missiles

Qatar says negotiations between Oman and Iran over the future of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz are making major progress.

Aug. 11 (UPI) — At least nine people were killed and 25 injured in Russian strikes targeting Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk and Kyiv with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky saying that Zaporizhzhia, where six people were killed and 19 injured, was hit with North Korean-made missiles.

In a post on X on Tuesday morning, Zelensky said emergency response efforts were still in progress dealing with the aftermath of a “vicious” attack on the city of Zaporizhzhia that involved North Korean ballistic missiles, Zircon hypersonic missiles and guided aerial bombs.

“It was a vicious attack, calculated to inflict maximum damage specifically on civilian infrastructure. Unfortunately, as of now, six people have been reported killed and nineteen wounded in the city. First responders are continuing to extinguish a fire at one of the impact sites,” wrote Zelensky.

He said a missile strike also damaged an infectious diseases hospital building and businesses in Kyiv and the Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv and Donetsk regions also came under attack.

The other fatalities were all in Dnipropetrovsk, where five districts were attacked with artillery and drones, with Gov. Oleksandr Ghanza reporting in an online update that a middle-aged man was killed in the Synelnyky area, east of Dnipro, a teenage boy was killed In Kryvyi Rih and one person was killed in Pavlohrad.

The Russian Defense Ministry said it launched strikes against hubs for transport and logistics in Kyiv and Zaporizhzhia, as well as “defense industry” targets. Officials in Russia’s southwest said a man was killed and two were injured in a Ukrainian drone attack on the Voronezh Region with two warehouses belonging to e-commerce giant Wildberries set ablaze.

Zelensky said more than 120 drones were sent into Ukraine as frontline regions continued to experience what he described as “drone terror” on an almost daily basis, with power outages in Kherson and Kharkiv after strikes overnight.

“Every step Russia takes — increasing ballistic missile production, bringing in North Korean equipment, preparing for mobilization — all of this shows that Moscow is preparing not for peace, but for escalation. And the world needs to respond now, not wait. More sanctions pressure specifically on enterprises that fuel Russia’s war, more air defense assistance for Ukraine — all of this is needed to give peace a chance,” said Zelensky.

Tuesday’s strikes came hours after Zelensky warned in a televised address Monday that North Korea was gaining battlefield experience and boosting its military capabilities through its support for Russia, posing a growing threat to U.S. allies and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Zelensky said North Korea had supplied the Russian military with additional ballistic missiles and was preparing to deploy tens of thousands of troops to Russia.

On Sunday, Zelensky called for increased co-operation between Seoul and Kyiv, particularly on air defense systems, warning that North Korea was preparing to send an additional 30,000 to 50,000 personnel to Russia on top of the 15,000 it already provided.

As a keen reminder of the threats Ukraine is facing, Fire Point CEO Iryna Terekh had to stop a recent interview with TWZ to scramble to a shelter as Russian ballistic missiles were approaching. A 35-year-old architect by training, Terekh helped turn Fire Point from a Ukrainian start-up making weapons in a garage into a leading producer of indigenously made long-range strike drones and missiles, and we talked to her about the company’s weapons and future plans. 

Fire Point’s FP-1 and FP-2 drones have been striking Russian targets to devastating effect and its heavy-hitting Flamingo cruise missiles are adding a new level of long-range threat. 

Beyond these, Fire Point is developing the FP-9 ballistic missile to hit targets up to about 500 miles away and the FP-7.x ballistic missile interceptor, intended to provide a more plentiful and cheaper alternative to Patriot munitions.

Among the many topics discussed, Terekh talked about the status of the FP-9 ballistic missile program, roadblocks to fielding an indigenous Patriot interceptor alternative, how her firm is using AI, why the FP-2 drones were so successful against Russian ships in the Sea of Azov and the challenges of building complex weapons systems while under constant Russian fire. Some of the questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity.

Q: Tell me how Fire Point came to build drones and missiles.

A: Well, we started with the intention to win the war and destroy the Russian Empire, some knowledge in engineering, physics, mathematics, and industrial production, and we started with the FP-1 drone, which was basically the idea behind this. There were two ideas. First is to make an analog of the Shahed drone by technical characteristics, and the second was to utilize a huge stock of Fab 50 bombs. It’s an old Soviet aviation bomb. There was a rumor that there were dozens of thousands of these in Ukrainian stocks, so we decided to build a platform to carry this huge stock.

When we finished designing the aircraft, it turned out that this rumor was just a rumor about the huge stocks of Fab 50s. But anyway, this was a start for FP-1. And when we started to really scale up the production and design a model that would be fitting to be scaled at volume, then we were forced to build a lot of satellite productions around the main production because very soon we met all the possible bottlenecks. And while developing this huge satellite network of productions of the spare parts of different components, we understood that probably we now have enough missiles to go into missile design. That’s the short story.

Footage of the production and testing of the FP-1/2 attack UAVs and the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile

Q: The Flamingo ground-launched cruise missile, which broke cover last fall, has a claimed range of about 1,800 miles. It uses Ivchenko AI-25 turbofan engines that are commonly found on the L-39 Albatros jet trainer. How many of these engines still exist and how long can you sustain production with those surplus powerplants without switching to something that can be produced en masse cheaply today?

A: First of all, the AI-25 TL was the initial engine with which we started to fly, but this is just one of five different engines that we use on Flamingo. So it’s not the only engine, and Flamingo was initially designed to be flexible and to be able to work with different types of engines. So we can really widen up the stock of used engines. 

But at the same time, we started to develop our own turbojet engine with the same design bureau that designed the 25 TL many years ago, and we built it specifically for the purpose of UAV, not for aviation. And it took quite some time, more than a year and a half. And now we are assembling our first 10 prototypes of the future turbojet fan engines of our production.

The AI-25 turbofan engine, part 1

Q: And when will that be ready?

A: As soon as possible. Obviously it is harder to make a turbojet engine than it is to make a missile.

Q: What’s the timeline?

A: The goal is to finish testing all the samples and making all the improvements by the end of this year, and next year go into mass production. 

Q: Fire Point has said that it aims to increase Flamingo production to a daily rate of at least seven missiles by October of this year. This would translate to 2,555 built annually. How can you make this happen?

A: We did not increase the production to these numbers. This is the maximum capacity of our production that we built. Unfortunately, since Ukraine was waiting for the funds coming from the European Union loan, the orders did not match the maximum capacity of the production, so the production was lowered to a lower percentage of what it could possibly provide. We expect to ramp it up to the named number. Probably by the end of this year or beginning next year. It depends on how the contracts will arrive. 

Q: How does the Flamingo do its job? Can you run us through what mission preparation, launch, navigation, impact and after action activities look like? 

A: I personally place Flamingo in the drone category, despite the fact that it’s a big missile, because the process looks almost the same. 

Of course, there are nuances that we need to count on during mission planning, but the mission planning is on the side of Ukrainian armed forces. In terms of our company, as a manufacturer, we do a very detailed after-action review. After each mission, we understand how it reacted to electronic warfare. We were able to do a very effective countermeasure against on-ground air defense systems like Pantsir and Tor. So basically, there is just one threat that is really left for Flamingo, and this is aviation. Against this, we cannot really fight. Otherwise, it’s half of the technical perfection of the missile and half of the art of mission planning. So, to fly as low as possible to plan the mission correctly, to understand the altitudes, we cannot afford the luxury of doing the ramp up before the final attack, because then we would be visible to radars. 

Therefore, when you plan the ramp up picket, it is much easier than to plan a very smooth, almost horizontal few degrees attack. 

Anyway, our armed forces already mastered this as well, and from our side, it is important that we provide a navigation solution that is completely resistant towards electronic warfare, jamming, spoofing, any sort of interference, and this we did. So we see the improvements after each mission on both sides, both on our software part and on the mission planning part.

Q: What navigation and target package suites are available for Flamingo at this time? What about in the future?

A: I don’t want to name exact systems for obvious reasons, but it’s a combination of a [Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna] antenna, inertial navigation system, of specific software, of additional data sources, and sometimes it’s visual navigation as well.

Q: Olena Kryzhanivska, a defense fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, recently told the New York Times that the Flamingo missiles have shown “low effectiveness,” possibly because of accuracy problems and that the “results that we see are not the ones that Ukraine would like to have.” How do you respond?

A: Honestly, I don’t respond to such things at all because in the end, we are no magicians. If anybody could create a cruise missile in one year and then already pay back all of the money spent on this missile with the effect of the damage on the enemy’s territory, they can show better and more effective results.

Ukraine’s New FP-5 Missile Has Twice the Range of a Tomahawk | WSJ Equipped

Q: Let’s talk about the FP-9. Ukraine getting its own ballistic missile is a big deal. What went into developing it and what can you tell us about its design?

A: The FP-9 is a missile that we planned would be able to reach Moscow with a range of 850 kilometers. It required building the whole new infrastructure specifically for casting solid rocket propellants in such a huge amount. The engine itself is 4.6 tons of solid rocket fuel, compared to FP-7, where it’s just one ton of solid rocket fuel, so a whole set of factories of preparation infrastructure. 

Anyway, as we are speaking now, the engines are being cast. Therefore, we expect test launches soon, as soon as possible. The navigation solution, everything else on this missile is already ready. So basically, it’s the last touch on the engine, and we are ready to start. 

Ukrainian FP-9 ballistics ready to strike! 800 km range – MOSCOW is now within reach!

Q: So when will it be operational? It hasn’t been used yet, right?

A: No, we are preparing for the first flight.

Q: When do you think that will be?

A: I understand the curiosity behind the question on when exactly this would happen, but we have our specific dates in mind where we are aiming. But I don’t like naming them because a lot of things could go wrong on the way, so my expectation is that this would be autumn. I would not specify better at this moment.

Q: For the FP-9 ballistic missile, Ukraine had to build a new solid-fuel engine casting facility. How difficult was that and what is the status of it?

A: Obviously, it was quite a challenge because we do have such a factory. Ukraine had such a factory in Pavlograd, but Pavlograd is under constant attack, and also they’re using a little bit different technology for that. We understand if we do not build an alternative to Pavlograd, then we will have no future for the missile program. 

So we built multiple factories in Ukraine and one in Denmark for the sake of solving this task. Of course, it’s extremely challenging. It’s equipment. It’s mixers for casting. It’s a specific post-curing process, casting process. This is a dangerous production, and we had to reinvent in a way this whole technology almost from scratch. Therefore, it was quite a challenge, but I like how it went out. Since we are already casting a lot of solid rocket fuel for smaller rockets, I like how it’s developing and how it’s going. 

Q: How difficult is it to put all this together from so many dispersed locations?

A: Well, the logistics are hell, to be frank (chuckles). But we do not have the luxury to have the factory in a classic way, with the walls and roof, we if when I say factory and we have 90 of them in the moment, when I say factory I mean this whole ecosystem with logistics, with warehouses, everything is hidden and dissolved in a way that the critical components are always duplicated, triplicated, quadruplicated. It’s a lot of additional investments and, of course, a lot of risks and a lot of additional time for logistics specifically, but again, we do not have any other choice. Therefore, the factory in this matter is a whole ecosystem.

