Missile

For the first time, the U.S. Air Force has publicly released imagery showing a B-1B Lancer bomber carrying an AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon hypersonic missile, or ARRW. The development comes with the B-1B now officially slated to serve for another decade, while it has been earmarked as a hypersonic weapons test platform. For its part, the ARRW, at one point expected to be the U.S. military’s first operational hypersonic weapon, is also back from purgatory, after continued questions about its future. The Air Force now wants to develop an improved version, as well as a separate air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM).

A brief clip showing a B-1B flying with an ARRW carried on an external hardpoint was released on Edwards Air Force Base’s Instagram page recently. The emergence of the video was first brought to our attention by The Aviationist.

It is unclear when the test-flight footage was taken, and it is not directly referenced in the video, which is otherwise dedicated to the work of maintainers on different aircraft platforms at Edwards.

The B-1B was originally designed to carry external stores on up to eight external hardpoints. The Air Force had also developed special pylons that would have allowed the bombers to carry two nuclear-tipped AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCM) on each one. Following the end of the Cold War, the B-1Bs lost their nuclear mission and, as a result, the external pylons fell into disuse, at least as far as weapons are concerned.

However, as long ago as 2020, the Air Force detailed plans to add the ARRW to the B-1B, after the service highlighted work to expand the bomber’s ability to carry hypersonic weapons and other new stores, both internally and externally.

“My goal would be to bring on at least a squadron’s worth of airplanes modified with external pylons on the B-1, to carry the ARRW [Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon],” Gen. Timothy Ray, then head of Air Force Global Strike Command, told Air Force Magazine. He added that the service had contemplated several options for integrating the missile onto the bombers, “but we believe the easiest, fastest, and probably most effective in the short term will be to go with the external pylons.”

In the meantime, we have seen examples of the ARRW carried under the wing of the B-52H bomber during multiple test sorties, and a live version also notably appeared on a Stratofortress during a training event at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam.

The Fiscal Year 2026 budget request confirmed that the Air Force plans to use the B-1B as a testbed for the Load Adaptable Modular (LAM) pylon, intended for hypersonic weapons and other outsize loads. The B-1B can accommodate six of these pylons, each capable of carrying two 2,000-pound-class weapons or a single 5,000-pound-plus-class weapon. The ARRW would fall into the latter category.

The budget documents noted: “The Hypersonic Integration Program successfully demonstrated the B-1’s ability to execute a captive carry of a 5,000-pound-class store and the release of a proven weapon shape from a Load Adaptable Modular (LAM) pylon.” This suggests that the video we are now seeing could have been taken during this demonstration, but it might also refer to external load tests involving the Air Force’s new bunker-buster bomb, the 5,000-pound class GBU-72/B.

In the same position as seen in the ARRW video, the LAM has also been used for external carriage tests of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). More routinely, this same position mounts an external pylon that accommodates a Sniper targeting pod. The same location has previously been used in external carriage tests of the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) cruise missile, too.

As for ARRW, it carries an unpowered hypersonic boost-glide vehicle as its warhead. A rocket booster accelerates and lifts the vehicle to the required speed and altitude, after which it separates and glides through the atmosphere on a relatively shallow path toward its target. The weapon’s high speed and unpredictable flight path make it difficult for opponents to intercept and engage it, and give very little response time.

B52 ARRW Hypersonic evaluation test at Edwards Air Force Base 12 JUN 2019

The Air Force’s plans to move ahead with purchases of ARRWs notably re-emerged in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal. The service had moved to cancel the AGM-183A in 2023, and refocus resources on the development of the air-breathing Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM), but there were steady signs afterward that there was still life left in the ARRW program.

Meanwhile, in its Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, the Air Force seeks funds for the development of what it calls ARRW Increment 2, as well as to kick-start a new air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) program. The service wants almost $350 million to fund these two efforts. ARRW Increment 2 involves adding undisclosed enhanced capabilities onto the baseline weapon, while the ALBM effort would seek to field a new air-launched, long-range strike capability to complement the ARRW and HACM.

The US Air Force plans to kick off Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) Increment 2 development and stand up a new Air Launched Ballistic Missile (ALBM) program in Fiscal Year 2027. The service has set aside nearly $350 Million combined for these two efforts. ARRW Inc 2… pic.twitter.com/pe0SKPlrDO

— Air-Power | MIL-STD (@AirPowerNEW1) April 27, 2026

In its Fiscal Year 2027 budget documents, the Air Force further notes:

“We are doubling production rates for our two developmental hypersonic weapons, the Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) and the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM), with a planned investment of $1.8 billion across the FYDP to accelerate delivery of these critical strike capabilities into the hands of the warfighter.”

The documents don’t give any details on how many ARRWs they want to order.

Regardless, these developments are especially notable as China continues to push ahead in the development and fielding of these capabilities, and especially ALBMs.

Despite previous plans to retire the B-1B by 2030, the bomber’s ability to carry outsize loads, in particular, has helped ensure that it’s now expected to remain in service until at least 2037.

Fiscal Year 2027 budget documents indicate that the Air Force plans to spend $342 million on modernizing its 44 remaining B-1Bs from 2027 to 2031. “This request provides the necessary funding to modernize the platform, ensuring its lethality and relevance through 2037,” the budget said.

The B-2 stealth bomber will also be modernized, as the Air Force seeks to address growing demand for bomber capacity, pending the arrival of the new B-21. The intensity of recent operations against Iran, combined with day-to-day bomber task force operations around the globe, and the growing specter of a conflict with China, underscores just how important the bomber fleet is to the Pentagon at large.

B-1s first mission to Iran out of RAF Fairford UK

With a capacity to carry more conventional weapons than any other aircraft in the Air Force’s inventory, we will surely see the B-1B carrying additional external weapons and larger numbers of them, as it continues its service career.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

May 1 (Asia Today) — North Korea has transferred missile technology to Iran over more than 40 years, evolving from early Scud missile supplies to capabilities approaching intercontinental ballistic missiles, while also helping build factories, underground facilities and naval systems, according to U.S. experts.

Bruce Bechtol made the assessment at the annual International Council on Korean Studies conference titled “Challenges of the U.S.-South Korea Alliance 2026,” co-hosted in Washington by the Hudson Institute and the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.

Bechtol, co-author of the book Rogue Allies: Iran and North Korea’s Strategic Partnership, said Iran began acquiring Scud missiles in the early 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War. Initially supplied in limited numbers by Libya, Iran later established contact with North Korea and imported roughly 100 Scud missiles, which it used to strike Iraqi cities during what became known as the “War of the Cities.”

He said Iran subsequently ordered an additional 200 to 250 Scud-C missiles and, with North Korean assistance, produced and upgraded them domestically. This led to the development of Iran’s current short-range ballistic missile, the Qiam, which has an estimated range of about 800 kilometers.

Bechtol added that Iran attended North Korea’s Nodong missile test in 1993, along with a Pakistani delegation, and later signed a contract to acquire about 150 Nodong missiles. North Korean engineers helped build production facilities near Isfahan, where Iran manufactured the missiles under the name Shahab-3.

He said North Korean specialists further modified these systems, leading to the development of the Emad missile, with a range of about 1,750 kilometers, and the Ghadr missile, with a range of about 1,900 kilometers. Both systems have been used repeatedly and are capable of reaching targets across Israel.

Bechtol also said North Korea sold 19 Musudan missiles – based on the Soviet-era submarine-launched ballistic missile R-27 – to Iran after obtaining the technology from Russian scientists following the collapse of the Soviet Union. He noted that Iran modified the missile for land-based launch, which introduced structural instability and limited its success rate to about 50%.

Based on the Musudan platform, Iran developed the Khorramshahr missile, which can carry a warhead approximately four times heavier than the original design and has an estimated range of 2,000 kilometers. The Israeli military has estimated its penetration rate at about 8%.

Bechtol cited media reports that North Korea transferred 80-ton-class rocket boosters – equivalent to first-stage propulsion systems for intercontinental ballistic missiles – to Iran even during negotiations over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. He noted that the United States imposed sanctions on both countries in 2016 and 2019 in response.

He said a 2021 report by a United Nations panel of experts also detailed such transfers and assessed that technologies similar to those used in North Korea’s Hwasong-12 and Hwasong-15 missiles had been shared with Iran.

Bechtol further claimed that ballistic missiles fired by Iran toward the U.S.-U.K. base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in March – from a distance of about 4,000 kilometers – were based on North Korean technology.

Beyond missiles, North Korea has supported Iran and its allied groups by providing military hardware and infrastructure. Bechtol said Pyongyang sold 14 Yono-class submarines – the same type used in the 2010 sinking of South Korea’s Cheonan warship – and helped build production facilities for them. North Korea also supplied 46 fast infiltration boats and assisted in constructing related manufacturing sites.

He said North Korean engineers were involved in building underground nuclear-related facilities in Natanz and Isfahan, which he described as difficult to destroy without the use of U.S. B-2 bombers.

Bechtol also pointed to evidence that North Korean weapons were used by Hamas during its October 2023 attack on Israel, including 122 mm rockets, anti-tank weapons, Type 73 machine guns and Type 58 rifles marked in Korean.

Separately, an Israeli research center reported that North Korean arms exporter Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation helped build two tunnels in Lebanon for Hezbollah, measuring about 25 miles (40 kilometers) and 45 miles (72 kilometers), at a cost of about $13 million.

Bechtol said North Korea has also generated significant revenue through military cooperation. Citing research from the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, he estimated that Pyongyang earned about $20 billion over roughly 15 months from transactions with Russia since late 2023 – close to its annual gross domestic product of about $26 billion.

Andrew Scobell said cooperation among China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – sometimes referred to as “CRINK” – is not a formal multilateral alliance but rather a collection of bilateral relationships.

Scobell added that North Korea appears to have exercised restraint in supplying weapons to Iran following U.S. and Israeli strikes earlier this year, citing intelligence assessments reported by international media.

Former U.N. sanctions panel expert William Newcomb said North Korea’s proliferation activities have contributed significantly to instability in the Middle East and called for a comprehensive assessment of their global economic impact, suggesting the cost could exceed $1 trillion.

Scobell also noted that North Korea’s strategic value to Russia could decline significantly if the war in Ukraine ends, indicating that the current level of cooperation is closely tied to ongoing conflict dynamics.

— 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=20260501010000016

The U.S. Marine Corps is exploring the possibility of fielding a theater ballistic missile defense capability. A key driver in this discussion is the U.S. Army’s capacity to provide protection against ballistic threats in future conflicts, or lack thereof, something TWZ has highlighted repeatedly in the past. The latest conflict with Iran has underscored the serious threats that ballistic missiles pose even to high-end integrated air and missile defense networks, which would be magnified further in a fight against a near-peer adversary like China.

“We’re exploring theater ballistic missile defense. So we’re doing some studies, we’re running some simulations, to see if that’s a requirement for the service in the future,” Marine Lt. Col. Robert Barclay said during a panel discussion yesterday at the annual Modern Day Marine exposition, at which TWZ has been in attendance.

Barclay is currently the Marine Air Command and Control Systems (MACCS) Integration Branch Head within the Aviation Combat Element Division of the service’s Combat Development and Integration office. His portfolio includes service-wide air and missile defense requirements.

“We know our old sensor used to be able to do it, but it wasn’t really a requirement,” Barclay added. “What we need to determine is, is [defending against] a theater ballistic [missile] like an SRBM [short-range ballistic missile] or MRBM [medium-range ballistic missile], a requirement for the Marine Corps to do? I would argue that it probably is.”

“At the end of the day, I don’t think the Army’s going to have enough capacity with us where we’re operating to actually adjudicate on that threat,” he continued. “So, I think we need to take a hard look at that, and that’s what our intent [is] to do over the next year.”

To take a step back quickly, the Marine Corps’ main general-purpose ground-based anti-air weapon today is the Stinger short-range heat-seeking surface-to-air missile. The service currently fields Stinger in a man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) configuration using shoulder-fired launchers, as well as integrated on the Humvee-based Avenger air defense vehicles. Stinger offers a point defense capability against fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, drones, and certain types of cruise missiles.

The Marines also hope to reach initial operational capability this year with a new Medium-Range Intercept Capability (MRIC), which is a service-specific variation of the Israeli Iron Dome system. MRIC uses a U.S.-made version of Iron Dome’s Tamir interceptor, called SkyHunter, and a trailer-based road-mobile launcher. Each launcher can accommodate up to 20 interceptors, which come preloaded in individual canisters, at a time. The system uses offboard sensors to spot and track targets and cue missiles to intercept them. The Corps’ existing AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radars (G/ATOR) have been presented as the primary sensor for MRIC.

“The primary target set for MRIC is cruise missiles and your higher-end Group 5-type of [anti-]air application, as well as rotary wing, fixed-wing type of aspects,” Marine Col. Andrew Konicki, the service’s Program Manager for Ground Based Air Defense and another panelist at Modern Day Marine yesterday, explained. MRIC “can go after Group 3, because it’s probably a mismatch in terms of ammunition versus what it’s going after. So it’s primarily focused on that growing threat, or that higher-end threat, so to speak, as part of that integrated air missile defense application and layer defense piece.”

Groups 3 and 5 here refer to different categories of uncrewed aerial systems. The U.S. military defines Group 5 as consisting of drones with maximum weights greater than 1,320 pounds, and that can fly above 18,000 feet. The MQ-9 Reaper is a commonly used example of a Group 5 uncrewed aircraft. Drones that fall under Group 3 have maximum weights anywhere between 56 and 1,320 pounds, can operate at altitudes between 3,500 and 18,000 feet, and reach top speeds of up to 250 knots. Group 3 is very broad, but notably includes Iran’s now-infamous Shahed 136 long-range kamikaze drone, and the growing number of variants and derivatives thereof.

