missiles

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is moving to demonstrate a new, fully integrated extended-range strike capability for the AC-130J Ghostrider gunship. The two core elements of this effort are an active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar and the AGM-190A Small Cruise Missile (SCM), work on which has been underway separately for some time now. TWZ has long highlighted how giving the AC-130J an AESA radar would boost its ability to engage targets at longer ranges. This, in turn, could also help ensure the Ghostrider’s relevance in future high-end fights, especially in the Pacific region.

Col. Justin Bronder, head of SOCOM’s Program Executive Office for Fixed Wing (PEO-FW), discussed the integration of the radar together with the AGM-190A on the AC-130J earlier today. Bronder spoke to TWZ and other outlets alongside other SOCOM acquisition officials at a roundtable on the sidelines of the annual SOF Week conference.

AGM-190A is the formal U.S. military designation for the SCM, developed by Leidos, originally under the name Black Arrow. It has now also emerged that SOCOM refers to the missile by the nickname Havoc Spear. With a demonstrated range of at least 400 miles, the missile has far greater reach than any of the other missiles and precision bombs that the AC-130J is known to be able to employ now by a huge margin. The Ghostrider’s current armament package, which also includes a 30mm automatic cannon and a 105mm howitzer, is focused on close air support and interdiction missions against targets at much closer ranges.

“A lot going on in that space,” Col. Bronder said today. “Our unique teaming with Leidos, that started with a CRADA [Cooperative Research and Development Agreement], that accelerated through an express development program on the now called AGM-190 Havoc Spear affordable cruise missile.”

A CRADA is a non-traditional research and development mechanism through which elements of the U.S. military can pool resources with private companies and other organizations. These agreements allow the parties involved to pursue mutually beneficial work, but without a typical contract or even money necessarily changing hands.

“That program [the AGM-190] has really been moving along quite, quite quickly,” Bronder continued. “We’re looking at ways to kind of accelerate fielding of that weapon in the not too distant future with close teaming with AFSOC [Air Force Special Operations Command] partners to really collapse that development and operational test timeline. So, real big acquisition success there.”

Leidos completes successful test launch of a Small Cruise Missile

“We have tech demonstrations with the AESA radar and the small cruise missile that we’re now looking to see how we can augment and accelerate fielding those types of capabilities for the SOF [special operations forces] fleet,” Bronder added.

“CRADAs produced the AGM-190A Havoc Spear small cruise missile that offers an affordable mass solution with significant range to our service partners,” U.S. Navy Adm. Frank Bradley, head of SOCOM, also said separately during his keynote address at the SOF Week conference earlier today. “Integrated with the AESA radar on the AC-130 gunship, [it is] a formidable capability.”

SOCOM’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, released last month, had hinted at plans to demonstrate the new combination of capabilities for the AC-130J in the next year or so. The command is asking for nearly $5.9 million to support work on the so-called Precision Strike Package (PSP) for the AC-130J. PSP is the overarching system through which all weapons and associated sensors are integrated onto the Ghostrider.

The new funding “is required to integrate AESA radar capabilities into the PSP,” according to SOCOM’s budget documents. The planned work “includes software and hardware development to incorporate the AESA functionality into the Battle Management System and other associated AC-130J systems.”

What specific AESA radar is going on the AC-130Js is unclear. At last year’s SOF Week conference, Col. Bronder said there was “pathfinding” underway involving Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG-83, also known as Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR).

SABR AESA Radar for the F-16

“AFSOC is exploring the development and use of the AESA Radar on the AC-130J as the command continues to operate as both the SOF component to the Air Force and air component to USSOCOM,” AFSOC told TWZ when asked for an update in August 2025. “We cannot discuss the type of radar due to operational security.”

The APG-83 does remain a very plausible choice. The Air Force has already been in the process of integrating this radar onto a significant portion of its fleets of F-16C/D Viper fighters for years now. Beyond its target detection and tracking capabilities, the AN/APG-83 has a synthetic aperture mapping mode and is capable of producing ground moving target indicator data. Also referred to as SAR mapping, this mode allows SABR to produce high-resolution radar imagery. GMTI tracks can be overlaid on those images. All of this, in turn, can be used for target acquisition and identification purposes, as well as general reconnaissance.

There are other AESA radars on the market, as well, including a growing number of compact designs. Radars of this type, in general, can spot objects of interest, even ones with smaller radar cross-sections, faster and do so with greater precision and fidelity compared to older mechanically-scanned models. They can also just scan faster and perform multiple functions near-simultaneously, and do so with improved resistance to radiofrequency jamming and far greater reliability.