Q: Fire Point claims that Ukraine can build missiles faster than Russia by building cheaper, less complex missiles. How would that work?

A: I personally believe that if you want to build something in volume, you need to think of this from day one of future product development, and this is probably a critical thing that we changed in this culture at Fire Point. So understanding how the production works is a very important thought to be established as a fundament of the future development. So in practice, how it looks when we start the R&D process, our chief designer has a lot of ideas. But I have the power to interrupt and to block any idea that will not be possible to mass produce later. Therefore, we are rethinking and rethinking until we get the solution that is possible to mass produce. 

And when you think of this in the design stage, then of course it is easier to do it. In fact, and also technological sovereignty is very important for all the critical components and processes. We have our own capabilities inside Fire Point, all the critical, even the machine production. So we do cover lots of things. We rely at least on subcontractors and contractors, and we try to set up the maximum control over the supply chain. 

Author’s note: At this point Terekh stops talking and looks at her phone.

Terekh: I am looking to see if this is a ballistic missile attack or not. Yeah, it’s ballistics. So, I would be glad to maybe talk more with you on this point, but I have to evacuate now to the shelter. The flight time is like two minutes.

Author’s note: A week later, we continued the conversation.

Q: Can you talk about the arrangement with Diehl Defense to build Flamingos in Germany? How does this help Fire Point and Ukraine? Can you provide any details about the new seeker Diehl is working to outfit the weapon with and any other details about how Diehl will improve the munition?

A: I cannot provide many details yet because the negotiations are ongoing. But basically, in terms of Germany, we are in negotiations with Diehl Defense, they initiated this discussion. We, I’m sure, can be a mutually interested industrial partner for each other. There is something that Diehl can bring to the table in terms of technology. There is definitely something that we could bring to the table in terms of technology and industrial knowledge.

So I consider such types of negotiations and cooperations very useful. Because the way big primes rethink their future by learning from Ukrainian companies and at the same time using their legacy knowledge for future development – I think is very fruitful for both sides. And of course, it all started by an initiative of the German government because everybody wants to have long-range capabilities of domestic production. 

Q: Let’s talk about the FP-1 drone. Created in 2023, it has been widely used in Ukrainian attacks on targets deep inside Russia. How did you ramp up production of this system and improve it to keep it effective against always adapting Russian defenses?

A: At the beginning, I thought that just constantly analyzing the feedback in a correct way, and then adapting and making changes would be enough. But from today’s point of view, I would say that’s definitely not enough. You have to be so deep in the context of what’s happening on the front line, and in general of the development of enemy tactics of electronic warfare. So you have to be able to make some sort of forecast and try to predict what will happen in the future, find a solution for this future problem, test it, validate it, and when the problem actually comes, you have to have something on your shelf already ready for solving this solution. 

So we are trying to trick the timelines a little bit, even if in some cases, my forecasts are not correct. Eighty percent of the time, they are correct, and that’s definitely enough to always keep up in this technological race. 

You can see video of an FP-1 drone being used in an attack below:

Q: There are now two configurations of this drone, one for longer range and one for a larger warhead. Can you talk about them and how they were adapted to be useful over such a wide range of target sets?

A: You know, when we just made the FP-1, it was just 700 kilometers, and then we found a way to increase the distance and increase the accuracy as well. The same logic happened with FP-2. It started as a middle strike of 200 kilometers, and now it’s up to 500 kilometers. So these are gentle improvements, or as I call them, nuanceful improvements. You can work with an engine. You can work with engine consumption. You can work with reassembling some part of the aircraft in a way that is more aerodynamically effective. So when you make a product that you are satisfied with, there is always room for improvement, to be frank. 

In the case of the longer-ranged version of FP-1, it is a little bit more complicated in production. So it’s not possible, at the moment, to make 300 of them per day, but it allows us to go such long distances. It has a different wing. This wing contains additional fuel tanks, and there are also some minor improvements here and there that provide this result.

Q: And the FP-2?

A: The same logic. It could be different changes, but the same logic.

Q: Can you provide any insights into the ongoing Sea of Azov campaign against Russian shipping that relies heavily on the FP-2 drone? What makes this a good weapon for such attacks?

A: It is controlled manually. There is additional AI assistance on that control. So basically, that makes it the best option to fight dynamic moving targets. Especially, it has multiple options for content streamline. I would explain it like this. So, in case one type of connectivity does not work, there are other options for this as well, and it is very effective when you are controlling your aircraft in real time. Then the pilot can target the most vulnerable part of the ship, and unfortunately, as far as I can see, these are the only sanctions that our enemy really understands.

Q: What other options are there when one type of connectivity doesn’t work?

A: I don’t really want to share exactly what the setup we use is because the more detailed I will explain it, the faster the enemy will find the countermeasures for this.

The following video shows Fire Point drones being used to attack Russian ships in the Sea of Azov:

Q: News reports state that you look to arm this drone with rockets to take on multiple ground targets at standoff ranges. Can you talk about this concept and how you aim to see it be used on the battlefield? 

A: Actually, the FP-1 and FP-2 are pretty universal platforms. There are so many versions of this that we didn’t announce it publicly yet, however these airplanes can make a lot of different side quests, and one of these side quests is of course carrying uncontrolled short-range missiles. We do have a huge stockpile of this missile in the Ukrainian army that is not largely used, and it is the way to utilize them with the most possible sense. It helps to counterattack the mobile interceptor groups, and when the aircraft is done with letting the missiles out, it can go further for the initial mission. So it’s really like a side quest. 

Q: What kind of rockets are you talking about?

A: Old Soviet 57mm S-5 rockets.

Soviet 57mm S-5KO High Explosive Anti-Tank FRAG Aircraft Rocket #military #coldwar #airforce #rocket

Q: How many S-5 rockets can it carry?

A: But it could be any, to be frank. But that does not matter much.

Q: But how many can the drone carry?

A: Eight.

You can see an FP-1 drone launching rockets in this video:

Q: How do you use AI in these drones and other weapons? Where is this headed in the future? 

A: Since we are using quite a big platform, our user experience with AI is slightly different from smaller FPV or reconnaissance drones. We use it for visual map-matching for final target corrections. But I do not say that it’s largely changing the narrative of how we’re using drones because I still believe there should be a person behind making a final decision. So we do use AI a lot in our daily work in software development, in technical consultancy, but in terms of directing the flight, it is still in the end a human who makes the final decision.

Q: Do you use man-in-the-loop or man-on-the-loop?

A: Both.

Q: Can you provide more details about how you use AI in the terminal phase of an attack?

A: There are multiple versions for this type of terminal work. At the moment, we are mostly at the point of collecting more precise data for more inertial platforms like ours. At the same time, it helps to correct and lead the aircraft if the connectivity is lost for quite some time because it has the target recognition possibility and the final targeting as well. But it should still be human-in-the-loop at this moment. 

Q: Where is this headed in the future? 

A: You know, AI companies are now hiring philosophers to decide on where it’s heading in the future. My perfect scenario would be that we will use AI for finding alternative deterrence options. What I mean is, instead of just relying on nukes as a deterrent, it could be that we will build some sort of drone walls, or we will operate the kill zones where the decision-making would be solely on AI. 

There are pros and cons to this as well. For example, we all knew of cases where Russians were infiltrating their agents in the governments of different countries, and when it came to making a fair response to barbarian actions, somebody sabotaged this fair response. So probably AI could be an instrument to provide an immediate response for aggressive actions in the future of whoever this could be, the aggressor. I don’t have a clear answer. Obviously, we are all thinking about this: to what point we can delegate the responsibility, and it’s still an open question.

Q: Satellite communications are also key to long-range strikes against dynamic targets like ships. How has the miniaturization of this technology changed how your products are used? 

A: Miniaturization is crucial, but that is all the detail I can share at this stage.

Q: Let’s talk about Project Freya and the FP-7.x interceptor missile you are developing. Who is providing the seeker to make this work? What is the timeline and what are the expected costs per interceptor? And how will it compare to PAC-3 Patriot?

A: We are working with two European and one Ukrainian company on secret development, and I don’t know which of the options would be the fastest out of this. The final goal is to make the whole interceptor cheaper than 1 million euros. I think with the expected price range of the seekers that we discussed with our partners, this is doable. Probably not from the first iterations, but definitely in serial production. 

Q: What seekers are you using, and from which companies?

A: It is [imaging infrared] seekers. One deal is public, so one option is from Diehl Defense that we are currently integrating. The other is – I don’t know if they’re comfortable with public disclosure yet, so I have to talk with them first.

Q: What’s the timeline for this?

A: Nobody can answer at this point. So the deep technical integration is happening right now. We expect, of course, it to be in the nearest months, because the seekers aside, we are on a good level of readiness. But nobody can answer this point. 

Q: What’s the major issue that still has to be overcome?

A: On technical integration?

Q: On being able to produce the interceptor at scale.

A: If we look at everything but the seeker, our production is already ready, even for mass production, and we finished all the tests on this matter. But the amount in which we will have seekers and their accuracy and the results of technical integration – it’s still something that we are cooking at the moment. Of course, we will be doing our best to maximize both the accuracy, the energy consumption, and the mass production in the future. But we have to understand that even the seeker manufacturers are doing this for the first time in such an integration. So it requires a lot of talent, a lot.

Q: How will it compare to PAC-3 Patriot interceptor?

A: The PAC-3 is a different missile designed for different consumption levels. I think FP-7.x is more comparable in the first iteration to the Patriot PAC-2 because we do not expect immediate success with hit-to-kill, and the first interception we expect to do with the blast interception. Hit-to-kill is the next iteration. So at the beginning we will have more the analog of the PAC-2, but more mass-produced and cheaper.

Q: How many do you think you will be able to make?

A: From our side, we are ready to make almost an infinite amount. So we are targeting to do at least 2,000 a year as a starter, and then develop the production. Right now, we are solving the bottlenecks again, especially on the seeker part of this. But everything that is dependent on Fire Point, we can scale these numbers up.

Q: What do you think about the Patriot interceptor licensing deal Presidents Trump and Zelensky discussed before the American leader backed away from that? Would this affect anything you are doing?

A: No, it could be a good addition to what we are already doing.

Q: Why?

A: Because, in my opinion, every industrial corporation is like the greatest university of all. And the more you cooperate with different companies – there are not that many companies in the world who can produce anti-ballistic capabilities, and we have to kind of stay together on solving massive threats.

Q: On his last day as defense minister, Mykhalio Fedorov wrote that “a successful ballistics test was conducted, which was developed within the Ministry of Defense’s area of responsibility. We significantly changed the technical specifications and demonstrated maximum accuracy. We reduced the price by 30%. Ukraine will enter a new league.” Is this something you are working on or is it the government-run Sapsan program? What can you tell me about this?

A: I don’t know what exactly his words meant to be about because around the same time we were both testing our missiles and Pivdenne was testing theirs [the Sapsan], but from what I know, Sapsan also got a big improvement, and they had recently one of their first big successes with accuracy and technologically. So I think probably he meant both of us or just Sapsan. I don’t know.