Lt. Col. Robert Barclay’s mention of an unspecified previous Marine ballistic missile defense capability seems most likely to be a reference to the HAWK medium-range surface-to-air missile system. The service retired HAWK in the 1990s, but versions of the system remain in use elsewhere worldwide, including in Ukraine. HAWK has used an evolving mixture of radars for target acquisition and engagement since the system was first introduced in the 1950s, as you can read more about here. Improved HAWK interceptors have also been developed, including variants explicitly intended to offer a rudimentary anti-ballistic missile capability.

The video below shows HAWK systems in service in Ukraine.

Американський ЗРК HAWK (Яструб) захищає небо України!

Barclay did not elaborate on what level of ballistic missile defense capability the Marine Corps might look to pursue in the future. In the past year or so, there have been reports of Israel using Iron Dome against incoming Iranian ballistic missiles in the terminal phase. However, the system’s effectiveness against ballistic missiles of any kind, which it was never designed to intercept, and whether the Marines might be able to employ MRIC in this role, is unclear.

Today, the main tool for providing ground-based theater ballistic missile defense across all of America’s armed forces is the Army’s Patriot surface-to-air missile systems. The Army also operates the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, which offers a higher-end ballistic missile defense capability over Patriot. Both Patriot and THAAD are only capable of intercepting incoming ballistic threats during their final terminal phase.

The PATRIOT Missile in Action

At the same time, as TWZ has highlighted several times in recent years, the Army’s Patriot force is heavily strained due to constant demands that it is simply not adequately resourced to meet. The THAAD force is even smaller and is in equally heavy demand.

The latest conflict with Iran has reignited discussions about the Army’s worryingly limited capacity to meet operational needs for ballistic missile defense, as well as protection against other aerial threats. Between February and April, Iranian forces launched repeated missile and drone attacks on key bases across the Middle East. They were successful in many instances in targeting high-value military assets, including aircraft parked on the ground and air and missile defense radars.

The U.S. Navy says it is still aiming to see the AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) enter operational service this year. This is despite the announcement of a planned “strategic pause” in purchases of the missiles in the 2027 Fiscal Year. AARGM-ER is set to give Navy carrier air wings a critical boost in their ability to neutralize ever-more capable hostile integrated defense networks.

AARGM-ER has been in the works since the late 2010s. Northrop Grumman is the current prime contractor, through its previous acquisition of Orbital ATK. The Navy has ordered dozens of the missiles already. Hence, it was very surprising when the service’s latest proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, rolled out in full last week, included no request for funding to buy more AGM-88Gs due to the aforementioned pause. All of this, coupled with previous delays and technical issues encountered in testing, had prompted new questions about the future of the program.

“U.S. procurements for the AARGM-ER program are planned to resume once the system has successfully completed all necessary testing and software updates. Our immediate priority is ensuring the weapon passes these rigorous testing milestones to achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in September 2026,” a Navy spokesperson told TWZ. “After validating the software and testing, the plan would be to ramp up production to clear a backlog of over 150 missiles, with U.S. procurements officially restarting in FY28 [Fiscal year 2028]. In the interim, FY27 production will be allocated to Foreign Military Sales to fulfill our commitments to five signed international cases.”

The spokesperson did not name the foreign customers in question. However, Italy is a full partner in the development of the AGM-88G. The U.S. government has also previously approved sales of the missiles to Australia, Finland, and the Netherlands. Norway has publicly announced its intention to purchase AARGM-ERs, as well. The U.S. Air Force is also set to acquire these missiles. We will come back to this later on.

The AGM-88 family, also known as the High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), traces its roots back to the 1970s. The AARGM-ER is a major redesign of the preceding AARGM variant, also designated the AGM-88E. The AGM-88G features a completely redesigned body optimized for high speed and range, as well as a new, more powerful rocket motor and control actuation system.

Inside, the AGM-88G reuses the guidance and control systems from the AGM-88E. By extension, this means the AGM-88G retains the same multi-mode guidance capability of its predecessor, which includes a GPS-assisted inertial navigation system and a millimeter-wave radar seeker. The AARGM-ER’s primary target set is hostile emitters, especially air defense radars, but the guidance package is designed to allow it to find its mark even if they shut down and stop sending out signals to home in on. The AGM-88E also has a more general, secondary ability to strike targets on land or at sea, including by just being directed to hit a specified set of coordinates.

AARGM F-18

The Navy sees the AGM-88G entering service first integrated with its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets, both of which can already employ the AGM-88E. AARGM-ER’s boosts in speed and range are seen as critical to ensuring the survivability and effectiveness of those non-stealthy aircraft in the face of an ever more capable air defense threat ecosystem.

AARGM-ER is also sized to allow for internal carriage on F-35A and C variants. There are plans to eventually integrate it for external carriage on all three F-35 variants, as well as legacy F/A-18C/D Hornets, as well.

As noted, the development of the AARGM-ER has had to contend with technical issues and delays over the years. Originally, the goal was to reach IOC on F/A-18E/F and EA-18G in Fiscal Year 2023.

“The AARGM-ER experienced significant delays as a result of rocket motor, structural, and software problems discovered during testing,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a report published in June 2025. “Contracting officials noted that the program worked with the prime contractor to investigate the root causes of the identified deficiencies and implement corrective actions, including changes in the production process.”

“The program is still experiencing production delays as well. Since our last assessment, program officials stated that testing issues, supply chain challenges, and construction delays for a new production facility slowed completion of the first two production contracts by 1 year,” GAO’s report added. “We have found that starting production before demonstrating a system will work as intended – which the Navy did – increases the risk of discovering deficiencies that require costly, time-intensive rework.”

“In FY25 [Fiscal Year 2025], the [AARGM-ER] program attempted three IT [integrated test] weapon employment tests using F/A-18F aircraft against a threat-representative integrated air defense land target at the China Lake Range in California,” according to a separate report from the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), released in March of this year. “AARGM-ER successfully completed one of the three weapon events but exhibited performance discrepancies during the other two, to include one event during which range safety terminated the weapon after release. No further weapons employment testing was accomplished in FY25 pending implementation of updates required to address the problems that were identified.”

DOT&E warned in that report that the IOC schedule for AGM-88G could slip further to the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2027, which starts on October 1 of this year.

Earlier this year, the Navy somewhat urgently put out a contracting notice saying it was exploring options for a new long-range anti-radiation missile. The stated requirements for this Advanced Emission Suppression Missile (AESM) were very much in line with how the AARGM-ER has been discussed in the past, with one notable exception: a new demand for the ability to engage targets in the air, as well as on the surface. You can read more about why that is significant here. With the Navy confirming that it is still pushing ahead on AARGM-ER, it remains unclear how exactly the service sees ASEM fitting into its broader plans. There does not appear to be any explicit mention of ASEM in the Navy’s latest budget request.

As noted, the U.S. Air Force is also in line to acquire AGM-88Gs. An AARGM-ER subvariant with “improved warhead/fuze” is set to serve as a bridge to the Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW), as well. Reportedly now designated the AGM-88J, SiAW is a derivative of the AARGM-ER being developed to provide a broader high-speed strike capability. The Air Force expects to primarily employ SiAW against time-sensitive and/or high-value assets on the ground, especially ballistic and cruise missile launchers, air and missile defense nodes, electronic warfare systems, and even anti-satellite weapons.

Despite the Navy’s “strategic pause” with AARGM-ER, the Air Force is asking for more funds to purchase additional SiAWs in Fiscal Year 2027. The Air Force has said in the past that it has been targeting 2026 for reaching IOC with SiAW on the F-35A. SiAW flight testing to date, at least that has been disclosed, has involved carriage by F-16 fighters, and it is possible the missile could be integrated operationally onto that aircraft and others, as well. As an aside, Northrop Grumman has also been pitching a ground-launched member of the AARGM-ER/SiAW family, called the Advanced Reactive Strike Missile (AReS).

As mentioned, the Navy has made clear that procurement of AARGM-ERs for foreign customers through the FMS program is also continuing.

Time will tell whether or not the Navy can meet its IOC target for AARGM-ER by September, or the timeline slips into the next fiscal year. Still, the service looks to remain committed to the program, at least for the time being, regardless of its intent to put a year-long pause on buying more AGM-88G.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Ukraine has released more details of Russia’s S-71K Kovyor — translated as Carpet — an air-launched missile that Kyiv says has been used in combat since late last year. The continued development of weapons in this class highlights the fact that Russia is looking for alternatives to its more established — and more costly — legacy air-launched cruise missiles, with current production levels struggling to meet wartime needs.

The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense’s Main Directorate of Intelligence (GUR) today publicly released new information on the S-71K, including an interactive 3D model. The GUR had previously released details of companies involved in the manufacture of Russia’s Su-57 Felon fighter, and notes that the new missile was specifically developed for this platform.

“The new missile was first deployed by the enemy late last year and appears to represent the United Aircraft Corporation’s (UAC) initial venture into missile manufacturing,” the GUR says.

The GUR adds that the warhead of the S-71K utilizes a 551-pound OFAB-250-270 high-explosive fragmentation bomb. This bomb, which was developed in the Cold War as a free-fall air-launched weapon, is integrated into the structure of the S-71K, which otherwise features a low-observable airframe.

The S-71K’s airframe is made from “a multi-layer fiberglass material with additional reinforcement,” with other internal elements made of aluminum alloys. The airframe has a low-observable shape, with a trapezoidal cross section, chined nose, pop-out swept wings, and an inverted V-tail. Available imagery of the wreckage reveals details of the top-mounted conformal engine intake, feeding a pentagon-shaped intake duct. There are, however, no signs of any low-observable coatings, such as radar-absorbent material, likely to keep costs down.

The GUR also provides information on various electronic components, of which it says “the vast majority” are of foreign origin, including items manufactured in China, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. As the GUR says, “Continued access to foreign technologies and components allows the aggressor state to develop new weapons and scale their use in the war against Ukraine.”

This makes it one of many Russian weapons relying on foreign parts. For instance, a Russian Shahed-136 strike drone obtained by the GUR contained numerous components from the U.S. as well as parts from Iran, Taiwan, and other nations. Previously, we noted that the GUR found multiple foreign components in a Russian S-70 Okhotnik-B (Hunter-B) flying-wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV) downed in a case of friendly fire.

The S-71K is powered by a compact R500 turbojet engine, also produced by UAC, and features what the GUR describes as “an inertial navigation system based on simple sensors.”

With three separate internal fuel tanks, Ukraine assesses that the S-71K has an operational range of up to 186 miles. Earlier reports suggest that the missile flies at a speed of Mach 0.6 and at altitudes of up to 27,000 feet.

In 2024, it was reported that Sukhoi had received approval from the Russian Defense Ministry to begin producing the S-71, after it underwent “significant design changes” based on lessons from the Ukraine conflict.

These changes apparently included increasing the range and reducing the radar cross-section to improve survivability against air defenses.

The GUR has not said what platform or platforms are understood to have employed the S-71K in the war in Ukraine. As mentioned, the S-71K is known to have been developed with the Su-57 in mind and has at least been tested on this aircraft, with captive-carry trials in April 2024 at the Russian flight research center in Zhukovsky. There is no reason that it couldn’t also be carried by other Russian tactical jets; this would be necessary for large-volume employment, if significant production numbers are actually realized.

It is also expected that Russia will explore the integration of the S-71K with its S-70 Okhotnik UCAV.

Interestingly, there have also been reports that the S-71K may be complemented by a more advanced weapon, known as the S-71M Monokhrom. While described as a kamikaze drone, this is essentially an air-to-ground missile expected to have a “human-in-the-loop” capability, to allow dynamic targeting, including against moving targets, via a controller on the ground. In this way, it differs from the S-71K, which apparently features a fairly basic inertial guidance system, likely backed up by satellite navigation. The S-71M is also said to feature electro-optical sensors for day and night operations, and multiple warhead options, including high-explosive and shaped charges.

While the S-71K is externally carried by launch aircraft, the S-71M can reportedly also be accommodated in the weapons bay of a Su-57 or S-70 UCAV. So far, we have not seen S-71s with folding tailfins, which would be required for internal carriage.

Earlier this year, unconfirmed reports from Russia suggested that the S-71M Monokhrom may have been used in an attack on a Ukrainian HIMARS launcher in the Chernihiv region, although the Russian military stressed that the target was destroyed by a Geran loitering munition. Images released of S-71M test rounds indicate a missile design that is notably less stealthy than the latest S-71K, but the M-version may also have been refined in the meantime.

In March of this year, the GUR revealed details of another new Russian air-launched cruise missile, the Izdeliye 30, which you can read more about here.

The Defence Intelligence of Ukraine has published an interactive 3D model, the main assemblies, and components of the enemy’s new cruise missile “izdeliye-30,” as well as data on 20 enterprises involved in its production cooperation chain.

🔗: https://t.co/shMagPCZHE pic.twitter.com/6XgEsxVatf

— Defence Intelligence of Ukraine (@DI_Ukraine) March 2, 2026

This missile also has folding wings, but offers a much longer range of at least 930 miles. It is similarly powered by a compact turbojet engine but does not have a stealthy airframe.

Various components in the Izdeliye 30 appear to have been reused from existing weapons, reducing cost and complexity and speeding development.

Based on its range, the Izdeliye is likely intended as a cheaper, simpler alternative to the air-launched cruise missiles otherwise used by Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers, namely the Kh-101 and Kh-555 (the Kh-55 carries a nuclear warhead).

