״, ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו ביקר בחשאי באיחוד האמירויות ונפגש עם נשיא איחוד האמירויות, השייח׳ מוחמד בן זאיד.

ביקור זה הביא לפריצת דרך היסטורית ביחסים בין ישראל לאיחוד האמירויות.

— ראש ממשלת ישראל (@IsraeliPM_heb) May 13, 2026

Israel’s N12 News chief political correspondent Amit Segal noted a “few striking details regarding the news of Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE.”

“A covert flight reportedly took place while Israeli airspace was fully shut—without leaks or detection,” he noted on X. “Sources suggest a deal was reached on an Iron Dome shipment” and “UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan has publicly hosted Israeli leaders like Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid—but not Benjamin Netanyahu. Until now, their contacts stayed behind closed doors.”

Bennet and Lapid visited the UAE in 2021, as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister respectively.

A few striking details regarding the new of Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE:

1. A covert flight reportedly took place while Israeli airspace was fully shut—without leaks or detection.

2. Sources suggest a deal was reached on an Iron Dome shipment.

3. UAE President Mohammed bin… https://t.co/An2kbqJrNC

— Amit Segal (@AmitSegal) May 13, 2026

The announcement from Netanyahu’s office followed media reports on Tuesday about the visit to the UAE of two other high-level Israeli officials.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Mossad chief David Barnea visited the UAE at least twice during Operation Roaring Lion to coordinate war efforts. Barnea reportedly flew to the UAE in March and April. In addition, Israeli media reported that Shin Bet chief David Zini also visited the UAE to coordinate security efforts.

Certainly not surprising given the Abraham Accords and the more recent Iron Dome battery and miltary deployment to UAE by Israel. But 2 back to back visits by a Mossad chief amid a war speaks volumes. Important read by @AnatPeled1 & @summer_said in @WSJ.https://t.co/i9BmyHNZ3p

— Behnam Ben Taleblu بهنام بن طالب لو (@therealBehnamBT) May 13, 2026

The back and forth over the potentially unprecedented wartime visit by three top Israeli officials to the UAE comes a day after U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee publicly confirmed that Israel sent the UAE an unspecified number of Iron Dome air defense batteries and troops to operate them. News of the deployment was first reported by Axios last month. Such an acknowledgement of direct Israeli military aid to an Arab nation is unusual in its own right.

🚨 WATCH: US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee officially confirms: Israel sent the United Arab Emirates an Iron Dome system and a team to operate it. This happened because there are exceptional relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, based on the Abraham Accords. pic.twitter.com/BgCkESt4Yl

— Raylan Givens (@JewishWarrior13) May 12, 2026

TWZ cannot independently verify any of the travel claims. However, Israel has historically been viewed as an enemy by the Arab world and direct cooperation in the form of a visit by its head of state could be considered controversial to say the least. At the same time, things have changed dramatically in the region over the last decade or so, with Arab countries warming to relations with Israel. This has been spurred by the major economic development the region has seen as well as, at least to a degree, a common foe — Iran.

Perhaps the UAE is trying to appeal to a domestic audience or, as Israel’s I24 News senior Middle East correspondent Ariel Oseran suggested on X, UAE is trying to distance itself from Netanyahu and his coalition, not Israel writ large. Maybe Netanyahu, for his own reasons, is trying to claim a level of relationship that doesn’t exist, however that seems unlikely.

We may never find out for sure.

It is highly unlikely that Israel’s PMO would issue a fake statement regarding Netanyahu visiting the UAE at such a sensitive time.

What is more likely is that Abu Dhabi is trying to publicly distance itself from Netanyahu on a personal level, a sentiment that I have personally… https://t.co/8laUSjOAc7

— Ariel Oseran أريئل أوسيران (@ariel_oseran) May 13, 2026

The Senate on Wednesday blocked the seventh Democratic attempt to prevent Trump from waging war on Iran. However, it was by the slimmest margin yet, indicating a growing unease in the legislature about the now-paused conflict.

The vote failed by a 49-50 margin, with all Democrats but John Fetterman of Pennsylvania supporting the measure. For the first time, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined fellow Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky in breaking with Trump and voting with Democrats. 

This was the first vote on the War Powers Resolution since Trump bypassed the 60-day deadline to seek congressional authorization for Operation Epic Fury last month. You can read more about that effort in our story about it here.

Meanwhile, as we noted yesterday, NBC News reported that the administration is considering changing the name of the operation to Sledgehammer should hostilities resume.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com