🚀 Moscow has a new reason to worry. Ukraine has tested a new ballistic missile

In his farewell post, Mykhailo Fedorov revealed that successful tests of a Ukrainian ballistic missile took place on the very day the government stepped down. He did not specify which missile it was.… pic.twitter.com/PoprVjAUx8

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) July 16, 2026

Q: A little more than six months after naming the tech-savvy Fedorov defense minister, Zelensky fired him, ultimately replacing him with Major General Yevhen Khmara, who now serves as acting defense minister. How has the change in command in the Ministry of Defense affected Fire Point and Ukrainian domestic weapons development in general?

A: I think in general, our president has a big vision on why he’s doing specific things. The team of Mykhailo Fedorov helped a lot to develop Ukrainian industry, specifically with removing a lot of bureaucracy from the process. I think this initiative alone was the reason why Ukrainian industry is looking like this today. It was back in 2023. But the new minister is a war person. He is deep in the knowledge of asymmetric actions. So we expect a positive future.

Q: Fire Point has talked about the need for a Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance (MALE) UAS armed with a 30mm cannon that can intercept glide bombs before they hit their targets. What details can you provide about that?

A: There is a version of this, like an interceptor. We have multiple versions for interceptors on the platform of FP-1. One is with a gun, the other with small interceptors, like the ones that are popular now, the [General Cherry] Bullet interceptors. And there are also a few other options. As I mentioned at the beginning, it’s a pretty universal platform that can do a side quest. 

Q: What kind of gun are you talking about?

A: Honestly, it was created to intercept Shaheds. I think for intercepting the glide bombs, it’s almost impossible to do so after the glide bomb has left the aircraft. It looks unrealistic to me, to be frank. Maybe, there would be a way, for example, to try and catch the aircraft before it launches. But the most effective way to fight glide bombs is to destroy Russian aviation, and I don’t know yet a more effective way to do this. 

⚡ Russia may have brought back UMPB-5R jet-powered glide bombs. Recent strikes suggest the weapons can reach targets about 150 km away.https://t.co/xiZ6Nf0H1X

— Militarnyi (@militarnyi) August 2, 2026

Q: What else is on the horizon for Fire Point? What new capabilities and platforms are you looking at developing and what battlefield realities are driving those developments?

A: Aside from everything that is well known, we are also focusing on creating our own satellite constellation, so we have an independent connectivity for the drones. So this is one of the focuses, and of course we are working on improving the autonomous flight for the drones, so there are many small and big developments, but the biggest one is probably satcom.

Q: Tell me about this. Are you actually going to launch your own satellites? Are you building satellites for someone else to launch?

A: We are working together with a company that produces satellites, and we are also starting to develop our future possibility to deliver satellites. We are far from that yet, but we already have the equipment, and we already are experimenting with the bigger rocket engines. So this development had already started. It’s not the main focus at the moment, of course, because at the moment we have to win the war first. But this is something we are preparing for the future. 

Q: What company are you working with?

A: Again, I have to talk with them whether or not they want to be public.

Q: Finally, what about Fire Point as a weapons exporter? Where do you see the company as a global arms provider in the near future and after the war hopefully ends?

A: We have a big interest from a majority of European countries to have Fire Point products in their armies, and we already started to work on that because they all saw the threat that may potentially come from Russia. Of course, we also have other negotiations, but now we have to be more careful how we ensure that our products do not wind up with the bad guys. So every export movement would be treated with the maximum cautiousness.

Q: How could your weapons land in the hands of the bad guys?

A: Ah, that’s a good question, how these deals could be possibly secured from being redirected to the wrong place? We have a huge level of trust with our partners, but those countries that are new to us, we do not yet have this relationship and this level of trust.

Q: Are you selling any weapons right now to either the U.S. or, say, some of the Gulf Arab nations, given what’s going on there? 

A: Not at the moment.

Q: Are you in negotiations with the U.S. and/or Gulf Arab nations?

A: Yeah, we have a lot of negotiations and discussions going on in parallel. I will comment once the negotiations are successful.

Q: Are there any weapons or products that you’re developing that I haven’t asked about?

A: I think it is important to understand that we will soon consider all the weapons more in terms of security subscription rather than actual hardware product.

Q: What do you mean?

A: I mean the amount of updates that we make, even on the software side, is huge and happens so often. It kinda reminds me of how you update your smartphone. This does not mean that you have to buy each new smartphone every month, but the software updates quite fast, and also could be that in a year or two you will need a new smartphone. So Ukraine is rethinking the weaponry more in the possibility of how the company can ensure that the army will always have a capability, and how this capability is provided is now a headache of the company. 

So in the old model, when a defense contractor delivers the contract, that’s it. Maybe after some time he will be called for maintenance. But our responsibility isn’t finished on the day that we deploy the weapon, but after I finally receive the post-flight analysis and I’m happy with this. So the whole logistic services, software updates, up-training, any changes that are happening on the way we do by ourselves. The end user can focus on launching and planning the missions, and of course we work shoulder to shoulder to ensure that we will use the battlefield data to a maximum level of usefulness.

The post-Cold War order was built on assumptions russia never shared.

Today’s queues at the Fire Point stand suggest Europe has understood the assignment.

Exceptional second day at Eurosatory. pic.twitter.com/hwMLEMcZXN

— terekh (@iraterekh) June 16, 2026

Q: What can the U.S. learn from Fire Point?

A: Make the market more transparent and attractive to younger startups. Remove bureaucracy as much as possible, share the risks with the contractors to make everybody more flexible, and probably that’s it. 

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The US military says it has successfully intercepted a barrage of missiles fired by Iran at its troops in Jordan. The sudden attack coincides with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House and comes after a five-day pause in the war. Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar reports from Tehran.

Raytheon has touted a new domestic order for PAC-2-series interceptors for the Patriot surface-to-air missile system. This is the first time the U.S. military has bought any new PAC-2s in more than 30 years, according to the company. This comes amid persistent concerns about the sufficiency of American stockpiles of high-end anti-air interceptors and other critical munitions, with alarm bells now ringing very loudly due to the conflict with Iran. Global demand for Patriot systems and interceptors for them, in general, is at a high point, driven heavily by fighting in the Middle East and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Patriot has been seeing a broader renaissance in recent years amid an evolving threat ecosystem, emanating especially from Russia and China.

Patriot was an important topic of discussion during a Raytheon quarterly earnings call this morning. Raytheon is the prime contractor for the Patriot system and the PAC-2 interceptor. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the separate PAC-3 family of interceptors for Patriot.

“Raytheon booked nearly $20 billion of awards, resulting in a book-to-bill [ratio] in Q2 [second quarter of the 2026 fiscal year] of 2.4[%],” Christopher Calio, President and CEO of Raytheon (now formally called RTX), said on today’s call. “These bookings included over $5 billion of GEM-T Patriot effectors, driven by international customers, and our first domestic GEM-T production order in over 30 years.”

Calio did not elaborate on the domestic order, but this appears to be a reference to a contract the U.S. Army quietly awarded back in April. That deal was valued at $441.6 million and was said to be in support of Operation Epic Fury against Iran.

GEM-T stands for Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical. The GEM-T configuration, which has received various upgrades over the years, is the only version of PAC-2 still in production today.

Before the contract in April, it’s not entirely clear when the U.S. Army last ordered any new-production PAC-2 series interceptors, and the nomenclature here can be a little confusing. Raytheon began production of the baseline Guidance Enhanced Missile (GEM) variant, also designated the MIM-104D, in the mid-1990s. Compared to earlier versions of the PAC-2, GEM had improved engagement capability against smaller targets or ones otherwise with smaller radar cross-sections thanks to a new seeker. Changes were also made to the missile’s fuze to improve effectiveness against fast-moving ballistic missiles. A GEM+ configuration was subsequently developed, offering even better accuracy, performance, and reliability.

The U.S. Army subsequently sent stocks of baseline GEM and other older PAC-2 interceptors back to Raytheon to be brought up to the GEM+ standard. The resulting missiles were collectively designated MIM-104Es, with deliveries starting in the early 2000s. The GEM-T moniker was originally applied to MIM-104Es rebuilt from MIM-104Ds, which were further optimized against tactical ballistic missiles in the process. You can read more in detail about the PAC-2 lineage, as well as that of the separate PAC-3 series, in this previous TWZ piece.

Whether or not the new U.S. order for GEM-T interceptors is entirely for American military use, or includes purchases on behalf of allies and partners, is unclear. GEM-T remains in active U.S. Army service, as well as with other Patriot operators globally, even as newer PAC-3 interceptors have arrived. Current-generation trailer-mounted Patriot launchers can be loaded with mixtures of PAC-2 and PAC-3-series missiles at the same time, increasing their flexibility against different threats. PAC-2 missiles are distinctly larger than PAC-3 types.

However, as Raytheon has highlighted today, the U.S. military had not placed any orders for new-production GEM-Ts in decades. Members of the House Armed Services Committee notably questioned this logic just in June, in a report accompanying a draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act, for Fiscal Year 2027.

“The committee supports the Army’s continued investment in Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) to address the spectrum of current and future aerial threats and notes the ongoing efforts to address munitions production capacity within the domestic defense industrial base,” per that report. “The committee further notes that the Army’s procurement of Patriot interceptors in recent budget requests has been for the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE), and not for the PAC-2 Guided Enhanced Missile-Tactical (GEM-T), which has complemented the MSE in real-world engagements.”

At that time, the House Armed Services Committee also asked for the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing, no later than March 1, 2027, on Patriot interceptor inventories. Lawmakers specifically asked for the briefing to include the following:

• “An overview of the capabilities and limitations of both PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors against current and emerging theater ballistic missile and air breathing threats.”
• “Current stockpile levels for PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors, planned deliveries of both types across the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), and an assessment of inventory sufficiency relative to approved force growth, and remaining shelf-life.”
• “A description of the Army’s Total Munitions Requirement for the Patriot family of interceptors.”
• “Any recommendations to address shortfalls in inventory, to include additional procurement of PAC-2 interceptors, modernization of the PAC-2 missile, and development of a new interceptor for the Patriot system.”

Whether or not the committee was aware at that time of the GEM-T contract earlier this year is unclear. When missiles from that order are expected to start arriving is also unknown. PAC-2 and PAC-3 interceptors are long-lead-time items, and it typically takes years for deliveries to come after a contract award.

All of this speaks to the larger issues around Patriot interceptor stockpiles, which become something of a poster child for munitions supply chain concerns more broadly. Questions surrounding munitions expenditures in the course of fighting against Iran this year were front and center at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing just yesterday. The Trump administration is currently seeking $67.1 billion in supplemental funding to help cover the costs of the conflict, including replenishing stockpiles of critical munitions.

Just how many Patriot interceptors the U.S. Army has expended in the course of operations related to Iran this year is unknown. A detailed report the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank published in May estimated the figure to be somewhere between 1,060 and 1,430. Those numbers were not further broken down between PAC-2 and PAC-3 variants.

Russian military bloggers have published what appears to be the first imagery showing the remains of a Ukrainian-operated Ruta Block 1 low-cost cruise missile following an operational strike. The weapon is another addition to an increasingly diverse arsenal that can hold targets even deep inside Russia at risk.

Photos that began circulating on Russian Telegram channels show wreckage consistent with the Dutch-produced Ruta Block 1. While the exact location and target of the strike remain unclear, the images represent the first publicly available evidence that the new long-range weapon has entered combat use.