Meanwhile, the S-71K appears to be tailored for tactical crewed and uncrewed aircraft, while its more limited range is partly compensated for by the fact that it has low-observable features (and is intended for launch from low-observable platforms).

The S-71K should also offer a cheaper alternative to the Kh-69, a weapon widely associated with the Su-57, although it can also be launched by ‘legacy’ Russian tactical aircraft. You can read about this air-to-surface missile here.

1/ TASS reports that KTRV will display (a mock-up of) its Kh-69 air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) at the upcoming “Army-2022” forum.

Specifications:
– Max range (km): 290
– Cruise speed (km/h): 700 – 1,000
– Warhead (kg): 300 – 310 (depending on configuration) pic.twitter.com/UD38MsNNpG

— Guy Plopsky (@GuyPlopsky) August 11, 2022

While it remains to be seen exactly how the S-71 series will be used in an operational context, it’s clear that Russia has a need for cheaper, easier-to-produce air-launched missiles for its combat aircraft fleet. 

Just as the U.S. military is facing the challenge of limited munitions stocks as it prepares for a potential future conflict with China, Russia has a requirement today for strike weapons that can be manufactured cost-effectively and in large numbers.

At minimum, the deployment of the S-71 poses an additional challenge for Ukraine’s already strained air defense forces, especially given the continued scarcity of Western-supplied ground-based air defense systems.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

A new, longer-range version of the Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile (RAACM) has been unveiled by CoAspire at the Sea-Air-Space 2026 exposition near Washington, D.C. The development comes just days after the U.S. Air Force launched market research for its Family of Affordable Mass Missiles — Beyond Adversary’s Reach (FAMM-BAR), reflecting the service’s interest in low-cost, long-range strike weapons, specifically for anti-surface warfare.

Jamie Hunter of TWZ spoke about the RAACM-ER (RAACM pronounced ‘rack-em;’ ER for Extended Range) with Doug Denneny, founder, CEO, and owner at CoAspire.

First off, it’s worth looking at the original RAACM, a modular, low-cost cruise missile that leverages 3D printing to bring down cost and enable rapid production ramp-up.

“When we designed the original RAACM, we knew that it was going to be the size of a GBU-38,” Denneny said, referring to the 500-pound version of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), which is 92.6 inches long and has a wingspan of 14 inches.

An official video promoting the original RAACM:

RAACM Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile

“When you go to that size, there are great reasons to do it, but it doesn’t go as far as a larger variant could do,” Denneny continued. “We really wanted to take everything we learned and now have an extended-range version. And what’s beautiful about the additive manufacturing that we use is that we can really optimize fuel tank volume, which means this can go very far.”

According to the manufacturer, the RAACM-ER has a range greater than 1,000 nautical miles.

This is especially remarkable considering the relatively compact size of the weapon. Indeed, when it comes to anti-ship missiles, the only weapon in the U.S. inventory that comes close is the BGM-109 Block V Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST). This can be launched from destroyers, submarines, and the U.S. Army’s Typhon system. Like the RAACM-ER, it is subsonic, but a single round costs $3.64 million, according to the Navy. While the RAACM-ER clearly has a degree of low observability, it is not to the same degree as on the MST.

Like RAACM, the extended-range model is designed for launch from aircraft, as well as from the ground and from naval vessels. For surface-launched applications, the RAACM-ER adds an additional rocket booster behind its turbojet, meaning it can be propelled out of its launch canister.

Despite the nomenclature, the RAACM-ER is a new design, rather than a modification of the RAACM.

Denneny explained: “Our engineers came to us and said, ‘Hey, if we’re going to make a bigger one, should we make it look just the same?’ I mentioned earlier that RAACM was made that shape just to ease integration. We’re an engineering company, so we said, ‘Let’s optimize fuel volume, let’s optimize survivability features, let’s optimize physics so that this thing can go as far as possible and take the sensors needed. That’s why it’s in this slightly different shape.”

The RAACM-ER is somewhat reminiscent of the AGM-158 Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), in terms of appearance and capabilities, but Denneny is keen to avoid direct comparisons.

“Physics is physics,” he added. “When people look at shapes, they look similar, but just like an Airbus looks like a Boeing, but what they have different inside is really what matters, and that’s how we differ in many ways.”

In terms of sensors, the RAACM-ER is currently fitted with a GPS navigation system, suitable for air, ground, and surface launch.

“Both our RAACM and our RAACM-ER also have a long-wave infrared sensor in the nose,” Denneny continued, “so we have the opportunity to search and find targets as well.”

Unlike the JASSM and similar cruise missiles, however, the RAACM-ER, like the RAACM before it, is optimized for low cost.

For Denneny, “the most important thing is affordable mass. [This] means keeping the cost down, so that the nation and our allies can purchase these at scale. That’s number one. Number two is to use as many commercial off-the-shelf parts, so that we’re we are not locked into a single supplier for anything. The final thing is to have something that can survive enemy countermeasures, and also hit the target, whether it’s stationary or moving. Those are the main requirements.”

When it comes to price point, CoAspire has optimized mass rather than the highest-end capabilities. This is a reflection not only of the sheer number of targets that the U.S. military and its allies would face in a potential conflict with China, but also the fact that a considerable proportion of missiles won’t make it to their targets anyway. Still, as recent conflicts have shown, the ability of lower-end drones, especially, to overwhelm adversary air defenses when fielded in large numbers is significant. After all, quantity has a quality all of its own.

Denneny confirmed that CoAspire plans to test-fly the RAACM-ER “very soon.”

The original RAACM has already undergone flight trials aboard a contractor-operated A-4. CoAspire is now under contract to the U.S. government for RAACM, and the weapon is in production at the company’s plant in Manassas, Virginia.

In the past, we’ve learned that both the Air Force and the Navy have funded work on the RAACM project. It has also been reported that CoAspire is one of two companies producing Extended Range Attack Missiles (ERAM) for Ukraine — this may well involve the RAACM or a related weapon.

As for the RAACM-ER, this was unveiled only a week after the Air Force launched market research for its Family of Affordable Mass Missiles — Beyond Adversary’s Reach (FAMM-BAR).

“The potential procurement objective is to produce an inventory for the [U.S.] Government and Foreign Military Sales. The expectation is that the annual production orders will range from 1,000 to 2,000 units per year for five years (procurement numbers will vary by year),” the Air Force says in the request for information.

The FAMM-BAR program lists five desired attributes for the potential weapon: a range of at least 1,000 nautical miles, a speed of at least 0.7 Mach, the option of palletized delivery from a cargo aircraft, the ability to receive midcourse navigation updates, and the manufacturing capacity to produce more than 1,000 rounds annually. The main target set for the weapon is “slow-moving maritime” vessels.

A video showing a demonstration of the Rapid Dragon air-launched palletized munitions concept, using surrogate weapons delivered from the cargo holds of a C-17A and an EC-130J:

Rapid Dragon Flight Test

This requirement reflects the growing focus on anti-surface warfare as the U.S. military plans for a high-end conflict in the Pacific, especially against China. The U.S. military is increasingly investing in a diverse mix of anti-ship capabilities, part of a broader strategic shift driven by China’s growing maritime power. At the same time, real-world operations have exposed how rapidly missile stockpiles can be depleted, intensifying concerns that sustaining the massive volumes of anti-ship fires required in a China conflict will demand significant expansion of U.S. production capacity and inventories.

At the same time, the RAACM-ER would be useful for striking static land targets during an Indo-Pacific war, too. With such a considerable range, the weapon will also be better able to deal with increasingly far-reaching air defenses, something that the Pentagon is increasingly concerned about, including the likelihood of enemy missiles that can target its aircraft at ranges as great as 1,000 miles.

It should be noted that there are already other FAMM programs underway, namely the FAMM-Palletized and FAMM-Lugged cruise missiles for the Air Force. However, these require ranges of 250-500 nautical miles.

At this point, the low-cost, long-range strike weapon field is becoming increasingly crowded. Other contenders include designs from Anduril, General Atomics, and Zone 5 Technologies. From the last of these companies, the Rusty Dagger recently underwent release tests from an Air Force F-16 as part of the FAMM-L effort.

Global Technical Systems is also pitching a cruise missile with a range of 1,200 nautical miles and an anti-ship warhead.

However, with the original RAACM already in production, and proven in flight tests, the new RAACM-ER looks well-positioned to go far — figuratively and literally — in the FAMM-BAR program.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

SEOUL, April 14 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un oversaw the test-firing of strategic cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles from a 5,000-ton naval destroyer, state media reported Tuesday, as he called bolstering nuclear deterrence the country’s “most important priority task.”

The North’s Choe Hyon destroyer launched two cruise missiles and three anti-ship missiles at island targets in the Yellow Sea on Sunday, the official Korean Central News Agency said.

The cruise missiles flew for roughly two hours and 12 minutes before striking their targets, KCNA said, while the anti-ship missiles flew for about 33 minutes.

The test was “aimed at checking the launching control line of the warship’s integrated weapon commanding system … as well as confirming the accuracy and the rate of hits of the improved active anti-jamming navigation system,” KCNA reported.

Pyongyang described the cruise missiles as “strategic,” a term it typically uses for systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Kim observed the test-firing alongside senior defense officials and naval officers, KCNA said. Images published by state media showed Kim and the officials watching from an unspecified pier.

KCNA quoted Kim as saying the North’s “most important priority task [is] to steadily and unlimitedly bolster up the powerful and reliable nuclear war deterrent.”

“He clarified the important tasks for further strengthening the strategic and tactical attack capability, a key component of the nuclear war deterrent,” KCNA added.

Kim observed a pair of similar test launches last month, involving cruise missiles only.

Sunday’s expanded test may indicate the destroyer is nearing deployment, an official from South Korea’s Unification Ministry told Yonhap News Agency and other local reporters.

“It appears to be a final check of the weapons system if the test took place before the delivery of the Choe Hyon to the Navy,” the official said.

Pyongyang launched the Choe Hyon, its first 5,000-ton destroyer, last April, as Kim called for strengthening the country’s naval capabilities. Photos released by state media show the ship’s missile and radar systems resembling those found on Russian vessels, prompting speculation that Pyongyang received technical assistance from Moscow.

North Korea has deployed troops, artillery and weapons to support Russia’s war in Ukraine and is believed to be receiving financial support and advanced military technology in return.

A second destroyer, the Kang Kon, suffered an accident during its launch ceremony last year that left it listing on its side before it was repaired and relaunched in June.

KCNA said Kim was also briefed on plans for the weapons systems of two more destroyers currently under construction.

South Korean Rep. Yoo Yong-won of the People Power Party said earlier this month that commercial satellite imagery showed North Korea accelerating construction of a new warship at a shipyard in the western port city of Nampho.

“North Korea appears to be accelerating the modernization of its navy on the back of military technology assistance from Russia,” Yoo said.

Kim Jong Un has ordered a third 5,000-ton destroyer to be completed by Oct. 10, the anniversary of the founding of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea.

April 13 (Asia Today) — Middle Eastern nations are accelerating efforts to secure missile defense systems, with growing demand for South Korean interceptors as regional threats intensify.

Countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are seeking faster deliveries of South Korea’s Cheongung-II system, also known as M-SAM, following recent large-scale missile attacks linked to Iran.

Industry officials said Gulf states have made urgent inquiries to LIG Nex1 and affiliates of Hanwha Group about expediting delivery schedules.

The Cheongung-II system is produced by LIG Nex1 as the prime contractor, with Hanwha Aerospace manufacturing launchers and Hanwha Systems providing radar components.

A report by The Wall Street Journal said Gulf countries are increasingly looking beyond U.S. suppliers and viewing South Korea as a key alternative source of missile defense systems.

The United Arab Emirates signed a contract worth about $3.5 billion in 2022 for multiple Cheongung-II batteries, while Saudi Arabia reached a $3.2 billion deal in 2024, according to the report.

At the same time, Israel is ramping up production of its Arrow missile defense system as interceptor stockpiles are strained by repeated attacks.

According to Israel’s Defense Ministry, Israel Aerospace Industries has begun accelerating production to several times normal levels after facing sustained missile and drone attacks from Iran and Houthi forces in Yemen.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said strengthening missile defense capabilities is critical to national security, as concerns grow over potential shortages of interceptor missiles.

Analysts warn the situation highlights a broader challenge for countries facing missile threats, including South Korea.

Experts say a large-scale barrage using low-cost missiles or artillery could quickly deplete high-cost interceptors, underscoring the need for larger stockpiles and more cost-effective defense systems.

A senior South Korean defense industry official said the country should expand reserves of key systems such as Cheongung-II and long-range surface-to-air missiles, while maintaining a balance between exports and domestic needs.

There are also growing calls to accelerate development of next-generation systems, including laser-based air defense technologies designed to reduce interception costs.

— 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=20260413010003773

A new Ukrainian surface-to-air missile appears to have made its first public appearance. The weapon has been widely identified as an apparent example of the Koral (also sometimes spelled Coral). The development of the missile has been known about for some time, as part of a broader effort to field homegrown ground-based air defense systems, something that the head of Ukraine’s Brave1 defense tech incubator has discussed with TWZ in the past.

Володимир Зеленський привітав працівників оборонно-промислового комплексу з професійним днем

While not specifically identified, the missile in question was included as part of an exhibition of Ukrainian-developed missiles, drones, missile-drone hybrids, and other uncrewed platforms, which were presented recently by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Other weapons that were shown in the exhibition, which was staged to mark the holiday of the country’s defense industry workforce, included the Neptune ground-launched cruise missile, the Areion missile-drone that was developed from the existing Palianytsia, and the Vilkha guided artillery rocket.