As mentioned, TWZ has long pointed out that the addition of an AESA radar would be a huge upgrade for the AC-130J’s ability to spot, track, and engage targets at extended ranges, even in bad weather. The radar would be able to provide real-time midcourse updates to a stand-off weapon if it had a data link capability. This would make engaging moving targets possible if the missile also had a terminal seeker capable of doing so.

Overall, the capability boosts the AESA radar offers are especially important when paired with new, longer-range strike munitions like the AGM-190A. The radar could also help improve the Ghostrider’s effectiveness when employing other shorter-range munitions, including GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) now and GBU-53/B StormBreakers (also known as SDB IIs) in the future.

AESA radars will also expand the AC-130J’s general surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as provide improved general situational awareness.

This is all reflected in SOCOM’s budget documents, which state: “AESA radar enhances the AC-130J’s situational awareness, precision targeting, and survivability while replacing phased-out legacy radars, enabling the Gunship to close Joint Force kill webs and expand its role in support of USINDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] and Western Hemisphere operations.”

The mention here of the Indo-Pacific region underscores broader questions about future operational relevance that have been facing the AC-130 fleet in recent years. The Ghostrider and its immediate predecessors were workhorses during the Global War on Terror era, flying heavily over countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Even so, they flew almost exclusively under the cover of darkness to help reduce vulnerability to ground fire.

Can The AC-130 Gunship Stay Relevant?

Threats to AC-130s would be far more pronounced in any future high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific. For years now, this has been the chief scenario driving U.S. military planning around force structure and other requirements. The latest conflict with Iran, as well as other U.S. operations in and around the Middle East in recent years, have made clear that more capable air defense systems are steadily proliferating to smaller nation states and even non-state actors, as well.

The integration of a new stand-off strike capability paired with an AESA radar is one way for the AC-130J to respond to this evolving threat ecosystem. It could also open the door to other new capabilities for the Ghostrider, as well as other AFSOC aircraft like the OA-1K Skyraider II light attack plane. Similar questions about future relevance have been raised about the OA-1K, a design that is also primarily geared toward counter-terrorism missions and other low-intensity conflicts.

The AC-130J fleet is also in the process of receiving a number of other upgrades, including improvements to its defense countermeasures suite.

It is very possible that the AGM-190A could find its way out of the special operations community and into more widespread U.S. military use. The Air Force is currently planning to buy nearly 28,000 low-cost strike munitions over the next five years through its Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program.

“We’re also continuing to talk to the Air Force about what they’re doing with their Family of Affordable Mass Munitions [sic]” to see “if there’s some continued interplay there for us to do a service-to-SOF or SOF-to-service transition,” Col. Bronder said today.

Last week, the Pentagon also rolled out a plan to acquire at least 10,000 lower-cost cruise missiles, primarily for surface-launched applications from containerized launchers, in the next three years. Leidos is among the companies now involved in this Low-Cost Containerized Missiles (LCCM) program, and is developing a derivative of the AGM-190A to meet those requirements.

For the AC-130J, a full-up demonstration of the pair of an AESA radar and the AGM-190A cruise missile will mark another step toward giving the gunships a valuable, if not increasingly essential, boost in capability.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The Pentagon has outlined plans to acquire at least 10,000 lower-cost cruise missiles over the next three years, as well as a similar number of relatively ‘cheap’ Blackbeard hypersonic missiles. The new framework deals are part of a broader strategy to dramatically bolster America’s stockpiles of standoff strike munitions and prime the industrial base to sustain those inventories going forward. This is all seen as especially critical for supporting the demands of future high-end fights, such as one in the Pacific against China, and doing so in a cost-effective manner.

“The Department of War has reached new framework agreements with a slate of disruptive new entrants and commercial innovators to aggressively expand the United States military’s strike capabilities,” the Pentagon declared in a press release today. “Agreements with Anduril, CoAspire, Leidos, and Zone 5 will launch the Low-Cost Containerized Missles [sic; Missiles] (LCCM) program, while a parallel agreement with Castelion advances an initiative to scale low-cost hypersonic solutions.”

“The new frameworks for LCCM will drive a fast-paced experimentation and assessment campaign that will culminate in a Military Utility Assessment by the sponsoring Service Components. Designed to move at the speed of commercial industry, the agreements establish the terms for future firm-fixed-price production contracts,” the release adds. “This effort positions the Department to procure over 10,000 low-cost cruise missiles across these portfolios in just three years, starting in 2027. The Department is creating a pathway for rapid and repeatable production of high-volume, lethal strike capabilities. The agreements include firm fixed material-unit costs for production lots in 2027 through 2029.”