The recovered debris includes fuselage sections, internal components, and part of the missile’s tailfin assembly. Although the imagery has not been independently verified, the remains appear consistent with the known design characteristics of the Ruta Block 1. The possibility cannot be ruled out entirely that the wreckage represents a previously undisclosed Ukrainian cruise missile design with broadly similar characteristics. Russian military bloggers claimed air defenses intercepted the missile, though that cannot currently be independently verified.

Footage purportedly showing a Ruta Block 1 missile flying toward its target has also appeared.

The Ruta Block 1 is a product of the Netherlands-based Destinus company, founded by the Russian exile Mikhail Kokorich. Earlier reporting indicated that the Block 1 was already being manufactured in the Netherlands and had been delivered to Ukraine since at least 2024.

A lot of people would be very surprised to learn how many of these Ukraine has received since at least 2025.

Also, whether or not you think it was the right call, the Dutch government has been extremely effective at keeping deliveries of these missiles, and especially their… https://t.co/3PESUlzE7U

— Fabian Hoffmann (@FRHoffmann1) July 23, 2026

Last month, then-Ukrainian Minister of Defense Mykhailo Fedorov announced that the Netherlands was paying for approximately 700 cruise missiles for Ukraine — almost certainly referring to the Ruta Block 1 — as part of a wider package worth more than $500 million.

According to the manufacturer, the Ruta Block 1 has a range of more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) and carries a payload of 150 kilograms (330 pounds).

The missile is ground-launched via a booster, then flies to its target at low altitude, using a combination of inertial, satellite, and visual navigation systems, providing resilience also in GPS-contested environments. The weapon is intended to strike high-value fixed targets and features pre-programmed terminal guidance.​

Unlike larger and more expensive cruise missiles, Ruta has been presented as a mass-producible weapon optimized for deep strikes against military infrastructure. The missile is designed around affordability and production scale, enabling Ukraine to conduct sustained long-range precision attacks while reducing reliance on scarce, more exquisite Western-supplied weapons. The Block 1 also comes with the major advantage that its turbojet engine is also manufactured by Destinus, so the company doesn’t rely on the United States for this part.

Engine No. 1000: Destinus reaches industrial-scale turbojet production in Europe

Ukraine has generally remained silent regarding operational use of many of its newest indigenous strike systems until well after they have entered service. Confirmation of the introduction of other long-range weapons often came first from Russian photographs of intercepted missiles or strike aftermath before official acknowledgment from Kyiv.

For Ukraine, the Ruta Block 1 forms part of a broader effort to diversify its expanding arsenal of deep-strike capabilities, alongside long-range drones, indigenous cruise missiles, as well as missile-drone hybrids. As production ramps up, these systems are playing an increasingly important role in sustained attacks against Russian energy infrastructure, as well as command centers, logistics hubs, airbases, ammunition depots, and defense-industrial facilities far behind the front lines. Ukraine is currently ramping up its long-range strikes on all fronts and doing major damage.

Destinus is also working on additional members of the Ruta family.

Earlier this year, the company presented the Ruta Block 2, which increases the missile’s range to over 800 kilometers (around 500 miles) and boosts its payload capacity to 250 kilograms (550 pounds).

Ruta B2 Flight Test | European Canister-Compatible Cruise Missile | Destinus

Meanwhile, the Ruta Block 3 will have a range of 2,000 kilometers (around 1,200 miles) with a 550-kilogram payload. Block 3 is expected to enter flight testing in 2027 and is also suitable for air launch.

As well as bolstering the Ukrainian arsenal, the Ruta Block 3 has relevance for European nations looking to build up their long-range conventional strike capabilities.

Ruta B3 and the Future of European Deep Strike

Russia’s extensive use of ground-launched missiles in Ukraine, along with its deployment of long-range weapons in Kaliningrad, has highlighted the deficiencies in Europe’s deep-strike capabilities as NATO seeks to strengthen conventional deterrence against Moscow. The Block 3 could be part of the answer to emerging requirements, including the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA), which involves France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and which seeks to bring new systems into service in the 2030s.

Destinus is also working to expand its production capacity, including through a joint venture with Rheinmetall that will make use of that company’s manufacturing facilities in Germany.

Overall, the Ruta series is part of a wider trend toward lower-cost, highly producible cruise missiles, something also evidenced in the United States. Examples of these include CoAspire’s Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile-Extended Range (RAACM-ER), which you can read more about here, and the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles-Beyond Adversary’s Reach (FAMM-BAR) effort, which is seeking lower-cost designs with maximum ranges of 1,000 nautical miles or more.

Whether this particular missile reached its intended target or was intercepted remains unknown. What is clear, however, is that we have the strongest evidence to date that the Ruta Block 1 has transitioned from an announced development program into an operational weapon being employed against Russian targets.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

BAE Systems is exploring how the Eurofighter Typhoon could control uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft (CCA) as part of a broader effort to introduce new capabilities for the jet. The company is currently pursuing concepts to integrate CCAs with the Typhoon to expand ‘combat mass’ and better address emerging threat environments. Ultimately, however, the experience gained here will be ported over to the future Tempest combat jet — designed to work closely with drones from the outset.

At this point, BAE Systems is working on concepting how Typhoon/CCA could work and is also investing as a company in CCAs and crewed-uncrewed teaming more generally. The work involving the Typhoon and CCAs has accelerated over the previous 12 months. Officials from BAE Systems outlined the work so far in a briefing at the Farnborough Air Show today, just a week after the U.K. Royal Air Force launched a new CCA program, named Storm Fighter, which you can read more about here. That program should lead to a CCA that can fly into combat with the Typhoon, F-35, and Tempest.

Speaking at Farnborough, Chris Moon, Typhoon Future Capability Director, BAE Systems, explained:

“Unsurprisingly, what we’re finding is that in the enlarged battlespace of the future, we’re able have a Typhoon — some people use the phrase ‘quarterback,’ choose what you will — with its extensive radar capabilities at range, and speed and agility, processing, to be able to work alongside collaborative combat aircraft and increase the combat mass that is needed from our air forces into the future, and the persistence and the range at which they’re able to reach, and bring more missiles into the fight.”

The CCA capabilities are planned to be added to the Typhoon under a much wider effort known as the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) program. This is expected to roll out a number of other features that will ensure that the jet can get the most out of teaming with CCAs. These features include the large-area display (LAD) cockpit, European Common Radar System (ECRS) Mk 2, and the Striker II helmet-mounted display system.

In terms of technology, the ECRS Mk 2 is especially interesting here. As well as the various advantages of an active electronically scanned array (AESA), it has a swashplate repositioner, an articulated mounting that means the antenna can be swung to face at far greater angles off the centerline. This allows a much wider field of regard, with a significant boost in angular (azimuth) coverage. It allows the Typhoon to retain missile guidance even when beaming and hiding in the Doppler notch of the enemy’s radar, which functions much like a blind spot.

In the past, Eurofighter has claimed that the repositionable array provides a field of regard that is “some 50 percent wider than traditional fixed-plate systems.”

All of these components have been tested in a CCA environment in a specially equipped Typhoon simulator.

Moon highlighted one particular scenario, off the east coast of Scotland, in which a pair of Typhoons worked with a four-ship of CCAs to extend the range, coverage, and persistence of the crewed jets. The scenario can be expanded to include the entire east coast of the United Kingdom, adding more Typhoons and CCAs as well as F-35Bs.

More detail was provided by Andrew ‘Blyty’ Mallery-Blythe, Typhoon Operational Requirements Manager at BAE Systems.

A huge advantage here is the new LAD cockpit, replacing the Typhoon’s current three-multifunction display (MFD) configuration with a single unit.

Using the LAD means that “everything is available,” Blyty said. “You can see everything at the top level. You have to do very little manipulation to the display. The LAD provides a literal big picture of the combat scenario, including friendly assets, among them the various CCAs, with their heading, height, speed, and what they’re carrying in terms of sensors or stores.

“What we’re trying to take advantage of is combat mass,” Blyty added. “Obviously, combat mass I don’t really need to explain in any great detail. We’ve got four CCAs and two Typhoons. Clearly there’s an improvement and an increase in combat mass without having to have those additional very expensive, complex aircraft. We can bring more weapons to the fight through the use of the CCAs.”

In terms of attrition, the Typhoon is classed as a strategic asset in these concepts, while a CCA is more of a tactical asset.

“We certainly don’t want to put ourselves in a position where we’re going to lose one of those [CCAs], but it’s a tactical asset,” Blyty continued. “That means that we can position them far closer to the threat, potentially taking a little bit more risk with those assets. They’re also smaller, they have a lower observability, and that is also an advantage that our friendly Typhoons exploit.”

Having a better overview of the battlespace via the LAD cockpit, ECRS Mk 2 radar, Striker II helmet, and the CCAs themselves is only one part of the equation.

BAE Systems is also trying to minimize the workload on the pilots. This is especially important for the U.K. Royal Air Force, which has reduced the number of two-seat Typhoons in its fleet, scrapping all its Tranche 1 ‘T-birds.’ Other nations are meanwhile working on developing CCA concepts by relying heavily on two-seat combat aircraft, with the back-seater a ‘drone controller.’

Blyty: “We don’t want to be in a situation where the pilot is having to close-control each of those assets. There’d be far too much workload. So through our rapid prototyping, and the way that we’ve been doing this, we’ve been looking into how we minimize that workload and how we give simple commands through the extant HOTAS [‘hands on throttle and stick’ controls] to send those CCAs to carry out our task with the minimum workload that we can achieve.” It is meanwhile widely understood that drones require an advanced autonomy package to facilitate this level of ease of use by a single pilot.

Blyty went on to run through an engagement scenario, again aided by the LAD’s ‘god’s eye view’ of the battlespace. A kill box was drawn on the LAD before the hostile aircraft entered that area.

“Once that was activated — we do that through a button on the screen which is just off the top — we effectively give the CCAs the authorization or the command that they can engage anything that enters that kill box.”

With that command, the CCAs start employing weapons, including very long-range Meteor air-to-air missiles, the ramjet-powered weapon that the Typhoon also carries.

The aspiration to have CCAs armed with Meteor is a significant one, due to the very particular set of capabilities that the missile brings. The Meteor is among the longest-ranged of any Western air-to-air missile, generally considered to be able to engage certain types of targets out to around 130 miles. Critically, while CCAs are already a forward extension of the fighter, a missile of this kind would provide a major increase in engagement range when combined with the uncrewed jet, allowing the Typhoon to stay outside the engagement range of the enemy.

The missile also uses a two-way datalink, which feeds it with in-flight updates as it flies out to its target and provides the pilot in the launch aircraft with information on the Meteor’s fuel, energy, and tracking state. Adding CCAs into the mix, provided they have their own sensors, would allow them to pass data to the Typhoon and to the Meteor, regardless of which platform launched the missile.

Meteor

Ultimately, of course, the CCAs might end up with different missiles entirely, including a successor to the Meteor that is now being developed. Regardless, air-to-air combat at extended ranges is very much part of the U.K.’s CCA thinking. Meanwhile, we are already seeing CCA-type aircraft firing beyond-visual-range missiles in tests in the United States and elsewhere.