While we cannot completely rule out that the new missile is something different, it certainly has some of the hallmarks of previous artist’s concepts and mockups of the Koral that we have seen in the past. We also cannot rule out the possibility that some features are added for counter-intelligence purposes.

Based on the external appearance of the missile, it looks to be a test round, or even a production weapon, rather than a mockup, but again, we cannot be entirely certain of this, either.

What we do know is that Ukraine has an active domestic air defense missile development program.

As long ago as 2021, before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Luch design bureau presented the Koral missile, intended to arm medium-range air defense systems.

Luch initially stated that the Koral would have a range of 30 to 50 kilometers (18 to 31 miles). By 2023, this had apparently been revised to 100 kilometers (62 miles), which would push it into the long-range class, albeit at the lower end of it.

Other specifications previously mentioned by Luch include a weight of 300 kilograms (661 pounds) with a 25-kilogram (55-pound) warhead, and a speed of 3,600 kilometers per hour (2,237 miles per hour).

“Koral should work against ballistic [missile] targets. Of course, not all classes, but it must work on ballistic targets,” Oleh Korostelev, the head of the Luch design bureau, said at the time.

Korostelev added that the missile would be equipped with an Onyx active radar-homing seeker from the Ukrainian company Radionix. He also said that development of the new missile was “70 percent complete.”

In late 2023, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense identified air defense, including the continued development of the Koral surface-to-air missile, as one of its main priorities for 2024.

At that point, then-Deputy Defense Minister Ivan Havryliuk outlined the requirement for mobile surface-to-air missile systems with a range of more than a hundred kilometers. This was assumed to include the Koral.

Last month, it was reported that Ukraine had signed an agreement to cooperate with Spain on air defense capabilities, including missiles. Intriguingly, both Luch and Radionix were said to be involved in this effort, which teamed them with Spain’s Sener Group, which makes components for IRIS-T missiles. As well as being air-launched, the IRIS-T is used in short-range air defense systems and has also been supplied to Ukraine for use in that mode.

Other details about the Koral missile remain a closely guarded secret.

It is said to make extensive use of various pre-existing subsystems, some of which are already proven, likely including the motor, inertial navigation system, and the radio and/or laser proximity fuze.

It is expected that the Koral will use a gas-dynamic control system, with conventional control surfaces allied with thrust-vectoring vanes in the exhaust nozzle, to ensure ‘endgame’ maneuverability. This is necessary for intercepting highly agile targets and those at extreme altitudes. However, while the original Koral mockup had Patriot PAC-3-style thrusters mounted at the forward end of the body to achieve extreme precision during the terminal phase of interception, these have disappeared from the latest version, which also features revised guidance fins with greater surface area.

Even before the full-scale invasion, Ukraine had a need for a missile in this class.

For medium- and long-range surface-to-air missiles, Ukraine relied primarily on the Soviet-era S-300P (SA-10 Grumble), smaller numbers of the S-300V1 (SA-12 Gladiator/Giant) with an anti-ballistic missile capability, and the Buk-M1 (SA-11 Gadfly) mobile medium-range system. Of these, only a handful of surplus S-300Ps have been donated to Kyiv since the full-scale invasion. You can read about all these Soviet-era missiles here.

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

Ukraine has also received more capable Western surface-to-air missiles in this class, most prominently the U.S.-made Patriot, as well as the Franco-Italian SAMP/T. However, these are once again available only in limited numbers, and their respective effectors are notably expensive.

At one time, the Koral was also proposed as the main air defense weapon for the Ukrainian Navy’s two future Ada class corvettes being built in Turkey. However, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense chose an MBDA alternative, and the future of those vessels remains questionable.

Regardless, Ukraine has an even greater demand for ground-based air defense systems than it did in the first weeks of the full-scale invasion, when we first looked at this issue in depth.

Since then, Russia has only stepped up its barrages of missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure, putting an enormous burden on the available ground-based air defenses.

To help make up the shortfall, Ukraine, with U.S. support, embarked on the ‘FrankenSAM’ program, in which it leveraged existing capabilities within the Ukrainian Armed Forces arsenal to help rapidly provide badly needed additional air defenses.

There is, meanwhile, a growing list of ground-based air defense systems that fire repurposed Soviet-era heat-seeking R-73 air-to-air missiles as interceptors.

Other efforts have combined the R-73 with Western-developed launchers and sensors, like the containerized Gravehawk system, which the United Kingdom and Denmark developed for Ukraine.

Ukraine has also fielded modified 9K33 Osa (SA-8 Gecko) wheeled air defense vehicles armed with R-73 missiles instead of their usual 9M33 interceptors. This is notable for being a domestic initiative combining a Soviet-era surface-to-air missile vehicle with Soviet-era air-to-air missiles.

The Ukrainian military has also introduced R-73-armed uncrewed surface vessels (USVs), an application known locally as the Sea Dragon.

The Koral missile differs, however, in that it should provide a much greater range than most of the currently fielded FrankenSAMs, as well as an anti-ballistic missile capability. If all goes to plan, this will provide a replacement for longer-ranged Soviet-era systems, as well as a supplement to the costly Patriot and SAMP/T, the reliable supply of which cannot be guaranteed, certainly not in the numbers Ukraine requires.

For now, the Koral program remains very much shrouded in secrecy. We don’t yet know if the missile has been tested, let alone whether it’s in series production. We also have no idea about what kind of launchers it will be compatible with. Based on the FrankenSAM concept, it is conceivable that it might find its way onto existing S-300 series or even Patriot launchers.

Speaking in 2025, Andriy Hyrtseniuk, the head of Ukraine’s Brave1 defense tech incubator, told TWZ that “multiple” homegrown missiles of different classes had already been tested on firing ranges and “in some cases on the battlefield.”

At the very least, the apparent inclusion of the Koral in the recent public exhibition underscores the fact that Ukraine is still badly in need of additional air defenses. The recent conflict in the Middle East makes it even harder for Kyiv’s Western allies to keep up the already modest deliveries of more capable air defense systems. Clearly, Ukraine needs a surface-to-air missile in the class of the Koral, and one that’s available in sufficient numbers to help offset the challenge of repeated Russian attacks.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

April 9 (Asia Today) — North Korea’s continued missile provocations, combined with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to Pyongyang, are being interpreted as a coordinated signal aimed at asserting control over developments on the Korean Peninsula.

The move comes as global uncertainty rises amid the ongoing Middle East conflict, with analysts saying Pyongyang is attempting to leverage the situation to elevate its strategic presence.

On Wednesday, North Korea’s state media reported that the country conducted a series of weapons tests over three days from April 6 to 8, including electromagnetic weapon systems, carbon-fiber mock warhead dispersal tests, and combat capability verification of mobile short-range air defense systems.

It also said the cluster warhead of its tactical ballistic missile Hwasong-11A (KN-23) demonstrated the capability to devastate a target area of approximately 6.5 to 7 hectares.

The test is widely interpreted as an effort to enhance strike efficiency by equipping the KN-23 with a cluster-type warhead, which disperses hundreds of submunitions to maximize lethality.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said North Korea launched an unidentified projectile from the Pyongyang area on April 7, but it failed shortly after launch. The following day, Pyongyang fired short-range ballistic missiles twice from the Wonsan area on the country’s east coast.

Drawing a line against Seoul, reinforcing ‘two hostile states’ framework

Experts say the latest series of actions reflects North Korea’s dual-track strategy – outwardly engaging while simultaneously reinforcing military pressure.

Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies, said the tests appear to be part of ongoing missile upgrades tied to the country’s five-year defense development plan announced at the 9th Party Congress.

“At the same time, it is a move to demonstrate control over the Korean Peninsula issue amid heightened global volatility, including the Middle East war,” Yang said.

He added that the actions also signal a clear rejection of what Pyongyang sees as Seoul’s “flexible response” following recent remarks by Kim Yo-jong, and an effort to maintain tensions under its “two hostile states” policy framework.

Im Eul-chul, a professor at Kyungnam University’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies, said North Korea is pursuing a strategy of reinforcing its political narrative through military means.

“While North Korea appears to be pragmatically acknowledging President Lee Jae-myung’s expression of regret, it is simultaneously advancing its physical strike capabilities,” Im said. “This is about asserting dominance through action and force, not words.”

China probes North Korea as Wang Yi returns after 6 years

At the same time, Wang Yi’s visit – his first to North Korea in more than six years – is drawing close attention.

North Korean state media said the visit will last two days beginning April 9, at the invitation of Pyongyang’s foreign ministry.

Yang said China’s move likely reflects an effort to gauge North Korea’s intentions while also positioning itself to manage potential escalation.

“China is trying to explore North Korea’s stance while taking preemptive steps to keep the situation under control,” he said.

He added that North Korea’s recent missile launches underline its continued hardline posture toward the United States, including its refusal to engage in denuclearization talks and its demand to be recognized as a nuclear-armed state.

As tensions persist, analysts say the combination of North Korea’s military signaling and China’s diplomatic engagement highlights a shifting balance of influence on the Korean Peninsula – one increasingly shaped by force, timing and geopolitical opportunity.

— 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=20260410010003032

SEOUL, April 9 (UPI) — North Korea said Thursday that it carried out a series of weapons tests this week, including a tactical ballistic missile with a cluster-bomb warhead as well as electromagnetic and other electronic warfare systems.

The tests, conducted from Monday to Wednesday, were part of efforts to assess the performance and battlefield use of several new weapons systems, the North’s official Korean Central News Agency said.

KCNA said that its surface-to-surface Hwasong-11Ka missile was tested with a cluster-bomb payload capable of striking targets over a wide area, claiming it could “reduce to ashes” targets spanning roughly 16 to 17.2 acres.

The Hwasong-11 missile, also known as the KN-23, is a highly maneuverable short-range ballistic missile similar to Russia’s Iskander.

The report came one day after South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said it detected multiple missile launches on Wednesday from the coastal Wonsan area toward the East Sea. The military also reported the launch of an unidentified projectile from the Pyongyang area on Tuesday.

In addition to the missile tests, North Korea said it conducted trials of an electromagnetic weapon system and carbon-fiber bombs, as well as a mobile short-range anti-aircraft missile system.

The tests were overseen by Kim Jong Sik, a senior official involved in the North’s missile development programs.

Kim said the electromagnetic weapon and carbon-fiber bomb are “special assets of strategic nature” that can be combined with various military systems.

Carbon-fiber bombs — also known as graphite bombs— are designed to disable electrical grids by dispersing fine conductive filaments to short-circuit power infrastructure, causing widespread outages without physical destruction.

Electromagnetic weapons, meanwhile, emit high-energy pulses that can disrupt or damage electronic systems, including communications networks, radar and computing infrastructure.

KCNA also said engineers conducted a test to measure the “maximum workload” of a missile engine using low-cost materials.

The reported mix of electronic weapons systems and cost-efficient production methods points to ongoing efforts to modernize and expand the North’s hybrid warfare capabilities.

The tests came after South Korean President Lee Jae Myung on Monday expressed regret over unauthorized drone incursions into the North.

His remarks drew a rare response from Pyongyang, as Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of leader Kim Jong Un, described Lee as “frank and broad-minded.”

Seoul’s Unification Ministry called the exchange a positive signal, saying it represented “meaningful progress toward peaceful coexistence on the Korean Peninsula.”

North Korea’s first vice foreign minister, Jang Kum Chol, later rejected that interpretation, calling it a “hope-filled dream reading” and insisting the South remains “the enemy state most hostile to the DPRK.”

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.

A South Korean military official said the allies are continuing to track developments in the North’s weapons programs.

“We maintain the ability and readiness to overwhelmingly respond to any provocation under a solid South Korea-U.S. joint defense posture,” Jang Do-young, public affairs director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a press briefing Thursday.

SEOUL, April 8 (UPI) — North Korea fired short-range ballistic missiles on two separate occasions Wednesday, Seoul’s military said, marking three launches over two days after South Korean President Lee Jae Myung expressed regret over a drone incursion.

At 8:50 a.m. Wednesday, the North launched several short-range ballistic missiles from its coastal Wonsan area toward the East Sea, Seoul’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a text message to reporters.

The missiles flew approximately 150 miles, the JCS said, adding that South Korean and U.S. intelligence authorities are analyzing their exact specifications.

“Under a steadfast South Korea-U.S. combined defense posture, the military is closely monitoring North Korea’s various movements and maintaining the capability and readiness to overwhelmingly respond to any provocation,” the JCS said.

North Korea later fired a single short-range ballistic missile from Wonsan toward the East Sea at 2:20 p.m. Wednesday, the JCS said in a separate message. The missile flew approximately 435 miles.

The launches came one day after the South’s military detected an unidentified projectile fired from the Pyongyang area. The JCS said South Korean and U.S. intelligence officials are still analyzing its detailed specifications.

Hawaii-based U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said it detected both days’ launches and was consulting with regional allies and partners.

“Based on current assessments, this event does not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel or territory, or to our allies,” the command said in a statement.

The launches came after a statement by Kim Yo Jong, the powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, describing President Lee as “frank and broad-minded” after he expressed regret over unauthorized drone incursions into the North.

Lee had addressed the drone issue earlier Monday during a Cabinet meeting, following last week’s indictment of three individuals accused of carrying out incursions between September and January.

“Although this was not an act by our government, I express regret to the North Korean side over the unnecessary military tension caused by such reckless behavior,” Lee said during the meeting.

While Kim’s remarks struck a less hostile tone than recent statements from Pyongyang, she still included a warning to the South to “stop any reckless provocation against the DPRK” and to “refrain from any attempt at contact.”

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.

North Korea’s first vice foreign minister, Jang Kum Chol, later dismissed Seoul’s positive interpretation of the remarks, calling them a “hope-filled dream reading.”