The Pentagon has not yet explicitly defined what it means by “containerized” in this context, or how exactly these munitions might be fielded. However, there is already a clear focus on designs that could be fired from containerized launchers on land or loaded on ships. As TWZ has reported on many occasions, containerized systems offer immense operational flexibility, as well as the ability to blend in with standard shipping containers, creating targeting challenges for opponents. The LCCM munitions could be adapted for air launch, if they are not expected to also be employable in that mode already. Common munitions that could be employed from launch platforms across domains would offer additional benefits in terms of logistics and production, as well as helping to keep costs down through economies of scale.

Anduril has already announced that its contribution will be the surface-launched version of its Barracuda-500M design, a weapon that can also be air-launched. The company says it plans to deliver a minimum of 1,000 of these weapons to the U.S. military each year for the next three years.

Leidos says it will supply an LCCM design that leverages existing work on its air-launched AGM-190A Small Cruise Missile (SCM), also known as Black Arrow, originally developed for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The company plans to deliver 3,000 of these units under the new framework deal.

Leidos completes successful test launch of a Small Cruise Missile

“At approximately twice the size of the AGM-190A, the LCCM offers increased mission effectiveness and fuel capacity to maximize range. Building on the Leidos Small Cruise Missile’s heritage, the LCCM leverages key design features including a modular airframe and a common Weapon Open Systems Architecture (WOSA) to enable rapid integration, upgrades and mission adaptability,” Leidos’ press release adds. “The design also utilizes Leidos’ established supply chain and scalable production approach. While initially ground-launched, LCCM’s modular design could also support maritime platform integration and air-launched variants.”

At the time of writing, CoAspire and Zone 5, the latter of which was recently acquired by Norway’s Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, do not appear to have issued press releases regarding the Pentagon’s LCCM announcement. However, both companies have already developed cruise missile designs under the U.S. Air Force’s Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) program, which was focused first on delivering new, lower-cost air-launched strike capabilities to Ukraine. CoAspire’s ERAM design is called the Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile (RAACM), while one from Zone 5 is named Rusty Dagger.

RAACM Cruise Missile Video Long Range Flights Summer 2025 Cleared for Public Release

ERAM is also now feeding into the Air Force’s Family of Affordable Mass Missiles (FAMM) program. That service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year had already laid out plans to buy nearly 28,000 FAMM munitions over the next five years.

CoAspire has talked in the past about surface-launched versions of its RAACM and its new longer-range RAACM-ER. Zone 5 could similarly look to adapt its existing Rusty Dagger missile to meet the specific LCCM requirements.

“Concurrently, once Castelion achieves testing and validation, the Department will award a two-year multi-year procurement contract for a minimum of 500 Blackbeard missiles annually, with options to extend for up to five years,” the Pentagon’s press release today also notes. “To further encourage Castelion’s self-funded facility expansion, the Department is actively seeking the necessary authorizations and appropriations to purchase over 12,000 Blackbeard missiles over five years.”

Castelion has already been developing a ground-launched version of Blackbeard for the U.S. Army. Last month, the company formally announced that it had received a separate contract from the U.S. Navy for an air-launched version to arm that service’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

“The experimentation and assessment campaign for LCCM will be led by the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering, with the Army Program Acquisition Executive Fires serving as the transition partner and acquisition lead for procurement,” according to the Pentagon. “To kickstart this initiative, the Department will procure test missiles from all four LCCM companies starting in June 2026, laying the groundwork for the assessment phase of the program. These agreements were developed in close coordination with the United States Air Force Program Acquisition Executive Weapons, the Test Resource Management Center and multiple components across the War Department, including the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment.”

It should be stressed here that the problem set that LCCM and the tangential framework arrangement with Castelion are intended to address, that of a critical need for production of cost-effective strike munitions at scale, is not new. 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 LCCM effort follows years of work in the pursuit of lower-cost stand-off munitions, especially by the U.S. Air Force. This is underscored by the fact that all of the companies named today already have relevant designs that they have been working on under contract to the U.S. military. This, in turn, has already led to an explosion in the market for munitions in this general category, many of which increasingly blur the line between long-range kamikaze drones, traditional cruise missiles, and decoys. It should also be noted that the new lower-cost munitions are not intended to replace existing exquisite designs, but instead to form a valuable high-low capability mix that offers a more cost-effective and flexible blend of options for striking targets.

The U.S. Army and U.S. Navy have also made significant investments already in containerized launchers capable of firing various types of longer-ranged missiles.

If the frameworks announced today produce the promised results, they could be instrumental in laying the foundation for the production of lower-cost strike munitions for years to come.