In this particular scenario, Blyty said the Typhoons were at a distance of roughly 114 miles from the enemy.

“Let’s say that’s outside the range of Meteor,” Blyty continued, downplaying the likely true range of the missile, which is a closely guarded secret. “The CCAs, less than half that. Let’s say that’s within the range of Meteor. So, we’ve got a clear tactical advantage that those CCAs have over the Typhoons. They’re on a little bit more risk out there than the Typhoons are. But that’s entirely appropriate to how we manage those Typhoons with the ECRS Mk 2 as a more strategic asset, and we quarterback the CCAs as a more tactical asset.”

Blyty said that BAE Systems is working on a lot more features to minimize pilot workload, without providing more details.

Meanwhile, BAE Systems has been working alongside QinetiQ on crewed-uncrewed teaming in the air, with a synthetic trial in which a Typhoon, a swarm of QinetiQ Banshee drones, and a Malloy Aeronautics T-150 small heavy-lift uncrewed aerial system (UAS) were flown using current operational military datalinks including Link 16.

Clearly, concept demonstrations of how crewed combat aircraft could operate alongside CCAs, highlighting the role of crewed-uncrewed teaming in future air operations, are a high priority as the Typhoon continues to evolve. The United Kingdom has not exactly been quick to adopt the CAA concept, at least compared to the United States and China, but with uncrewed platforms very much at the forefront of the recent Defense Investment Plan, that looks like it is set to change.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The Pentagon has reached new framework agreements with three defense contractors as part of a strategy to acquire thousands of lower-cost air-launched cruise missiles in the coming years. The deals are directly in support of the U.S. Air Force’s Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program. The Air Force has already said that it is aiming to buy nearly 28,000 FAMM munitions in the next five years.

Under FAMM, the Air Force plans to acquire multiple types of lower-cost cruise missiles in different configurations. This will include ‘lugged’ types (FAMM-L) designed to be launched directly from hardpoints on aircraft, as well as ones intended to be employed from cargo planes via palletized munitions systems (FAMM-P). The service is also pursuing extended-range FAMM-BAR designs, with BAR here standing for “Beyond Adversary’s Reach.”

“Through [FAMM] agreements with Anduril, CoAspire, and Zone 5, the DoW will accelerate rapid validation of a new family of low-cost, air-launched cruise missiles – capabilities that will strengthen the Arsenal of Freedom,” according to a press release from the Pentagon today. “The agreements are a direct outcome of several Acquisition Transformation Strategy initiatives, including stabilizing demand signals, procuring industry-driven solutions, and maximizing flexible contracting.”

Anduril, CoAspire, and Zone 5 were also among the companies to receive framework deals from the Pentagon in May as part of plans to buy 10,000 lower-cost ground-launched cruise missiles through 2029. This is under a separate program called Low-Cost Containerized Missiles (LCCM). Leidos is part of the LCCM effort, as well. At that time, the Pentagon announced an additional agreement with Castelion regarding the production of 12,000 Blackbeard lower-cost hypersonic missiles. It’s also worth noting here that, since then, Norwegian defense contractor Kongsberg has aquired Zone 5.

“A key feature of these [FAMM] deals is the establishment of seven-year, multi-year agreements which, subject to congressional appropriations and enactment of all necessary authorizations, will be awarded upon the successful validation and competitive selection of the munitions,” today’s release adds. “The Department was granted 5-year authorization for FAMM in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and is actively seeking congressional approval in the FY27 NDAA and Appropriations Bill for a 7-year multi-year procurement program to provide stability to new entrants.”

The Pentagon’s press release does not name any specific munitions.

Anduril has confirmed that its contribution will be versions of its Barracuda-500 design, and that it is aiming to start making deliveries under FAMM next year. The company will also be delivering a surface-launched version of the Barracuda-500 for the LCCM effort. Anduril first unveiled the full Barracuda family, which includes several tiers of what it calls “expendable autonomous air vehicles,” back in 2024, as you can read more about here. There are reports that at least one version of the Barracuda-500 has received an official U.S. military designation, AGM-189A.

Introducing: Barracuda-M Family of Cruise Missiles

“We joined the FAMM-L program in February 2026 and will execute the first ground and flight tests for Lug-Launched Barracuda-500M in the next several months,” Anduril noted in its release. “We completed the first successful flight test of Pallet-Launched Barracuda-500M in September 2024 and have since conducted dozens of successful flight tests that have further validated the maturity, performance, and modularity of the Barracuda-500 system, including Networked Collaborative Autonomy flights, terminal engagements, and payload performance validation testing.”

Zone 5 has also confirmed that it will be supplying its AGM-188A Rusty Dagger missile.

“By leveraging modern manufacturing and commercial technology, we are breaking the traditional cost curve, enabling the Department of War to field scalable, affordable capacity. The AGM-188 Rusty Dagger will deliver thousands of weapons per year for fighter and cargo aircraft employment but importantly without sacrificing exquisite performance,” Zone 5’s CEO Thomas Akers said in a statement. “Modern conflict has made one thing clear – the ability to rapidly scale production without sacrificing capability is critically important for air superiority. Rusty Dagger is built to deliver affordable, adaptable, highly survivable, incredibly lethal and rapidly deployable weapons that give the U.S. and our allies the ability to outpace and overwhelm evolving threats without being constrained by cost or production limitations.”

The deal with CoAspire is for that company’s Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile.

“The inclusion of CoAspire in this groundbreaking FAMM program multi-year agreement underscores CoAspire’s ability to revolutionize our country’s strike capabilities, offering a long-range solution that can be deployed across multiple platforms,” Doug Denneny, CoAspire’s CEO, Owner, and Founder, said in his own statement. “We, and our 56 first-tier suppliers across almost every state are excited to support the Air Force’s need to affordably procure thousands of FAMM cruise missiles over seven years. We applaud the Department’s inclusion of CoAspire as the only small business in this historic production opportunity. This is a true commitment to expand the defense industrial base while growing jobs across the US and bringing affordable cruise missile capabilities to the Air Force.”

RAACM Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile

Rusty Dagger and RAACM were both developed initially under the Air Force’s Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program. ERAM’s main initial focus has been on delivering lower-cost air-launched strike capabilities to Ukraine. Zone 5 has previously confirmed that AGM-188A deliveries to Ukraine have begun, but it is unclear whether they are now being employed operationally. ERAM is known to be feeding into the FAMM effort, as well.

Overall, “offering both lugged and palletized variants, the FAMM provides the Air Force with flexible logistics, handling, and deployment options,” the Pentagon’s press release today notes.

“The multi-year approach utilizes firm-fixed-price contracting with a minimum quantity floor. Shares are split among all qualified vendors to ensure multiple production lines are positioned to surge,” the release further explains. “Contractors that meet or exceed production schedules will be eligible for additional procurement quantities – pending congressional appropriations – fostering a competitive environment that rewards efficiency and speed.”

These latter points highlight the fact that the FAMM program, as well as the LCCM effort, has a larger goal of addressing the critical need for strike munitions that can be produced at scale and in a cost-effective manner. TWZ has been calling attention to this broader reality for years, which has only been underscored by the latest conflict with Iran and a succession of other global crises. As we previously wrote after the announcement of the LCCM framework deals:

“Expenditures of critical air-to-surface and surface-to-surface munitions, as well as anti-air interceptors, by the U.S. military, as well as its allies and partners, in conflicts in recent years have only underscored the vital need to bolster these inventories. Demand for stand-off munitions, in particular, would be far greater in any future high-end fight against a near-peer adversary like China. That is a scenario where American forces could easily find themselves tasked to prosecute tens of thousands of targets, just in the opening phase.”

“Furthermore, existing munitions are often exquisite in design, and take months, or more often years, of lead time to produce. The Pentagon’s focus on “disruptive new entrants and commercial innovators,” rather than any of America’s long-established prime defense contractors, with its newly announced framework deals, is extremely significant in its own right. This is the latest example of a major shift away from awarding high-profile contracts to large legacy providers, helping to diversify the industrial base and promote competition. This also means moving away from companies accustomed to very long lead procurement and production arrangements.”

The Pentagon has also made clear that the FAMM framework agreements with Anduril, CoAspire, and Zone 5 do not preclude other companies from being brought into the program in the future. “The Department will also preserve competition opportunities for new vendors to be onboarded for additional quantities and new capabilities in the future as technology continues to advance,” per today’s release.

The market space for lower-cost cruise missiles has exploded in recent years in the United States and elsewhere globally. Relevant designs also occupy a space where the defining lines between these weapons and long-range kamikaze drones, as well as decoys, are increasingly blurry. Overlap between the FAMM and LCCM programs also highlights how many of these weapons are being adapted for launch from air, land, and maritime domains, which can help streamline production and supply chains, as well as offer operational benefits.

Taking deliberate steps to leave the door open to future competition reflects a larger push to avoid so-called ‘vendor lock’ in the U.S. defense contracting space. This has also been punctuated by moves to ensure greater government control of intellectual property rights and a focus on modular, open-architecture systems across major U.S. military acquisition efforts.

With the FAMM framework deals announced today, on top of the LCCM agreements back in May, the Pentagon is continuing to lay a vital foundation for the procurement of thousands of lower-cost strike munitions for years to come.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

An image has appeared, apparently for the first time, showing a Chinese J-15T carrier-based fighter launching while carrying four anti-ship missiles. The photo offers the clearest indication yet that China’s rapidly evolving carrier force is overcoming one of its longstanding operational constraints: getting heavily loaded strike fighters airborne from its flattops.

The image, at the top of this story, shows a J-15T in full afterburner moments before leaving the deck of the Fujian, the first People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) carrier equipped with catapults. The fighter is armed with four YJ-83K anti-ship missiles — double the number previously seen carried by a J-15 — amounting to a weapons load of roughly 6,400 pounds before accounting for any additional stores that may not be visible.

Previously, in fact, it seems that the latest J-15T version has only ever been seen with a single YJ-83K training round, while the aircraft was still in prototype form.

The YJ-83K is a widely used subsonic anti-ship missile, broadly equivalent to the U.S.-made AGM-84 Harpoon. The radar-guided, turbojet-powered weapon has a reported range of around 112 miles and is armed with a 360-pound high-explosive, semi-armor-piercing warhead. The YJ-83K is a sea-skimming missile cruising at an altitude of 65-100 feet, before dropping down to 16-24 feet during the terminal phase. Most significantly, each of these weapons weighs around 1,600 pounds.

The very reason behind the development of the J-15T was to maximize the potential of Flanker operations from the Fujian, which is equipped with an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), and subsequent carriers. As such, the J-15T is primarily distinguished from the original J-15 in being equipped for catapult takeoff but assisted recovery (CATOBAR) operations, as well as short takeoff but assisted recovery (STOBAR) operations.

Videos provide a comparison of a STOBAR J-15 carrier launch and a CATOBAR J-15T launch from Fujian:

The previous two PLAN aircraft carriers, the Liaoning and Shandong, both employ ‘ski-jump’ takeoff ramps to launch fixed-wing STOBAR aircraft.