In a statement released late Tuesday and carried by the official Korean Central News Agency, Jang said that the South’s identity as “the enemy state most hostile to the DPRK can never change with any words or conduct by its chief executive.”

Victor Cha, president of the geopolitics and foreign policy department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, cautioned against reading into the timing of the launches relative to Kim’s drone statement.

“I’m more and more of the view that the recent missile demonstrations we’ve seen by North Korea are not testing and they’re not political statements — they’re exercising,” Cha told UPI during a press briefing at the Asan Plenum policy forum in Seoul.

“I don’t think [North Korea] had any notion of when the South Koreans were going to convey communications on the drone activity,” Cha said. “If anything, these [launches] just happened to be on parallel tracks.”

North Korea last fired ballistic missiles toward the East Sea on March 14 as the United States and South Korea held their annual springtime joint military exercise. Pyongyang later said the launches were part of a firepower strike drill involving 600mm multiple rocket launchers overseen by Kim Jong Un.

Video captured the moment of a direct hit by an Iranian missile on a residential building in Israel’s Haifa. Multiple injuries were reported and some people are feared trapped under the rubble of the partially collapsed structure.

One of the most striking visuals to emerge in the current conflict with Iran has been videos of ballistic missiles unleashing torrents of cluster munitions at very high altitudes over Israel. In doing so, the Iranians look to have found a worrisome way to consistently get around terminal-phase ballistic missile defenses, especially Israel’s David’s Sling.

The gap that the Iranians are leveraging with these cluster munition missile attacks goes beyond just bypassing terminal defenses. It, by extension, puts greater pressure on diminishing stocks of prized mid-course interceptors to try to defeat these incoming threats before they release their payloads. With all this in mind, what we are seeing with Iran’s attacks on Israel with ballistic missiles with cluster warheads could have even greater implications for future conflicts elsewhere, particularly in the Pacific region.

In some five weeks of fighting, Iran had launched more than 500 ballistic missiles at Israel, with at least 30 of those having carried cluster munition payloads (likely many more), according to the Times of Israel. Iran had fired ballistic missiles with cluster warheads in anger for the first time in attacks on Israel during last year’s 12 Day War.

Iran has developed multiple types of submunitions that can be dispersed via different ballistic missiles in its inventory during the terminal phases of their flight. Ballistic missiles typically fly along roughly parabolic trajectories to their targets. The arc is generally broken down into three main sections: the boost phase right after launch, the terminal phase as the missile comes back down at the end, and the mid-course phase in between. During the mid-course phase, the missiles leave the Earth’s atmosphere, with larger types spending more time in space in the middle of their flight. You can learn more about the complexities of intercepting a target in the mid-course phase in our past report here.

A typical Iranian cluster warhead reportedly contains between 20 and 30 submunitions. However, larger missiles, like members of the Khorramshahr family, are said to be able to carry up to 80. Reports also state that the cluster munitions can contain anywhere between four and 11 pounds of explosives. The damage they can cause is further magnified by the high speed with which they impact the ground.

“Iran has shown pictures in the past of triconic warheads [for ballistic missiles] equipped with at least four different sizes and types of bomblets,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank, told TWZ. “So Iran calls these warheads ‘raining warheads,’ because these different bomblets will be showered on a wider geographic target set than if it was just the traditional unitary high explosive warhead. How many depends on what kind of configuration of bomblets they can actually choose to put in, but it can be easily a dozen-plus to two dozen to three dozen, depending on the size of the bomblets.”

The Iranian submunition installed in Iranian BM launched at Israel was seen TWICE in the past: In 2016 weapons exhibition and in a failed KHORRAMSHAHR missile test in Iran, 2023. pic.twitter.com/AxCYSDxs69

— Tal Inbar (@inbarspace) June 21, 2025

For the first time, a SUB-MUNITION from an Iranian BM was found in Israel. It is not yet clear on what type of missile it was installed. pic.twitter.com/HgwxCsE0FS

— Tal Inbar (@inbarspace) June 19, 2025

“Most importantly, in this conflict, the regime is using the Khoramshar ballistic missile, which is a threshold medium-range ballistic missile modified from an intermediate-range ballistic missile that can carry the heaviest reported warhead weight,” he added. “So, the regime is basically filling a large conical warhead with lots of bomblets and cluster munitions that basically fuse and disperse upon re-entry into the atmosphere, posing a real challenge, even for integrated air and missile defense systems like what the Israelis have, and causing quite a bit of damage and civilian harm.”

Both the shape of the fragment and the serial number pattern indicate it was part of a Khorramshahr reentry vehicle.

Would confirm the suspicion that some of the large submunition releases observed over Israel were linked to the use of the Khorramshahr. https://t.co/KP4Sp1Yy9P pic.twitter.com/B7SC1q6GNQ

— Fabian Hinz (@fab_hinz) March 9, 2026

Khorramshah-4 is shorter than the previous versions as the missile engine is designed inside fuel tank.
The evolvement of different versions of Khorramshahr mostly deal with its re-entry vehicles which @inbarspace showed in this good picture. 3 pic.twitter.com/nm7kC6WfL2

— Mehdi H. (@mhmiranusa) November 3, 2024

Differentiating between missiles carrying cluster warheads and those with unitary ones is likely to be difficult, if not impossible, before any release of submarines occurs. This creates further challenges for defenders, as we will come back to later on.

In terms of dispersion, when Iran first fired cluster munition-laden ballistic missiles at Israel last year, authorities in the latter country said the weapons had released their payloads at an altitude of approximately 23,000 feet (seven kilometers). The submunitions were scattered across an area approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) in diameter. This is in line with a report last month from CNN, where that outlet assessed two separate Iranian cluster missile attacks to have dropped submunitions across areas in Israel between roughly seven and eight miles (approximately 11 to 13 kilometers) long.

The IDF Home Front Command confirms that Iran launched at least one ballistic missile carrying a cluster bomb warhead at central Israel today.

The missile’s warhead split while descending, at around 7 kilometers altitude, spreading around 20 smaller munitions in a radius of… https://t.co/PF5RCpLfvH pic.twitter.com/2wyrH2JJM3

— Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian (@manniefabian) June 19, 2025

Israel’s Haaretz has also previously reported an instance where submunitions, apparently all from one missile, hit seven populated areas within a zone measuring nearly 17 miles (27 kilometers) across. This would point to a higher release altitude than the other cases.

A higher-altitude release earlier in the terminal phase of a missile’s flight inherently presents greater challenges for defenders trying to intercept the warhead before submunition release. Once the payload is dispersed, one larger target suddenly becomes dozens of smaller ones.

The David’s Sling system’s Stunner interceptors have a reported maximum engagement altitude of around nine miles (15 kilometers). However, various factors, especially the position of the launcher in relation to the target’s flight path, would impact the circumstances in which they would be able to reach the upper end of their envelope.

There are terminal missile defense systems with greater reach, such as the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and the ship-launched Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), but their engagement envelopes still face positional constraints. THAAD would likely have the best chance as its interceptors can reach higher altitudes, in some circumstances, near the end of the transition from the mid-course to the terminal stage of flight.

As with Stunner, releases at very high altitudes would preclude intercept attempts by lower-tier terminal defenses like Patriot entirely.

All of this combines to creates a situation in which mid-course intercept attempts are critical for catching cluster munition-laden missiles before they release their payloads. However, inventories of relevant interceptors to defend targets in Israel have reportedly been dwindling after weeks of persistent Iranian ballistic missile attacks. Mid-course interceptors, like the U.S. Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) and the Israeli Arrow 3, are precious munitions that have generally been stockpiled at lower levels, to begin with. They also take years to procure and cost many millions of dollars each.

Retired Army Col. David Shank echoed much of this when speaking to TWZ about the challenges and complexities of responding to Iranian long-range ballistic missiles with cluster munition payloads. Shank, who served as Commandant of the Air Defense Artillery School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and as the 10th Army Air Missile Defense Commander in Europe, also highlighted that this threat would require the use of higher-end systems to attempt intercepts, either inside or outside of the Earth’s atmosphere, before any submunition payload is released.

“We talk endo/exo-atmospheric. We’re talking THAAD capability, [and] SM-6/SM-3-capable systems,” Shank explained. “And so we’re really talking upper-tier in order to defeat that type of target once it is launched.”

The video below shows THAAD interceptors being fired at incoming Iranian threats in the course of the current conflict.

“Obviously, the goal is to kill it before they even launch it through a variety of means to do that,” he continued. “But if you can’t do that, and there is some type of air launch. And the next step is that upper-tier capability, coupled with other domains.”

In terms of other domains, “let’s just talk space real quick,” he added. “Sensing that launch and detecting it and then passing that information over a network, ultimately to what we’re talking about now,” systems like THAAD and ships armed with SM-3s and SM-6s that are “capable of defeating that threat with endo- and exo-atmosphere capabilities I mentioned.”

Shank underscored the importance of trying to intercept ballistic missiles with cluster warheads at as high altitudes as possible before they can release their payloads.

“Once it hits that point where bomblets are released, so a mechanism within the platform that releases the bomblets, instead of now having one aerial threat, now you obviously have many,” he said. “So, very difficult now to engage multiple aerial threats at one time.”

Shank told us that watching videos of submunitions being dispersed from Iranian ballistic missiles reminded him of past modeling and simulation of such attacks he observed during his time in the Army.

“I’ve seen modeling and simulation, when I was still in uniform years ago, of how we would fight against those types of early-release munitions,” he said. “They had different names then, but it’s very similar to what we’re seeing now in real time.”

That modeling and simulation “would show that overmatch” and that “need to defeat that capability before it does disperse those early-release munitions or those bomblets,” he added.

The retired Army air defense officer noted that the ballistic missile threat ecosystem in the Middle East, in general, is made more complicated by the relatively short distances those weapons travel from launch points in Iran to their targets.

“In the scenario that’s playing out real time, potentially, if they’re launched out of southwestern Iran at the GCCs [Gulf Cooperation Council states on the Arabian Peninsula] – they’re the closest – so minutes, two, three, four minutes,” said Shank.

The time to react is further compressed when facing missiles carrying scatterable payloads. “You’re down to a minute or two.”

Attempts can still be made to intercept submunitions after they are released. At the same time, in addition to the challenge of trying to prioritize and engage dozens of smaller targets, intercept attempts against individual submunitions also impose different costs on the defender. These are targets that are likely to be cheap even compared to lower-cost interceptors. Trying to shoot them down with something like Patriot would create an even more lopsided exchange ratio. Also their singular destructive power is far less than a unitary payload.

“What’s the cost curve look like?” Shank said, speaking generally about how expensive this proposition could become.

“I talk cost curve a lot, [but] you got to recognize the boots and the people that are on the ground on the other end of that, and other national assets and capabilities,” Shank noted. “What is a Soldier’s life worth? … What is an E-3 AWACS aircraft that is high-demand, low-density – what value do you put on something like that, or even a Patriot radar?”

Overall, Iran’s use of ballistic missiles with cluster munition warheads highlights a “very big challenge in front of us, and so when I say in front of us, obviously in front of the warfighters. It’s a lot,” Shank said, highlighting the broader ramifications. “From an operator perspective, you have to discern which target is which, which one should be the priority to defeat first, how many of those bomblets are possibly going to impact dirt and not be a threat, and which ones will be the threat. You’ve got to discern [that] fairly quickly, and then pass on those engagement authorities to the shooters.”

As noted earlier, it is likely that defenders would be challenged to differentiate between missiles carrying submunitions and those with unitary payloads until a release occurs. This can only make it more difficult to prioritize intercept attempts against missiles with cluster munition warheads, especially in the mid-course phase of flight, when it would be most ideal. This could then contribute to a further wearing down of stocks of critical mid-course interceptors.

Shank stressed that this is not an entirely new problem set for the U.S. military, citing the aforementioned modeling and simulations.

“It helped drive discussions on increased [force] structure, increased requirements. It helped recognize, in this scenario [including missiles with cluster munition warheads], adversarial capabilities with regards to munitions,” he explained. “The results, or the findings, personally, were somewhat laughable.”

“We would run a scenario, not necessarily the Middle East, but we’d run a general scenario, and the outcomes would be, well, we need 48 Patriot battalions, as an example. And then that’s a hypothetical number, but it was a very large number,” Shank said. “And, so, when you think through this, at the time, I think the U.S. Army had 14 Patriot battalions. And this was a 2030-2035 scenario, which we’re a lot closer to today, and we have 16 Patriot battalions. And so even if you factored in – which we were not during that modeling and simulation period, or exercise – but even if you factored in our allies and partners, I’m not sure we have 48 Patriot battalions on planet earth.”

The PATRIOT Missile in Action

TWZ has written on several occasions in the past about the strains on the U.S. Army’s Patriot force, which is inadequate to meet current demands. This is reflective of broader air and missile defense capacity limitations across the U.S. military, despite efforts in recent years to change that paradigm. This has been highlighted again in the course of the current conflict with Iran, and would be an even bigger issue should a high-end fight, such as one in the Pacific against China, erupt.

As an aside to all this, Shank pointed to the importance of so-called “left-of-launch” operations to neutralize threats before they are even launched.

“Within the U.S. Army, we had four ‘pillars’ within integrated air and missile defense. It’s attack operations. It’s active air defense, passive air defense, and command and control,” he noted. “And so the attack operations piece is that left of launch piece. And I would also tie today some of our offensive cyber capabilities as part of attack operations.”

“Again, if we can prevent an adversary from launching or from getting to the launch pad,” he added. “So, whether it’s a supply chain disruption, whether it’s a special operations force with eyes on a target forward on a battlefield, or what we possess now [with] some of our surface-to-surface precision munitions, that can influence and defeat those capabilities before they launch.”

In recent years, the Army and other elements of the U.S. military have also pointed to the value of a similar breadth of left-of-launch activities for disrupting and defeating drone attacks, as you can read more about here.

It should be stressed here that, at least from what has been observed so far, Iran has been using ballistic missiles with cluster munition warheads primarily as terror weapons against population centers in Israel. The high-altitude releases have certainly helped those weapons get around terminal defenses like David’s Sling, but have also limited their ability to focus their effects on specific points on the ground. For vengeance attacks that also wear down the supply of mid-course interceptors, this is likely deemed adequate, and even less accurate cluster attacks still put military target under threat.

However, Iran’s demonstration of how this tactic can strain on an opponent’s layered defenses does have serious implications beyond the current conflict and the Middle East. Independent reports have previously highlighted the vulnerability of key U.S. air bases, especially in the Pacific, to attacks by cluster munition-laden ballistic missiles. Aircraft parked in the open and thin-skinned fuel storage sites are at particular risk from such strikes. This ties into a separate and increasingly heated debate about the value of investing in new hardened infrastructure, which TWZ continues to follow closely.

Those assessments are based on lower-altitude releases where submissions can be more focused on particular target areas. However, high-altitude releases could still be focused, at least to a general degree, on saturating very large area targets, including sprawling established air bases. As an example, the two main runways at the U.S. Air Force’s highly strategic Andersen Air Force Base on Guam, are roughly two miles long. They have taxiways and numerous open parking aprons attached to them. There are many other sprawling facilities on the island, too.

For an adversary like China, a barrage of missiles designed to scatter submunitions across larger areas could be relevant in striking a target like Andersen, or anything similarly large. Those weapons could also be used to help overwhelm defenses, eat up valuable interceptors, and otherwise sow chaos as part of layered strikes that also include more precise missiles, as well as drones. Even dispersing submunitions at lower altitudes to achieve better accuracy, but still relatively high within a system like Patriot’s interception envelope, would give a much smaller window to destroy the missile than compared to a traditional unitary warhead. In a future high-end fight in the Pacific, Chinese forces could also choose to employ this capability to attack large population centers, especially in Japan and elsewhere in the First Island Chain, similar to Iran’s attacks against Israel now.

The development of precision-guided submunitions capable of being released via ballistic missile would further change the equation. In 2024, the Guangdong Aerodynamic Research Academy (GARA) in China notably put forward a tangential concept for a hypersonic boost-glide vehicle carrying different kinds of scatterable payloads, including miniature missiles and drones. Ballistic missiles often also reach hypersonic speeds, generally defined as anything above Mach 5, in the terminal phase of flight, and any submunitions they release have to be able to withstand similar stresses.

There is no doubt that China, in particular, has been keenly watching the outcomes of Iranian missile and drone attacks on Israel, as well as other countries in the region. Israel’s integrated air and missile defense network has long been touted as the best in the world. The Gulf Arab states have also spent billions of dollars over the past decade or so to bolster their capabilities and overall capacity in the past decade or so with this exact scenario top of mind. The U.S. military’s higher-end ballistic missile defense posture in the Pacific remains relatively limited, and focused largely on very particular regions, despite years now of efforts to dramatically expand that architecture.

Iran’s ability to launch retaliatory attacks has been significantly degraded over the past five weeks, but it has been able to keep up a persistent tempo regardless. China has a broader array of far more capable ballistic missiles, as well as other stand-off strike weapons, that it would bring to bear en masse in any future high-end fight in the Pacific.

Other countries, such as Russia or North Korea, could look to capitalize on what Iran has demonstrated with its cluster munition missile attack, as well. There has been a burst in the development and proliferation of ballistic missiles, in general, including to non-state actors, globally, in recent years.

If anything, application of these tactics by Iran help make the case for the Trump administration’s highly ambitious and expensive Golden Dome missile defense network, which will put a much higher-focus on mid-course intercept. This includes stationing interceptors in space.

Overall, while Iran has been using high-altitude releases of submunitions from ballistic missiles to help ensure it can continue executing succes attacks on Israel, it is a tactic that could have significant implications in other contexts in conflicts well beyond the Middle East.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Drone footage from Israel shows damage to a factory in Petah Tikva after debris from an intercepted Iranian missile struck the site. The attack comes as Israel says it continues to intercept incoming missiles, on the 35th day of the US-Israeli war on Iran.

WASHINGTON — In his first formal address to the nation since launching a war on Iran more than a month ago, President Trump on Wednesday night repeated a familiar list of claimed successes — and brushed aside setbacks — while providing little clarity on a clear path to ending the conflict.

“We are going to finish the job, and we’re going to finish it very fast. We are getting very close,” the president said from the White House.

Trump said Iran is “no longer a threat,” yet spoke of potentially needing to escalate the conflict and increase bombings on Iran’s energy and oil infrastructure if it continues to fight back.

“If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants, very hard and probably simultaneously,” he said. “We have not hit their oil, even though that’s the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. But we could hit it, and it would be gone, and there’s not a thing they could do about it.”

Trump earlier this week said he expects to pull American forces from Iran within three weeks, and emphasized that the United States does not have to be in the Middle East but that it is only there to “help our allies.”

In his speech, Trump did not lay out a specific timeline for an exit strategy, but said the the U.S. is “on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly.”

“We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We are going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong,” he said. “In the meantime, discussions are ongoing.”

He also repeated his assertions, made for weeks, that the U.S. has basically already defeated Iran and won the war, which he characterized as a “decisive, overwhelming victory.”

He also stressed that it is “very important that we keep this conflict in perspective,” before listing out — by month and day — the length of World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Iraq War.

Prior to Wednesday night’s formal address, Trump had only spoken of the war — which U.S. and Israel launched against Iran on Feb. 28 — in less formal settings, during media gatherings and other public events.

The speech was a key messaging moment for the president, who, 33 days into the war, has struggled to clearly explain the scope and objectives of a conflict that has killed thousands of people in Iran and neighboring countries and disrupted global markets.

Trump repeatedly insisted that the U.S. is doing great, is “in great shape for the future,” and doesn’t need the oil that Iran has put a stranglehold on in the Strait of Hormuz, ignoring the clear effects of the war and those disruptions on the U.S., including on gas prices.

Those effects are already contributing to fractures within Trump’s base. Some have expressed frustration with the administration’s decision to enter a new conflict in the Middle East, concerns that could become a political liability for Republicans ahead of the high-stakes midterm elections in November.

In his remarks, Trump appeared to be speaking to those who have criticized him for deviating from his campaign promises by entering the war, saying he had promised to never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon “from the very first day” he announced his first presidential campaign in 2015.

Trump has repeatedly downplayed the economic pressure the war has placed on Americans, including rising gas prices, arguing that the short-term financial strain is necessary for national security. He has also promised that gas prices will “come tumbling down” when the conflict ends.

“Gas prices will rapidly come back down,” Trump repeated on Wednesday. “Stock prices will rapidly go back up. They haven’t come down very much. Frankly, they came down a little bit, but they’ve had some very good days.”

Trump appeared less energetic during his evening speech than during some of his previous daytime events, where he has consistently maintained an upbeat tone about the war, while offering inconsistent accounts of what his administration aimed to achieve, or how long and what it would take to meet those objectives.

Those inconsistencies were evident even hours ahead of the address. In an interview with Reuters, he said he was not concerned about the enriched uranium held by Tehran — a statement that appeared to undercut a central justification for the war.

“That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that,” Trump said, adding that the U.S. military will be “watching it by satellite.”

In public remarks ahead of the address, Trump said the war was launched to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but also that the U.S. had completely obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities months prior, in separate attacks over the summer. He also said he was worried about Iran’s enriched uranium, wanted the U.S. to take it, and would even consider sending U.S. forces inside Iran to collect it.

There have also been mixed messages about the U.S.’s intentions for Iran’s leadership since Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed at the start of the conflict, leaving a leadership vacuum that was filled by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, a 56-year-old hard-line cleric who Trump initially called an “unacceptable choice.”

As Iran’s clerical rulers maintained a firm grip on the country, Trump administration officials, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, argued that U.S. war objectives had “nothing to do” with Iran’s leadership. But Trump in recent days has repeatedly talked about how “regime change” was achieved.

On Wednesday, Trump said a deal remained within reach with Iran’s new leaders, who he called “less radical and much more reasonable.”

Hours before Trump was to deliver his speech, Rubio posted a video which he began by saying, “Many Americans are asking, ‘Why did the United States have to attack Iran now?’” — an apparent acknowledgment that Trump’s own answers to that question in recent days may have failed to resonate.

Rubio also pushed another rationale for the war that the administration has floated on and off for the past month — saying Iran was building up an arsenal of missiles and drones to shield its nuclear ambitions, and that the war was the “last best chance” for the U.S. to eliminate those weapons capabilities before it was too late.

“We were on the verge of an Iran that had so many missiles and so many drones that nobody could do anything about their nuclear weapons program in the future,” Rubio said. “That was an intolerable risk.”

Others also tried to frame the war narrative Wednesday.

Prior to Trump’s speech, Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian issued a public letter denouncing what he described as “a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives” from the U.S., and arguing Iran is not a threat and has only ever defended itself against U.S. aggression.

He called on the American people to “look beyond the machinery of misinformation” from the Trump administration and reach their own conclusions about the war and its purpose, at one point echoing a question also being asked by some in Trump’s base: “Is ‘America First’ truly among the priorities of the U.S. government today?”

He noted Iran was in the midst of nuclear negotiations with the U.S. when the U.S. attacked it “as a proxy for Israel,” and accused U.S. leaders of committing a “war crime” by targeting Iran’s energy and industrial facilities.

“Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war?” he asked.

Police inspect a strike site in Tel Aviv after a missile hit the city, causing injuries as the US-Israeli war on Iran enters its fifth week. Meanwhile, Washington signals the conflict could soon wind down, even as timelines remain unclear.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Tuesday that he expects the United States to end its involvement in the war with Iran within three weeks, declaring there probably will be “no reason” for American forces to stay in the region even as top defense officials maintain Tehran’s military capabilities have not been fully eliminated.

Trump told reporters during an Oval Office event that he is confident the U.S. objectives in the conflict will be largely achieved by then, whether Iran makes a “deal” with the United States or not.

“If they come to the table that will be good, but it doesn’t matter whether they come or not,” Trump said. “We’ve set them back. It will take 15 to 20 years to rebuild what we have done to them.”

Trump added that he believes the threats to the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil route, will be “all cleared up” by the time the U.S. leaves the region. But if issues remain, he said, that will not be a problem for the United States.

“That’s not for us,” he said. “That will be for whoever is using the strait.”

Trump’s comments came hours after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that, a month into the war, Iran still has the ability to launch offensive missiles, despite ongoing U.S. and Israeli efforts to weaken Tehran’s military capabilities and weapons programs.

“Yes, they will shoot some missiles, but we will shoot them down,” Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing, acknowledging the remaining threat.

The comment, made during the first public briefing on the conflict in nearly two weeks, underscored that despite weeks of intensive U.S. military operations and repeated assertions by Trump that Iran’s military has been “obliterated,” the threats posed by Iranian forces have not been fully eliminated.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the briefing that the U.S. military remains focused on “interdicting and destroying” Iran’s weapons warehouses and facilities.

“We’ve continued to do the work against Iran’s missile, drone and naval production facilities,” Caine said.

Although air and naval strikes have been the primary focus so far, U.S. officials have not ruled out the possibility of ground operations as thousands of American soldiers and Marines have begun arriving in the Middle East.

Hegseth said it is up to Trump to determine whether ground operations in Iran will become the next phase in the conflict, which the president has said he is open to ending through diplomatic talks.

Trump repeated over the weekend that Iran is “begging to make a deal” to end the war, but on Monday, the president threatened to target Iran’s power-generating plans and oil wells and even desalination plants if a “deal is not shortly reached.”

President Trump speaking Tuesday in the Oval Office.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday that the administration will “operate within the confines of the law,” when asked about Trump’s threat to target infrastructure that would potentially harm civilians.

Caine told reporters Tuesday that the U.S. would only “strike lawful targets” when asked about American military considerations for civilian targets.

“We are always thinking about those considerations and developing options to be able to mitigate those risks,” Caine said.

Since the start of the war, Iranian officials have condemned a series of U.S. military attacks that have hit schools, including a Feb. 28 strike at an elementary school that killed at least 175 people, many of them children.

As Trump issues a new wave of threats on key infrastructure, he has at the same time touted ongoing diplomatic talks with Iran and reportedly told aides he’s willing to end the war without resolving Iran’s de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz that has rattled global energy markets.

Americans have also felt the financial pinch because of the war when it comes to energy prices. Gasoline prices in the United States reached an average of $4 a gallon Tuesday, a price that Trump says Americans are willing to pay to endure because “they are also feeling a lot safer.”

“All I have to do is leave Iran, and I will be doing that very soon and, [prices] will come tumbling down,” Trump said.

Hegseth, for example, said those diplomatic talks are “very real,” but stressed that the military pressure will continue alongside those negotiations and that ground operations remain an option.

“Our adversary right now thinks there are 15 different ways we can come at them with boots on the ground. And guess what? There are,” Hegseth said. “If we needed to, we could execute those options on behalf of the president of the United States and this department, or maybe we don’t have to use them at all. Maybe negotiations will work.”

He said the goal was to remain “unpredictable.” Caine added that the presence of U.S. ground forces in the region can serve as a “pressure point” as diplomatic efforts continue.