As we have discussed in the past, the primary benefit of the J-15T is its ability to be catapult-launched from a carrier with a heavier payload of fuel and weapons. After all, the Flanker airframe has always been able to carry impressive fuel and weapons loads, but this has been strictly limited when configured for STOBAR operations. This is something that has hampered Russian Navy carrier operations, as much as Chinese ones.

Also significant is the fact that the J-15T has started to introduce domestically produced WS-10H turbofans in place of the Russian-made AL-31F engines previously found on production J-15s.

In the past, it appears that the heaviest loads seen carried by STOBAR J-15s launched from the Liaoning or Shandong comprised two YJ-83Ks and four air-to-air missiles, or, for air defense, four PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles and two short-range PL-8B air-to-air missiles.

Regardless, the fact that J-15Ts are now launching from the carrier with weapons loads of around 6,400 pounds is significant.

As well as increasing the anti-shipping potential of the J-15T, the same payload could be translated into additional fuel or other weapons loads.

Among the other weapons options for the jet are the more advanced PL-10 short-range and PL-15 medium-range air-to-air missiles. The J-15T has also been noted with the long-range YJ-15 anti-ship missile, and with a ‘buddy’ refueling pod. Other versions of the YJ-83K that could find their way onto the J-15 include the improved YJ-83KH, which features an imaging-infrared seeker and extended range.

The ability for the J-15T to launch from a catapult-equipped carrier with a heavier payload doesn’t just impact the potential of the strike fighter. It will also translate to the two-seat carrier-compatible J-15 versions, intended to take on additional roles. Chief among these is the CATOBAR-capable J-15DT electronic warfare aircraft, intended to operate in a role similar to the U.S. Navy’s EA-18G Growler. With its array of external jamming pods, the J-15DT also needs to launch (and recover) at heavier weights to make the most of its potential.

There are also rumors concerning a CATOBAR version of the two-seat J-15S, which could serve as a carrier trainer and/or as a multirole strike platform equivalent to the F/A-18F. Here, again, the EMALS will greatly enhance its capabilities.

Beyond marking another milestone in the rapid evolution of China’s carrier aviation capabilities, the new image suggests that the combination of the J-15T and the catapult-equipped carrier Fujian is beginning to deliver the kind of fully armed launch performance that its ski-jump carriers have long struggled to achieve.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Berlin says it has agreed a deal with the United States to buy U.S.-made Tomahawk cruise missiles, providing a significant boost to Germany’s long-range strike capabilities. The move comes after the United States appeared to renege on its plan to deploy a long-range fires battalion in Germany, and as NATO allies in Europe race to enhance their conventional standoff missile deterrent against Russia.

An agreement on the sale of Tomahawk missiles to Germany was reached with U.S. officials on the sidelines of the NATO Summit in Ankara this week, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced after his return from Turkey.

“This will close an important strategic gap in our defense, and at the same time, we will work to develop our own European systems and station them in Europe,” Merz told the Bundestag lower house of parliament in Berlin today.

Citing German government sources, Reuters reports that a letter of intent for the procurement was signed Tuesday.

Germany had previously sought to buy Tomahawks, but these efforts had been rebuffed by Washington.

Specifically, Berlin wanted to acquire the ground-launched version of the system, with up to 400 of the latest Tomahawk Block Vb missiles, valued at more than $1 billion, according to reports.

All Block V Tomahawks are provided with a two-way datalink, allowing them to receive course correction and other targeting updates, as well as be entirely re-tasked, during flight. The Block Vb subvariant is fitted with a joint multi-effects warhead that makes it suitable for striking a wider variety of land targets.

The Tomahawk Block V has a range exceeding 1,000 miles depending on the exact configuration.

Currently, the longest-range indirect fires capability fielded by the German Army is the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), known in German service as the Mittleres Artilleriraketensystem II (MARS II). The longest-range artillery rockets currently available for the system can hit targets out to around 43 miles. Germany has not received the far larger Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missiles that can engage threats out to 186 miles depending on the variant.

As well as the Tomahawk missiles, Germany will need to buy the Typhon launchers to deploy them. Reports in the German media suggest that a request for the launchers was already made in July 2025.

Germany had also been looking at the possibility of acquiring the naval version of the Tomahawk, to arm its planned Type 127 frigates, although these have since been canceled.

Regardless, acquisition of the Tomahawk would be a big deal for Germany.

Outside of the United States, only Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom currently use the Tomahawk. All of these export operators use the naval version of the missile, making the German development all the more significant.

Washington’s approval to sell the Tomahawk/Typhon combination to Berlin would seem to confirm that the United States won’t, after all, be sending a U.S. Army long-range fires battalion to Germany.

In May, amid something of a breakdown in relations between Berlin and Washington, triggered by German criticism of the U.S. war in Iran, the United States announced it would reduce its ⁠military presence in Germany by 5,000 soldiers.

At the same time, it was reported that the Pentagon had also decided to abandon plans to deploy the Army’s 2nd Multi-Domain Task Force (2MDTF) to Germany.

German officials moved to try to smooth things over, stating that there had been no “definitive cancellation” of the missile deployment by the United States.

First announced under the Biden administration, the 2MDTF was to start “episodic deployments” to Germany in 2026, followed by “longer-term stationing” of various types of long-range missiles in the same country. As well as Tomahawk, 2MDTF’s Typhon launchers can fire the SM-6 multi-purpose missile. In the future, they are also intended to be armed with “developmental hypersonic weapons,” like the Dark Eagle, and potentially others like the Operational Fires (OpFires) hypersonic missile and the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) short-range ballistic missile.

With that in mind, Germany’s Typhon launchers could potentially receive some of these missiles in the future, too.

For Germany, however, the Tomahawk procurement is seen as a temporary solution until domestically (or European) developed long-range weapons become available.

For the longer term, Germany is part of the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA). The initiative, led by France and also involving Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, aims to develop a new long-range strike capability, potentially in the form of a cruise missile, a ballistic missile, or a combination of both.

Earlier announcements indicated that ELSA is intended to deliver a missile with a range of 1,000 to 2,000 kilometers (621–1,243 miles), with entry into service planned for the 2030s.

Separately, Germany and the United Kingdom have also unveiled plans to jointly develop a deep precision-strike weapon with a range exceeding 2,000 kilometers. However, the project remains at an early stage, with no industrial framework yet agreed.

Together, these initiatives underscore the growing determination among European NATO members to develop long-range strike capabilities in response to the increasing Russian threat along the alliance’s eastern flank.

Germany’s planned procurement of ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles reflects a dramatically altered European security environment following the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Signed in 1987 at the height of the Cold War, the accord prohibited the United States and the Soviet Union — and later Russia — from deploying ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles, whether nuclear or conventionally armed, with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (310 and 3,420 miles).

Ironically, one of the weapons outlawed by the INF Treaty was an earlier ground-launched version of the Tomahawk cruise missile, the U.S. Air Force BGM-109G Gryphon, which was also deployed in Germany, not without controversy.

The treaty effectively unraveled after the United States withdrew in 2019 during President Trump’s first term, citing Russia’s deployment of the prohibited 9M729 (SSC-8 Screwdriver) ground-launched cruise missile, an allegation Moscow has consistently denied. Russia formally suspended its own participation in the agreement in 2023, removing the last legal barriers to the deployment of intermediate-range land-based missiles in Europe.

Since then, both Russia and NATO have moved to rebuild capabilities that had been absent from the continent for more than three decades. Even before its formal withdrawal, Moscow had signaled its intention to field new INF-range missiles in response to comparable U.S. deployments, while repeatedly using nuclear signaling — including high-profile exercises and explicit threats — in an effort to deter greater Western support for Ukraine.

Russia has also used the war in Ukraine to demonstrate and refine its expanding missile arsenal. In November 2024, it employed the new Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile in combat for the first time. Although the version used against Ukraine carried conventional warheads, perhaps even inert ones, a nuclear-armed Oreshnik would be capable of striking most major Western European capitals and critical NATO military infrastructure.

At the same time, there are indications that Russia has employed the 9M729 operationally in Ukraine, while continuing work on additional intermediate-range strike systems, including a reported ground-launched hypersonic missile that could be based on the Zircon naval missile, or an enhanced Iskander-M ballistic missile. Russia has also reinforced its forward posture by deploying nuclear-capable Iskander missiles and  MiG-31 Foxhound aircraft armed with Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad in the Baltic, while transferring tactical nuclear weapons, or at least their delivery infrastructure, to neighboring Belarus.

Against this backdrop, Germany’s decision to acquire ground-launched Tomahawks is part of a broader effort to restore NATO’s long-range conventional deterrence and strike capabilities. The missiles are part of a wider European push to counter Russia’s growing inventory of intermediate-range weapons and reestablish a more credible balance of long-range conventional firepower on NATO’s eastern flank. This has become all the more important since the previous security guarantees provided to the continent by the United States are increasingly being questioned.

While we don’t yet know the numbers of Tomahawks involved, they will still likely be divorced from the reality of a high-intensity conflict. Ukraine is now striking Russia with long-range cruise missiles regularly. The numbers needed across NATO for a sustained engagement will be very high, so collectively Europe will likely only accelerate and broaden its long-range missile capabilities based on these lessons learned.

Germany’s Tomahawk procurement reflects a fundamental shift in NATO’s approach to deterrence in Europe, where long-range conventional strike capabilities are once again viewed as essential rather than escalatory. With Russia fielding new intermediate-range missiles, NATO’s relations with the United States under strain, and European allies launching their own development programs in this area, a new missile race is accompanying the changing security environment on the continent.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Sirens blared in several cities in Jordan as Iranian missiles were intercepted. Jordanian Armed Forces confirmed at least eight missiles were intercepted.

Two days after Ukraine said it couldn’t down any Russian ballistic missiles because of a dearth of Patriot surface-to-air missile (SAM) interceptors, President Donald Trump on Wednesday told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he would provide Kyiv with a license to build its own. 

The vow, made during a bilateral meeting at the NATO Summit in Ankara, Turkey, was a rare feel-good moment between two world leaders who have frequently butted heads. However, turning that offer into a reality that can help Ukraine in the near-term isn’t realistic. It would take many months, at least, for the first missiles to roll off the production line for a whole host of reasons we will delve into later in this story.

“That’s pretty cool,” Trump told Zelensky after making his license offer. “This way, you can’t complain that we’re not giving them enough. I said, ‘Make them yourself.’”

Trump added a telling caveat.

“We haven’t informed the company of that yet, but that’ll work out all right,” he said. We’ve reached out to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which make variants of these weapons, for more details.

“We don’t have an immediate comment on the president’s announcement,” a spokesperson for RTX, Raytheon’s parent company told us. However, the spokesperson noted that RTX “has a long history of co-producing critical defense systems in Europe, with major suppliers in Poland, Germany, Switzerland and Greece to name a few.”

The American leader also suggested that Ukraine would not need much time before it is able to place domestically produced Patriot interceptors into launchers.

“I think they can produce them pretty quickly,” Trump posited. “They have a great ability to produce weapons.”

As we noted earlier in this piece, that’s unlikely at best, even though Ukraine has been at the forefront of weapons production dating back to when it was part of the Soviet Union.

First of all, such a deal could face bureaucratic and regulatory hurdles, like getting Congressional approval. That’s the least of the issues, however.