As the hostilities continued in the region on Tuesday, the State Department warned American citizens in Saudi Arabia that U.S. officials were “tracking reports of threats against locations where American citizens gather.

“We advise U.S. citizens that hotels and other gathering points including U.S. businesses and U.S. educational institutions may be potential targets,” officials wrote in a new warning.

And in Rome, Pope Leo XIV told reporters that he hopes Trump is “looking for an offramp” to end the war in Iran and made an appeal to “decrease the amount of violence,” according to the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, Trump administration officials have faced challenges in securing support from some U.S. allies, an issue that Hegseth and the president have publicly pointed out.

On Tuesday, Trump complained that countries have “refused to get involved” in the war and efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. allies’ access to oil has been affected by Iran’s chokehold on the key waterway as a result of the joint operation launched by U.S. and Israel. But now, Trump wants those countries to deal with the strait.

“All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT,” Trump wrote on his social media website.

Trump added that countries will have to “start learning how to fight” for themselves.

“The U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us,” Trump wrote. “Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!”

In a separate post, Trump singled out France for barring Israeli military planes from flying over its airspace.

“The USA will REMEMBER!!!” Trump posted on his social media website.

On Tuesday, the Italian and U.K. governments reportedly restricted U.S. warplanes from landing in their military bases.

At the Pentagon, Hegseth acknowledged that the U.S. military has faced “roadblocks or hesitations” from U.S. allies when asking for assistance or use of their bases — and said the president is simply noting that “we don’t have much of an alliance.”

“A lot has been shown to the world about what our allies would be willing to do for the United States of America when we undertake an effort of this scope on behalf of the free world,” Hegseth said.

The Pentagon is alarmed by the rate at which Tomahawk cruise missile stocks have been depleted during ongoing operations against Iran, according to officials who spoke to The Washington Post. The latest development highlights a matter of growing importance for the Department of Defense, which is increasingly looking at the resilience of weapons stocks as it envisages a future high-end scenario in the Pacific, especially a conflict over Taiwan.

So far, the U.S. Navy has fired more than 850 Tomahawk missiles in the war with Iran, officials familiar with the matter told The Washington Post. This has prompted discussions about how more missiles could be made available.

As it stands, only a few hundred examples of the critical long-range strike weapon are manufactured each year, meaning the global supply is limited. The exact number available to the U.S. military at any given time is a closely guarded secret, although the article suggested a higher-end figure of between 4,000 and 4,500 Tomahawk missiles on hand at the start of Epic Fury, and a lower-end figure closer to 3,000 missiles. Again, the Tomahawk would be a primary weapon system used in a conflict with China, where the target sets can range into the tens of thousands, and the country’s anti-access umbrella will require the use of standoff munitions like none other in history.

“The Pentagon has tracked the number of Tomahawks used with an increasing focus on what the burn rate will mean for not only a sustained campaign against Iran but for future military operations as well,” the report states.

One official told The Washington Post that the number of Tomahawks left in the Middle East was “alarmingly low,” while another said that without intervention, the Pentagon is closing in on “Winchester” — military slang meaning out of ammunition — for its supply of the missiles in the region.

The Tomahawk also comes with a hefty price tag: up to $3.6 million for some of the more recent versions, and each round can require up to two years to build. The Navy also faces a problem in that, in recent years, only small batches have been purchased: just 57 examples were included in last year’s defense budget.

At the same time, the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that critical munitions stockpiles have not been dangerously depleted in the Iran war.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier this month that the U.S. military “has more than enough munitions, ammo and weapons stockpiles to achieve the goals of Operation Epic Fury laid out by President Trump — and beyond.”

Every indication we have seen is that for some munitions, that is not reality. The war in Ukraine and constant crisis in the Middle East have depleted those stockpiles, and many of the weapons take years to build, with finite caps on how many can be delivered in any given year. This is a story we have been covering for years. The Trump administration is working to greatly expand production of advanced munitions, but even the fruits of those efforts will take years to realize.

UPDATES:

We have concluded updates for the day.

UPDATE: 10:37 PM EST-

A missile and drone attack on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia has led to significant injuries to U.S. personnel. 10 American service members were wounded, two of which were seriously injured. It isn’t clear what damage was done to aircraft, but we have seen at least one tanker destroyed in recent satellite imagery. This is in addition to the attack that damaged multiple tankers and destroyed another earlier in the war.

Ten American service members were wounded in an Iranian drone and missile attack on Prince Sultan Airbase earlier today-Multiple US and Arab officials to the WSJ

Two of the service members are considered seriously wounded. pic.twitter.com/fZFuVQaOCg

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) March 27, 2026

“The injured service members were inside a building on the base that was struck in the attack, the officials said…At least one missile struck the base, as well as several unmanned aerial vehicles…The missile strike is at least the second to strike the base during the war… pic.twitter.com/bI5MrwmEDE

— Steve Lookner (@lookner) March 27, 2026

Trump is threatening to abandon NATO after member nations did not pitch in with opening the Strait:

NOW – Trump suggests the U.S. may abandon NATO countries: “We would’ve always been there for them [NATO], but now based on their actions I guess we don’t have to be.” pic.twitter.com/NKgO72FUvf

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 27, 2026

He is also joking about renaming the Strait after himself or the U.S.:

Trump on Iran:

They have to open up the Strait of Trump, I mean Hormuz… the fake news will say that I said it accidentally.

There are no accidents with me. pic.twitter.com/zQtky4AmZy

— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 27, 2026

Trump is also saying Cuba is next on his list:

As expected, the USS George Washington and its strike group are deploying to the Middle East:

New: The USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier will deploy to U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility, the major combatant command overseeing American military operations against Iran, sources told @JimLaPorta @ellee_watson and me. @CBSNews

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) March 27, 2026

UPDATE: 3:30 PM EST –

Reuters is reporting that Arab states in the Gulf are urging the United States to ensure that any deal with Tehran should do more than end the war. Instead, it must ensure Iranian missile and drone capabilities are “permanently curbed” and that Iran will never again be able to “weaponize” global energy supplies. The agency cites four unnamed Gulf sources.

Meanwhile, it appears that Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait are prioritizing a quick end to the war, while the UAE, Saudi ‌Arabia, and Bahrain ⁠are more willing for the fighting to continue, if their longer-term aims are met in any deal to end the war.

Qatar, Oman and Kuwait are pushing behind closed doors for a swift end to the war. The UAE, Saudi ‌Arabia and Bahrain ⁠say they are ready to absorb an escalation of the war and will not accept a post-war Iran that is still able to use the Strait of Hormuz as a bargaining chip. https://t.co/LI26CkM40E

— Idrees Ali (@idreesali114) March 27, 2026

UPDATE: 3:10 PM EST –

The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has confirmed that Israel struck two of its most important steel production facilities, as well as nuclear sites — presumably including the Khondab Heavy Water Complex (see previous updates).

Araghchi said that Friday’s strikes contradicted President Donald Trump’s pledge to postpone attacking Iran’s energy infrastructure for 10 days after he claimed talks were “going well.” He further said that Tehran would exact a “heavy price” for the attacks.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi:

Israel has hit 2 of Iran’s largest steel factories, a power plant and civilian nuclear sites among other infrastructure. Israel claims it acted in coordination with the U.S.

Attack contradicts POTUS extended deadline for diplomacy.

Iran… pic.twitter.com/rrSF3PkXxs

— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 27, 2026

Saudi Arabia wants the U.S. military to ramp up its attacks on Iran, according to a Saudi intelligence source, and the kingdom is meanwhile reportedly also considering joining the fight directly, alongside the United States and Israel. Whether or not Saudi Arabia also starts launching strikes against Iran remains to be seen, but it is the clearest indication so far that the kingdom might become more deeply involved in the conflict, at least at some level.

A Saudi intelligence source confirmed to The Guardian that Riyadh was urging the United States to both continue and intensify the military campaign against Iran. The same source confirmed similar reporting in The New York Times, which states that Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, had called upon Trump to not curtail Operation Epic Fury, and that the U.S.-Israeli campaign represented a “historic opportunity” to remake the Middle East.

Earlier this week, Trump told journalists that the crown prince is “a warrior. He’s fighting with us.”

At this point, however, there are no reports of active Saudi military involvement in the conflict, but the kingdom is now at least weighing up that option, if peace efforts fail.

This week, The Wall Street Journal and Jerusalem Post both reported that Saudi Arabia has decided to open up additional military bases for the use of the U.S. military in its operations against Iran. Reportedly, the facilities include King Fahd Air Base in Taif in western Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has come under direct Iranian attack since the start of Epic Fury, including a drone strike last week on the oil refinery in Yanbu on the Saudi Red Sea coast.

At the same time, Saudi oil exports are not as vulnerable as those of other countries in the region, so it has not suffered to the same degree as other Gulf states. Much of Saudi Arabia’s oil exports are carried by a pipeline to the Red Sea, purposefully avoiding the Strait of Hormuz.

There is also the threat that the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, which have long waged a separate war with Saudi Arabia, could be drawn into the current conflict if the Saudi position changes.

Were that to happen, the vital Red Sea oil pipeline could become a very prominent target for Iran and the Houthis.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared today that shipping “to and from ports of allies and supporters of the Israeli-American enemies” is prohibited through any corridor or to any destination, Iranian state media reported.

The IRGC added that the Strait of Hormuz remains closed and any attempted transit through the strategic waterway will face “harsh measures.”

There have been reports today of three container ships of various nationalities turning back from the Strait of Hormuz, after warnings were issued by the IRGC Navy.

IRGC:

This morning, following the lies of the corrupt president of America regarding the openness of the Strait of Hormuz, three container ships of different nationalities moved toward the designated corridor for the transit of ships with permits, which were turned back with a… pic.twitter.com/uIvDmzpBQJ

— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 27, 2026

COSCO vessels abort Strait of Hormuz transit attempt amid ongoing instability

Following COSCO’s announcement to resume booking acceptance to Gulf destinations, new developments overnight suggest the situation in the Strait of Hormuz remains highly unstable.

According to… pic.twitter.com/VkrtGwOZgD

— MarineTraffic (@MarineTraffic) March 27, 2026

As we reported in our previous rolling coverage, Trump threatened last Saturday that he would destroy Iranian power plants if Tehran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours.

On Monday, the U.S. leader postponed his threat for five days (until Friday), citing “very good and productive conversations” with Iran on ending the war — something that Tehran has described as “fake news.”

Now, Trump is pushing that deadline back again, pausing his threat to attack Iran’s energy infrastructure for 10 days until April 6, claiming that the request came from Tehran and that talks were going “very well.”

At the same time, there are suggestions that the Iran war, in general, may be of diminishing interest to the U.S. president.

“[Trump] is getting a little bored with Iran,” a senior White House official told Jake Traylor of MS NOW. “Not that he regrets it or something — he’s just bored and wants to move on.”

There are suggestions of something of a rift between Israel and the United States, as to the course the conflict should take.

According to Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, U.S. Vice President JD Vance had a “difficult” call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this week.

Reportedly, Vance said that Israeli assessments for toppling the Iranian regime were not realistic enough, saying, “You were too optimistic in your assessments regarding the overthrow of the regime in Iran.”

According to Barak Ravid, U.S. Vice President JD Vance had a difficult call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday where he said that Israeli assessments for toppling the Iranian regime were not realistic enough, saying “You were too optimistic in your… pic.twitter.com/KfEuGbUkzt

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) March 27, 2026

As we reported earlier this week, F-35Cs from the U.S. Marine Corps are the latest fighters poised to deploy to the Middle East region for Operation Epic Fury. The movement of these aircraft to RAF Lakenheath in England signals what is set to be the first land-based combat deployment for the F-35C, the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter flown by both the Navy and Marine Corps. We now have some better imagery of the first visit of these aircraft to a base in the United Kingdom.

🇺🇸 The Tomcats / VMFA-311

Four Lockheed Martin F-35Cs of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 311 (VMFA-311) based at MCAS Miramar departed RAF Lakenheath on the 26th March as MAZDA 31-34.

This is the first time ever that F-35Cs have visited the United Kingdom.

Probably some of the… pic.twitter.com/1QnZ9TFcea

— Havoc Aviation (@havoc_aviation) March 27, 2026

The United Arab Emirates has told allies that it would participate in a multinational maritime task force intended to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, as it pushes to form a coalition to ensure shipping can pass through the vital waterway, the Financial Times reports.

According to the FT, the UAE has told the United States and other Western nations that it would take part, and that Abu Dhabi would deploy assets from its own navy.

Like Saudi Arabia, the UAE is taking a harder line on Iran, as it comes under regular attack by Tehran’s retaliation strikes.

The same report also states that the UAE is working on a UN Security Council resolution with Bahrain to provide any future task force with a mandate.

The UAE is pushing to form a multinational naval force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

It’s willing to deploy its own navy and is lobbying allies and the UN for support.

Only Bahrain has backed the plan so far, while others remain cautious.

Source: FT pic.twitter.com/AWBfpyeTbf

— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 27, 2026

According to an assessment from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C., the U.S. strike campaign has settled into a “sustainable pace of bombing,” striking between 300 and 500 targets per day. U.S. forces are also now mainly using stand-in weapons, rather than more expensive standoff munitions. As a result of the “munitions transition,” the costs of running the war have been greatly reduced — although not without risk to aircraft and airmen.

“The U.S. strike campaign has settled into a sustainable pace of bombing between 300 and 500 targets per day. U.S. forces also now predominantly use far less expensive, short-range munitions.” https://t.co/iQm636cWwO

— Shashank Joshi (@shashj) March 27, 2026

The Pentagon is looking at sending up to 10,000 additional ground troops to the Middle East, the Wall Street Journal has reported, quoting Defense Department officials. Having more troops in the region would give Trump more military options and greater bargaining power, as he seeks to bring Tehran to the negotiating table.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has said that “it should not be necessary” for U.S. forces to invade Iran. “I think we can get this resolved without it,” he added.

House Speaker Mike Johnson tells @BretBaier, “It should not be necessary” for U.S. forces to invade Iran. “I think we can get this resolved without it.”

— Lucas Tomlinson (@LucasFoxNews) March 27, 2026

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also suggested that the U.S. military will not need to deploy ground troops to accomplish U.S. objectives in the war, although he also reflected on the importance of giving Trump “maximum optionality” for any contingency.

NEW: Secretary of State Marco Rubio tells me at the airport before leaving France that the US does NOT need to deploy ground troops to accomplish its objectives in the #IranWar‌.

But part of the cabinet’s job is to always give President Trump maximum optionality, he adds. pic.twitter.com/oYQrmF6Fdy

— Eric Martin (@EMPosts) March 27, 2026

So far, it seems that Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has not yet agreed to negotiations.

Should the U.S. military conduct some kind of ground operation, various energy infrastructure within the United Arab Emirates (UAE) would come under Iranian attack, with a target list published by Iran’s state-backed Fars News Agency. Designated targets include desalination plants, nuclear power plants, and other power hubs across the UAE.

Iran’s state-backed Fars News Agency has released a target list of energy infrastructure within the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that they plan to strike if the U.S. conducts a ground operation against the strategically and economically important Kharg Island or any other Iranian… pic.twitter.com/PbwM14SPIZ

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) March 26, 2026

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) say they carried out further strikes on targets in Tehran early on Friday. A brief military statement said Israeli forces “completed a wide-scale wave of strikes targeting infrastructure of the Iranian terror regime in the heart of Tehran.”

In a separate statement, the IDF said that it had also struck “ballistic missiles and aerial defense systems production sites across Iran.” It reported hitting missile launchers and storage sites in western Iran, as well as missile production sites in the capital. Other targets apparently included Iran’s primary facility for the production of naval cruise missiles and sea mines in Yazd, Iran.

“The site was used for the planning, development, assembly, and storage of advanced missiles intended for launch from cruise platforms, submarines, and helicopters toward both mobile and stationary maritime targets,” the IDF said.

🎯🌊 STRUCK: Iranian Regime’s primary facility for the productions of missiles and sea mines in Yazd, Iran

The site was used for the planning, development, assembly, and storage of advanced missiles intended for launch from cruise platforms, submarines, and helicopters toward…

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) March 27, 2026

The latest round of U.S.-Israeli strikes hit a heavy water reactor in central Iran, Iranian media reported today.

“The Khondab Heavy Water Complex was targeted in two stages by aggression from the American and Zionist enemy,” the Fars News Agency reported, citing Hassan Ghamari, an official in the central Markazi province. Fars and other media said there were no casualties or radiation leaks from the site.

The facility is intended to produce the heavy water used to cool nuclear reactors. As a byproduct of this process, plants of this kind also produce plutonium, which can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. This would offer another route to procuring a nuclear warhead, other than enriched uranium.

There are reports out of Iran that recent U.S. and Israeli airstrikes targeted key steel production facilities. The semi-official Iranian Mehr news outlet claims that steel plants were hit in the central Iranian city of Isfahan, with separate attacks on the Khuzestan Steel and Mobarakeh Steel factories.

In response to an inquiry from The Jerusalem Post, the Israeli military said that it was not aware of any Israeli strikes on the facilities.

Reports from Iran suggest that all three of Iran’s largest steel production plants were struck in a coordinated targeted strikes.

This could substantially affect the national steel industry and manufacturing pic.twitter.com/mmrnyDS8UX

— Ben Tzion Macales (@BenTzionMacales) March 27, 2026

The U.S. military has deployed ​uncrewed surface vessels (USVs) for patrols as part of its operations against Iran, the Pentagon has said, according to the Jerusalem Post. The specific type of drone boats that have been deployed was not reported, although this is not the first time that the U.S. military has used USVs in the region, notably in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has accused the U.S. military of using Persian Gulf citizens as human shields.

“From outset of this war, U.S. soldiers fled military bases in GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] to hide in hotels and offices. They use citizens as human shield. Hotels in U.S. deny bookings to officers who may endanger customers. GCC hotels should do same,” Abbas Araghchi said in a post on his X account.

IRGC:

The cowardly American and Zionist forces, who lack the courage and ability to defend their own military bases, are attempting—out of fear of the firepower of Islamic fighters—to use civilian locations and innocent people as human shields.

Since it is our duty to eliminate…

— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 27, 2026

As we reported yesterday, Iranian bombardment of U.S. military facilities in the wider region does appear to be driving the relocation of soldiers, although there is no suggestion of a human shield policy.

According to a report from The New York Times, citing military personnel and American officials, a significant number of U.S. troops have been forced to relocate from their bases to hotels and office spaces throughout the region.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claims that since the start of the war, US troops have left military bases in the GCC to shelter in civilian spaces, effectively using residents as human shields, and urges Gulf hotels to follow US counterparts in denying accommodation to… pic.twitter.com/MJrUht8Di1

— Al Arabiya English (@AlArabiya_Eng) March 26, 2026

Reports in the Lebanese media suggest that an Israeli strike hit Beirut’s southern suburbs early today. Several explosions were heard in the area, which is considered a Hezbollah stronghold. Israel has previously issued evacuation warnings for the area but provided no specific warning in advance of Friday’s strike, AFP said.

Kuwait’s Shuwaikh port was hit by drones, causing material damage with no injuries reported, the Kuwait Ports Authority said today.

The international airport in Kuwait City also appears to have been on the receiving end of recent Iranian attacks, with a significant blaze there today, after a reported drone strike.

🔥 Fire breaks out at fuel tanks at Kuwait International Airport following an Iranian drone attack on Thursday

Firefighters are reportedly still battling the blaze pic.twitter.com/ti0r1RCAH1

— Anadolu English (@anadoluagency) March 27, 2026

Iran-linked hackers today claimed they had accessed ​FBI Director Kash Patel’s personal email inbox, Reuters reports. The group claims to have published photographs of the ‌director and other documents on the internet.

Satellite imagery of the Yazd missile complex, one of the most important in Iran, from earlier this month, reveals the shadow of an apparent Khorramshahr missile before being launched toward Israel. The original Khorramshahr first emerged publicly in 2017, and it is assessed to be derived, at least in part, from a North Korean design. It is a liquid-fuel medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) with a claimed range of around 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers).

Recent analysis from ThePrint, an Indian digital news platform, suggests that Iran has launched around 4,300 missiles and drones since the start of the current conflict, with the majority of these targeting Gulf nations, rather than Israel. The analysis states that Tehran has launched at least 1,815 drones and 372 missiles at the UAE since the start of the war. Israel, in comparison, has faced roughly 930 missile and drone attacks in the same period.

Interesting number crunching by my colleague @Keshav_Paddu

4,300 missiles & drones since day 1 of war: Gulf nations, not Israel faced brunt of #Iran’s retaliation#Israel, in comparison, has faced roughly 930 missile, drone attacks in the same period.https://t.co/WLOancpE8z

— Snehesh Alex Philip (@sneheshphilip) March 27, 2026

In related news, Reuters today published an assessment stating that, so far, the Pentagon can only confirm that about a third of the Iranian missile arsenal has been destroyed.

Satellite imagery from yesterday indicates that the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford has left Naval Support Activity Souda Bay in Crete, Greece, escorted by three patrol boats. The supercarrier went to Souda Bay for repairs after a fire broke out in the laundry area while underway in the Middle East on March 12, injuring two sailors.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says that his country has “reached an important arrangement” with Saudi Arabia on defense cooperation. The agreement between the defense ministries of the two countries is almost certain to involve counter-drone technologies and expertise.

“We are ready to share our expertise and systems with Saudi Arabia and to work together to strengthen the protection of lives,” Zelensky wrote on X. “Now into the fifth year, Ukrainians are resisting the same kind of terrorist attacks — ballistic missiles and drones — that the Iranian regime is currently carrying out in the Middle East and the Gulf region. Saudi Arabia also has capabilities that are of interest to Ukraine, and this cooperation can be mutually beneficial.”

We have reached an important Arrangement between the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and the Ministry of Defense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on defense cooperation. The document was signed ahead of our meeting with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud.… pic.twitter.com/j3aXzLXSNr

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) March 27, 2026

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Iranian rescue workers have been pulling survivors and bodies out of a residential building in south Tehran after a US-Israeli missile strike. Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi was at the scene.

Iran is accusing the U.S. of dropping anti-tank landmines in an area near one of its underground missile facilities (often referred to as missile cities) that it claims killed several people. While we cannot independently verify the provenance of the images provided by Iranian media or the casualty claims, the use of these munitions would make sense. Despite an intense bombing campaign against Iran’s missiles and launch sites, the Islamic Republic is still firing these weapons at targets across the Middle East. A highly-targeted area-denial campaign around specific missile facilities using mines could help reduce that threat.

The accusation about the landmines came Thursday morning in the form of social media posts by Iran’s official Tasnim news agency.

“These explosive packages resemble ready-made canned food, are somewhat larger than tuna cans, and contain explosives that detonate after being opened, causing casualties,” Tasnim wrote on Telegram. “These packages have been dropped in the skies over the southern suburbs of Shiraz, especially in the village of Kafari, and unfortunately have caused the martyrdom of several people in these areas.”

The Tasnim posts included several pictures of what appear to be BLU-91/B scatterable anti-tank landmines.

.

In its story about the landmines, the Bellingcat open source investigations collective geolocated some to the village of Kafari, Iran…,” the organization stated, citing a video from Canadian lawyer and activist Dimitri Lascaris, who is in Shiraz. 

“This video shows at least three mines approximately two kilometres away from the entrance to what is reported to be Shiraz South Missile Base, an Iranian ‘missile city,’” Bellingcat added. The video shows several of the mines scattered in a village.

In Major Escalation, Epstein Regime Rains Electro-Magnetic Mines Down On Iranian Village

“The US is the only participant in the war known to possess these mines,” Bellingcat posited. “They were developed after the US stopped supplying arms to Iran. A review of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) Arms Transfer Database, and US Major Arms Sales does not show any transfers of these mines to Israel.”

We cannot independently verify the origin of the mines seen in the video, but it seems unlikely that Iranians would have access to them. Still, it is possible they did, or have produced dummies or clones, and placed them there for propaganda value. U.S. Central Command declined to say if these mines are being used during Epic Fury.

Iran has been able to preserve a number of its missile launchers, which could involve moving them in and out of underground facilities like the one near Shiraz or hiding them elsewhere in the area and moving them to designated launch points. This is occurring even after these facilities have been repeatedly bombed. These aerial attacks have focused on keeping their entrances caved in. These strikes are on top of the vast, resource-consuming interdiction effort to hunt for and strike launchers that are exposed. So, continued launches from these areas would be a major reason why resorting to deploying anti-tank mines there makes sense and would have a high military value.

Designed to attack tanks and trucks, the mines could destroy or disable the launchers and likely the payloads they carry. They could also make roads to and around the underground missile cities unpassable. Even limiting where the launchers could go within these areas could make them more vulnerable.

The mines are part of the Gator family of systems that includes the air-delivered BLU-91/B and a companion anti-personnel type (BLU-92/B). Different mixes of the mines can be loaded with several types of bomb-like air-dropped dispensers, which break open after release to disperse their payloads over a targeted area.

Each mine and dispenser combination has its own designation. Cluster munitions loaded with Gator mines can be employed by many of the U.S. combat aircraft known to be taking part in Operation Epic Fury today, including bombers. The last known combat employment of Gator mines appears to have been during the Gulf War in 1991. There were unconfirmed reports of Gator use in the opening phases of the war in Afghanistan in 2001.

Air-delivered BLU-91s and BLU-92s both have box-like “aeroballistic adaptors.” That feature is absent on related mines in U.S. Army service that are laid via launchers mounted UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and trucks.

From a humanitarian viewpoint, there is concern about collateral damage from civilians inadvertently setting them off or picking them up without knowing what they are. Gator mines are not known to have anti-handling features but can still be dangerous to move. They can also be preset to self-destruct after four hours, 48 hours, or 15 days. It’s worth noting that the mines do not always detonate themselves or otherwise function intended, as is the case with all munitions.

That being said, the missile cities are removed from urban areas and sit within large, tightly controlled perimeters. Mining these areas, where civilians have no access, would present a far lower danger to innocent lives than mining random roads or ones near military bases in urban areas.

Of note is that in terms of the mines themselves, the pictures circulating online so far only appear to show BLU-91s having been used in Iran. These are readily distinguishable from BLU-92 anti-personnel mines, which have four ports on top of their main bodies through which spring-loaded trip wires are fired after the mine activates. The tops of the BLU-91s are flat. Gator mine cluster munitions are typically loaded with some amount of both types of mine, but types containing only BLU-91s have at least been tested in the past.

The distinction is important. While the U.S. is not a signatory to the international treaty known as the Ottawa Convention which banned the application or storage of anti-personnel landmines, it does not allow the use of them. There are no such preclusions against anti-tank mines.

It remains to be seen whether the mines, if truly dropped by the U.S., are an isolated incident or part of a broader campaign as Epic Fury drags into a second month. However, deploying an area denial capability like air-dropped anti-tank mines in places where the missiles are known to be stored and around known launch points could prove to be an effective measure in trying to stop Iran’s barrages from continuing.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com