For instance, even Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s biggest arms makers, currently produces only about 650 PAC-3 MSE interceptors a year, or just shy of two per day. However, under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot annual production to 2,000 in the years to come.

Lockheed Martin Receives Contract to Accelerate PAC-3® MSE Production

“Every PAC-3 MSE interceptor carries a production lead time of 24 months for the missile and 30 months for the solid rocket motor,” the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) explained in a recent analysis. “Such timelines are due to physical industrial constraints, such as the lengthy curing time required for solid rocket motors and the complex, multi-year process of qualifying any new component supplier.”

The primary bottleneck “sits one level below the prime contractor,” FPRI added. “Boeing produces the active radar seeker for every PAC-3 MSE from a single facility in Huntsville, Alabama, and in 2025 it delivered only around 650 to 700 seekers. Recognizing this choke point, the Pentagon signed a framework in April 2026 to triple seeker production, an admission that final assembly capacity is irrelevant if the sub-tier cannot keep up. The same logic applies to the missile’s solid rocket motor, manufactured by L3Harris’s Aerojet Rocketdyne.”

Leaders celebrate groundbreaking of Boeing’s PAC-3 Seeker Factory

Given those issues, whether Ukraine can obtain these components even if it does have a license to build the interceptors is a huge question. It is one that Kyiv is trying to answer for the line of interceptors it is trying to produce at home. 

Fire Point, the Ukrainian company that makes several drones as well as the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile, is working on a domestically designed and produced “anti-ballistic shield.” The backbone of this system is the company’s FP-7.x interceptor missile. In February, the company demonstrated tests of the weapon, which is based on its FP-7 ballistic missile.

That shield “is aerodynamically ready, but still not combat-capable without full integration,” the Kyiv Post noted earlier this month. “Chief designer Denys Shtilerman said the system depends on radars, command centers, a secure data link, and a European-developed seeker head. The company is working with partners to combine these elements into a functioning missile defense network.”

You can see the FP-7 missile in the following video.

As we have previously noted, between U.S. usage in recent Middle East conflicts, sustained consumption by Ukraine and commitments to nearly 20 other nations that are facing increasing threats, the supply of Patriot interceptors is a major problem. Even before Ukraine gained the system and the multiple flare-ups in the Middle East, the depth of the global Patriot missile arsenal and the ability to build enough interceptors in a crisis was concerning. Now demand has exploded and rationing is occurring, with some customers being told their orders are going to be diverted to replenish U.S. stocks. This practice even predates the second Trump administration, with the Biden White House telling allies their orders will be diverted to Taiwan and Ukraine.

All of these interceptors for various buyers will need the same long-lead, highly specialized components that Ukraine would need for domestic production of these weapons.

Even if Ukraine can round up all the components, it still needs a place to put them all together into a workable weapon. Given that it faces constant missile and drone barrages from Russia, Ukraine disperses a lot of its weapons production to avoid having one point of failure in the event of a devastating attack. However, that might not be optimal for the production of enough Patriot interceptors to provide an adequate defense against these threats. Any large facility purpose-built or converted for this effort — which could take years — would be a prime target and likely attacked very quickly.

Should Ukraine find a suitable, secure location, perhaps underground, it still needs people to do the work. That raises another level of concern, according to David Shank, a retired Army colonel 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.

“From my perspective, I am absolutely 100% concerned about the Ukrainians and anyone they let in those facilities,” Shank noted. “And of course that brings into play how much information and capability we are willing to share for the Ukrainians to build Patriot interceptors.”

Shank’s concerns are well-founded. Security around these weapons and their components is very high. The chances that data or hardware could find its way into enemy hands is a problem in a country at war with its neighbor, and those risks are greater with the more advanced variants of these weapons like the PAC-3 family.

As Raytheon noted in its response to our inquiry, licensed production of Patriot interceptors is a concept not without precedent. Japan also has a contract with Lockheed Martin to produce about 30 Patriot interceptors per year. Plans to boost that number hit a snag in 2024 over supply chain issues, Reuters reported at the time. Meanwhile, a new MBDA-Raytheon facility in Europe built to make GEM-T Patriot missiles is due to open later this year, according to the Financial Times.

In addition to that, plans were announced during the NATO Summit to build a European Patriot PAC-3 maintenance facility.

Also unknown is how Ukraine will pay for all this, though it is likely European nations will help foot the bill.

All things considered, it will be a while before Ukraine can defend its skies with homegrown Patriot interceptors.

“I do think there will be bureaucratic hurdles to get over,” Shank surmised. “But ultimately I believe the tech transfer and supply chain will drive the pace. I am sure Ukraine has already identified the big ticket items needed to make this happen. I believe the supply chain of the intricate components, chips, and circuit cards could slow the process.”

In addition to promising he would give Ukraine a license to build Patriot, Trump also said he would provide an undisclosed number of additional ones from existing U.S. stocks.

There’s a long way to go before Ukraine can procure the Patriot interceptors it needs.

According to Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Directorate (GUR), “Russia’s military-industrial complex plans to deliver up to 700 9M723 ballistic missiles for the Iskander operational-tactical missile system in 2026, the same number as last year,” Ukrainska Pravda reported. “Monthly production rates remain at 55-60 missiles.”

In addition, “the Russians have more than doubled production of RM-48U missiles for S-300PM and S-400 air defense systems, which they use to strike ground targets,” the publication added. “Over 480 such missiles are planned to be delivered in 2026, compared with more than 200 in 2025. The current monthly production rate is up to 50 missiles.”

The number of ballistic missiles Russia builds per year exceeds the current pace of high-end Patriot interceptor production, which is telling when it comes to how many interceptors the U.S. can supply Ukraine on a sustained basis under the current production rates.

So, Trump’s offer, if it comes through, won’t solve Ukraine’s urgent need for interceptors. However, becoming a Patriot producer, even after the war, would be a huge win for Kyiv. Developing its own stockpile would give Ukraine a level of security it does not currently enjoy. Being able to potentially co-export some of the interceptors it assembles would also add a boost to its economy that Ukraine badly needs. In addition, it would cement Ukraine further as a high-end weapons manufacturer. Considering the voracious global appetite for these weapons, there would be no shortage of customers.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The attacks have triggered fires in two districts of Kyiv, according to the city’s mayor.

Russian missile attacks have struck Kyiv in the third large-scale assault on the Ukrainian capital in less than a week.

Early on Wednesday, Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said in a statement on Telegram that the Russian strikes had triggered fires in two districts of the city. It is not clear if there have been any casualties or damage.

Moscow also launched a large-scale attack on Kyiv on Monday, killing at least 14 people and damaging at least a dozen buildings.

Both Russia and Ukraine have recently expanded their use of long-range weapons, including missiles, marking a new front in Moscow’s four-year war.

Ukraine has focused its attacks on Russian energy facilities to weaken its war efforts.

Ukraine said on Tuesday that its drones attacked a dozen tankers from Russia’s “shadow fleet” over the past two days that were delivering fuel to Moscow-occupied Crimea. Kyiv’s military said they had struck eight vessels subject to sanctions in the Sea of Azov, each with a deadweight of about 7,000 metric tonnes. Two more tankers were hit later in the day.

The Sea of Azov is a key supply route for Russian forces in Crimea and other occupied parts of southern Ukraine.

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 – in a move that has been unrecognised internationally – eight years before launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Moscow has not publicly commented on this week’s attacks on Ukraine, which also included strikes on electrical substations, radar systems, and missile installations.

Attacks amid NATO Summit

The latest exchange of fire between Russia and Ukraine also comes amid NATO’s annual summit, which began on Tuesday. The military alliance’s leaders have gathered in Turkey’s capital Ankara for the two-day summit, where defence spending and the Russia-Ukraine war is under discussion.

NATO is expected to pledge further military support for Ukraine, as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urges the alliance to step up aid for the country’s air defences following a deadly escalation of Russian attacks on Kyiv.

Zelenskyy – who has renewed his call for Ukraine to be allowed to join the alliance – wrote on social media on Tuesday that he had signed new agreements with Estonia, the Netherlands, and Denmark in Ankara.

The deals create “new opportunities for joint production, the development of innovative defense technologies, systematic exchange of expertise, and the export of Ukrainian battlefield-proven solutions”, he said.

Further agreements are expected with Germany, Norway, Finland, and Canada.

US President Donald Trump is also expected to meet Zelenskyy on the summit sidelines on Wednesday, having spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of the NATO gathering.

Asked about Russia’s war in Ukraine, Trump said he hoped it would be settled “soon”.

“I think they both want to make a deal,” Trump said.

“It’s too bad it took so long, but I think something’s going to come out.”

One of the U.S. Air Force’s B-2 bombers fired an AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) during a recent live-fire sinking exercise (SINKEX) in the Western Pacific. The stealthy LRASM was not previously known to be in the B-2’s arsenal. Integration of the AGM-158C offers a huge boost in capability for the B-2, creating a penetrating fleet-killing platform that could be especially valuable in a future high-end fight in the Pacific against China.

“The Pacific Air Forces successfully conducted a live-fire Sinking Exercise using the B-2 Spirit north of the Mariana Islands. The B-2 deployed the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, demonstrating enhanced ability to achieve strategic objectives within range of potential threats,” according to a press release today from Pacific Air Forces (PACAF). “With the deployment of the LRASM from the B-2 Spirit, the Pacific Air Forces takes a major step forward in countering maritime threats. This milestone showcased impressive high-end innovation reinforcing the US military’s commitment to safeguarding national interests and maintaining global security.”

The release does not provide any further details about the SINKEX, but PACAF confirmed to TWZ directly that the B-2 fired the LRASM at the ex-USS Juneau, a decommissioned Austin class amphibious warfare ship, as part of Exercise Valiant Shield 2026. U.S. and allied forces taking part in the exercise pummeled the Juneau with various munitions this weekend, sending it to the bottom of the Pacific, roughly 200 nautical miles off the coast of Guam. An unnamed Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) submarine appears to have delivered the final blow with a heavyweight torpedo. The B-2’s involvement was not mentioned until today.

“Exercises like Valiant Shield allow U.S. Pacific Command the opportunity to integrate forces from all branches of service and with our allies to conduct precise, lethal, and overwhelming multi-domain effects that demonstrate the strength and versatility of the Joint Force and our commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific,” a PACAF spokesperson told TWZ.

As noted, the B-2’s ability to fire LRASM at all does not appear to have been previously disclosed. When reached for comment, Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) told TWZ that all details about the integration of the missile onto the B-2 were classified, as was whether or not the SINKEX represented any kind of first for the bomber.

A review of the Pentagon’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget proposal does not appear to show any mention of LRASM integration on B-2, or plans to do so in the future. The only cleared launch platforms explicitly mentioned are the Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters and the U.S. Air Force’s B-1 bombers. Work has already been publicly underway to integrate LRASM onto the F-15E Strike Eagle, F-15EX Eagle II, F-16C/D Viper, at least certain variants of the F-35, and the P-8A Poseidon. Budget documents also mention plans to integrate the missile on the B-52 bomber.

The Air Force previously highlighted other efforts to expand the B-2’s anti-ship capabilities in the form of Quicksink precision-guided anti-ship bombs, which leverage the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) guidance kit. You can read more about Quicksink here.

The AGM-158C is derived from the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) family of land-attack cruise missiles. The baseline AGM-158A JASSM and AGM-158B JASSM-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) are already known to be integrated onto the B-2. The B-2 is also known to be able to carry up to 16 AGM-158As, and is very likely capable of carrying the same number of JASSM-ERs and LRASMs, as all of these missiles have the same general form factor.

In terms of its general mode of operation, LRASM uses GPS-assisted Inertial Navigation System (INS) guidance to navigate first to a designated target area. The missile is highly autonomous, thanks to a built-in route planning capability that is linked to an onboard electronic support measures (ESM) package. The missile has the ability to automatically change course in response to the sudden emergence of enemy defenses based on their radio-frequency emissions, as well as use those signals to better detect potential targets.

After arriving in the target area, the missile’s imaging infrared sensor in the nose takes over for the terminal phase of flight. Using a built-in threat target library database, the seeker searches for and categorizes targets autonomously. Information in that database also helps steer the missile to hit the target ship at its most vulnerable point. As a passive sensor, the infrared seeker does not send out radio-frequency signals that an enemy could detect. It is also immune to radio-frequency jamming.

Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)

LRASM also has a datalink that allows it to get threat updates while in flight. It can also work cooperatively with other LRASMs during coordinated strikes. A C-3 variant is now in development that will feature a boost in maximum range, as well as “C++ software, [an] enhanced BLOS [beyond-line-of-sight] Weapons Data Link, [and] advanced survivability” capabilities, according to previously released Navy budget documents. The range of existing versions of the LRASM is not publicly disclosed, but is reported to be between 200 and 300 miles, in line with the AGM-158A JASSM. The C-3 version is expected to have the same reach as the JASSM-ER, which is reported to be around 600 miles.

“With the deployment of the LRASM from the B-2 Spirit, the Pacific Air Forces takes a major step forward in countering maritime threats,” according to today’s release from that command. “This milestone showcased impressive high-end innovation reinforcing the US military’s commitment to safeguarding national interests and maintaining global security.”

“The B-2’s impressive performance underscores the US military’s commitment to adaptability and flexibility in the face of emerging security challenges,” Air Force Gen. Kevin B. Schneider, head of PACAF, also said in a statement. “By prioritizing counter-maritime strike operations, we can maintain a decisive edge over adversaries, protect our national interests and ensure the free and open Pacific that underpin our global security.”

As we noted right up front in this story, pairing the highly survivable and hard-to-spot B-2 with LRASM presents a new penetrating anti-ship capability. Each one of the bombers could engage multiple ships simultaneously and use their other attributes to get within range of even the most high-value targets, such as the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) growing fleet of aircraft carriers and big deck amphibious assault ships. LRASM’s range means that the bombers only need to be in hundreds of miles of their targets. As mentioned, the missiles themselves offer a high degree of survivability, as well.

We already know that the Air Force’s B-1 bomber crews have been training for years to use large LRASM barrages to decapitate major surface naval forces.

“LRASM plays a critical role in ensuring U.S. naval access to operate in both open-ocean and littoral environments due to its enhanced ability to discriminate between targets from long-range,” then-Lt. Col. Timothy Albrecht, said following B-1 training sorties over the Black Sea back in 2020. “With the increase of maritime threats and their improvement of anti-access/area-denial [A2/AD] environmental weapons, this stealthy anti-ship cruise missile provides reduced risk to strike assets by penetrating and defeating sophisticated enemy air-defense systems.”

At that time, Albrecht was a member of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe’s (USAFE) 603rd Air Operations Center and the Bomber Task Force mission planner.

The adversary A2/AD threat ecosystem globally has only continued to grow in scale and scope since then, and TWZ regularly calls attention to this reality. The PLA has already established significant A2/AD bubbles in the Pacific and continues to expand on those capabilities. In this context, the public disclosure of the B-2’s LRASM capability around Valiant Shield in the Pacific can also be seen as sending a message aimed straight at Beijing, just as the U.S. military has done with previous long-range weapon tests in the region in the past.

The fact that LRASM has been integrated onto the B-2 also points to future anti-ship capabilities on the forthcoming B-21 Raider fleet. The B-21 is notably smaller than the B-2, and will be able to carry less ordnance as a result, but the Air Force also plans to buy at least 100 of them, if not substantially more. The Raider is also expected to have extreme unrefueled range. Air Force officials talk regularly about what all this will mean for future operations compared to what is offered today by the still highly capable, but much smaller fleet of just 19 B-2s.

What has been revealed already is that the Air Force now has a very capable, long-range, deep-penetrating delivery platform capable of delivering its most capable and hard-to-detect anti-ship missiles.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

DUBAI holidays can now go ahead as the UK Foreign Office has lifted the travel ban.

All non-essential travel to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was banned back in March.

This was due to the Iran conflict which saw Dubai caught up in the attacks, which included a drone strike on Dubai International Airport.

However, the US and Iran have since signed a peace plan that ends the ongoing war.

In response, the UK Foreign Office has updated their travel advice earlier today.

It now says: “FCDO no longer advises against all but essential travel to UAE.”

BETTER TOGETHER

Multigeneration Dubai holidays save money and simplify childcare

FLIGHT-MARE

Dubai travel warning: How the Israel-Hamas war is affecting UAE flights

It still warns that the situation is “unpredictable and attacks could resume at short notice”.

However, the lifting of the ban means holidays can resume to the region.

Last year, 1.4million Brits visited Dubai alone, which have since massively dropped due to the travel ban.

British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have already suspended flights to Dubai until October 2026 and winter 2027, respectively.

However, Emirates continues to operate flights between the UK and the UAE.

The travel ban being lifted also affects Abu Dhabi, where holidays can also resume.

The UK Foreign Office has lifted the travel ban for Qatar as well, which includes flights going through Doha.

In response, Qatar Airways has increased the number of flights operating between the UK and Doha, including 49 flights a week from London Heathrow and 14 a week from Edinburgh.

This affects long-haul holidays to places like Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Australia, who often use these Middle East hubs as stopover destinations.

Many destinations have seen a drop in tourism because of the war – Thailand predicted as many as 11million long-haul arrivals this year, but has since dropped this to 10million.

President Donald Trump says it’s ‘unfair’ for Iran to lack ballistic missiles if other regional countries have them. Trump is at the G7 in France where the US-Iran deal has taken centre stage.

Video released by US Central Command shows what the military says are ‘self-defence’ strikes on Iranian military surveillance capabilities, communications systems and air defence sites. The footage accompanied a statement that US forces had completed the latest wave of attacks.

Iran and Israel exchanged threats after Tehran launched missiles towards Israel in response to Israeli strikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs. Israel vowed to deepen attacks on Lebanon, while Iran warned of further action if the strikes continue.

Iranian state TV broadcast scenes of celebration in Tehran as missiles flew overhead en route to Israel. Iran says the launch was retaliation for Israel’s earlier attack in Beirut, and other US-Israeli ceasefire breaches.

Iranian media has released video showing missiles being launched towards Israel, while videos captured incoming missiles making impact in northern Israel. Iran says it’s a response to Israel attacking Beirut in violation of a US-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon.

Videos show missiles over Israel as the Israeli military says Iran launched a new wave of attacks. The escalation follows a deadly Israeli strike on Beirut, with Iran warning it would abandon negotiations and return to ‘direct confrontation’.

Travel insurance for Turkey has jumped almost 50 per cent in just a year, according to new data

Five European and Mediterranean destinations including some hotspots much loved by British tourists have been named as having seen big rises in insurance costs, directly caused by the Middle East crisis. Travel insurance for Turkey has jumped 46% in just a year, according to new data analysing 5,000 policies across popular destinations near conflict zones.

There is no sign of the Middle East conflict calming down – today Iran fired ballistic missiles and drones towards Bahrain and Kuwait, Bahrain’s government said, adding that they were intercepted.

Bahrain’s government called on Tehran to immediately cease attacks on Gulf neighbours that it deemed a “serious escalation”. Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the US early Saturday attacked surveillance facilities on Qeshm Island and near Sirik that it said were used to protect borders and “ensure the security of navigation in international waters”.

The latest exchange of fire came as the Trump administration pressed Iran to make a deal to end the war that has strained the global economy and threatened a hunger crisis in some of the world’s most vulnerable countries.

The US military earlier said it shot down several Iranian missiles and drones launched towards the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf Arab allies, and struck some of the Islamic Republic’s coastal surveillance radar sites in response.

It has had a big impact on the region with some popular destinations seeing big rises in premiums. Quotezone travel insurance expert Helen Rolph warned travellers not to assume last year’s prices still apply and urges holidaymakers to compare policies carefully, buy cover as soon as they book, and check Foreign Office advice before travelling.

Industry experts compared 5,000 travel insurance premiums across five popular tourist destinations close to conflict zones, revealing which countries have seen the biggest price increases over the past year.

Prices in Turkey have been affected the most despite it traditionally being considered one of the most popular and cost-effective destinations for UK holidaymakers over recent years.

Standard travel insurance premiums to the country have jumped from £40.56 in early 2025 to £59.19 just a year later – a rise of 46% or almost £20 per trip – which may be due to the fact it shares a border with Iran.

Holidaymakers travelling to Bulgaria are also seeing a sharp rise with prices up 19%, possibly down to its proximity to Ukraine.

Premiums for Cyprus have increased by 6%, Egypt by 4% and Poland by 8%. To gather the data, popular holiday destinations for British tourists were cross-referenced with countries geographically close to conflict zones, namely Ukraine and Iran, creating a dataset of major holiday hotspots in relative proximity to areas of geopolitical tension.

Insurers regularly reassess risk when global tensions rise, particularly in destinations close to areas where travel complications might become more likely.

Destinations situated close to areas experiencing heightened tensions – such as Iran and Ukraine – could see premiums shift as insurers reassess the likelihood of travel disruption, delays or emergency evacuation should issues escalate.

Helen Rolph, travel insurance expert at Quotezone.co.uk said: “Travel insurance prices change constantly as insurers respond to global events, the number of claims made and healthcare costs.

“Even if a destination remains popular despite its proximity to ongoing conflict, premiums can rise when the wider region becomes more uncertain.

“Travellers and holidaymakers shouldn’t assume last year’s prices will still apply and make sure they’re comparing policies carefully rather than opting for the cheapest option, as cover can vary significantly.

“It’s also sensible to arrange insurance as soon as a trip is booked, check government travel advice before departure, and ensure any medical conditions are fully declared.

“Travel disruption insurance can also be useful as it covers a wider range of issues while travelling but it’s important to remember that travel insurance won’t provide cover if the foreign office advises against travel to that region and most travel insurance policies won’t cover war related incidents. It’s crucial for holidaymakers to check what is and isn’t covered on their policy and add any extras or specialised cover they might need.”

Travel Insurance Premiums

Country // Average 2025 // Average 2026 // Average Price Change // % Change

Turkey £40.56 £59.19 £18.63 46%

Bulgaria £32.70 £38.82 £6.11 19%

Poland £10.50 £11.32 £0.82 8%

Cyprus £43.21 £45.80 £2.59 6%

Egypt £68.52 £71.30 £2.78 4%