Update: 6:20 PM EST –

Zone 5 has now provided a statement regarding today’s announcement from the Pentagon.

“Zone 5 is proud to partner with the Department of War on the Low-Cost Containerized Missiles program to deliver affordable, scalable strike capacity to our warfighters needed to deter and defeat emerging threats,” Thomas Akers, CEO of Zone 5 Technologies, said. “This program reflects exactly where American defense innovation must go: faster development, on-demand production, and high-volume weapons that can be fielded at the pace of relevance. We are honored to be a part of this effort to expand the munitions industrial base and strengthen America’s arsenal.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

A former Philippine Navy warship was sent to the bottom today by the combined effects of maritime strike drills launched by Japanese, Philippine, and U.S. forces in the Luzon Strait, one of the world’s most strategic and tense bodies of water. The maneuvers, which reportedly involved a variety of anti-ship missiles and rocket artillery, were part of the broader Balikatan exercise, which is especially important in the context of rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

Located roughly 50 miles offshore, the target vessel for a live-fire sinking exercise (SINKEX) campaign was the decommissioned Philippine Navy Rizal class patrol corvette, the former BRP Quezon. The ship was originally completed for the U.S. Navy as an Auk class minesweeper during World War II, serving as the USS Vigilance before being transferred to the Philippines and serving in a new role in the late 1960s. The BRP Quezon, which had a standard displacement of 890 tons, was decommissioned in 2021.

The maritime strike (MARSTRIKE) drills were conducted on the island of Luzon, which sits at the northern end of the Philippines, and is the country’s largest and most populous island. Specifically, the live-fire drills took place around the Paoay Sand Dunes, in the coastal region of Ilocos Norte.

The drills began around 10:00 a.m. local time with a U.S. Army M30/31 Guided Multiple-Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) fired as a “probing round,” with the location of the target vessel being confirmed around 10:15 a.m.

The GMLRS artillery rocket is a highly precise, rapid-strike weapon that can attack targets to a distance of around 50 miles, which would put it right at the limit of its range. It is fired from the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) that can launch six guided or unguided 227mm artillery rockets or a single Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missile without reloading. GMLRS is not capable of engaging moving targets, so it has limited application in the traditional anti-ship mission set.

In a combined strike, anti-ship missiles were reportedly then launched from a U.S. Marine Corps Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) and from a Philippine Navy C-Star system.

Of these, NMESIS employs an uncrewed variant of the 4×4 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), also known as the Remotely Operated Ground Unit Expeditionary-Fires (ROGUE-Fires), on which is mounted a launcher with two ready-to-fire Naval Strike Missiles (NSM). These have a range of around 130 miles and have low-observable features, making them harder for enemy air defenses to detect and engage.

NMESIS is meant to be rapidly deployable and capable of highly dispersed operations in austere areas. As an uncrewed vehicle-launcher combo, small teams of Marines monitor multiple launchers dispersed around an area and move them regularly to keep them from being targeted by the enemy. The system was first deployed in a Balikatan exercise last year, as you can read about here.

While Philippine media reports that the NMESIS, operated by the Hawaii-based 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment, fired a missile during today’s drill, this is refuted by a report from Stars and Stripes. The 3rd MLR is notable in itself, being expressly designed to fight within an enemy’s own littorals, with all the challenges that brings.

Meanwhile, the C-Star is the Philippine Navy’s primary anti-ship missile. Produced by South Korea’s LIG Nex1, a version of this missile is used by the Republic of Korea Navy as the Haeseong. The Philippines uses the C-Star to arm its two Miguel Malvar class and two Jose Rizal class frigates, which are also made in South Korea. Similar to the U.S.-made Harpoon, the C-Star is a turbojet-powered, sea-skimming missile with a range of around 90 miles.

In the drill, the C-Star was likely fired from the Philippine Navy frigates BRP Miguel Malvar and Antonio Luna, both of which are known to be taking part in Balikatan.

These were followed by two rounds fired from a Japanese land-based Type 88 anti-ship missile system, fired for the first time during a Balikatan exercise, and for the first time anywhere outside Japan. The Japanese missiles reportedly struck the hull of the target ship around 10:30 a.m.

JSDF Type 88 missiles fire for the first time in Balikatan 2026 | GMA News

Developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in the 1980s, the Type 88 (also known as the SSM-1) is the primary coastal anti-ship missile system of the Japan Self-Defense Forces, with a range of around 100 miles, although more capable and further-reaching weapons are now in development, as you can read about here.

Interestingly, in a video released of the live-fire event in Ilocos Norte, close protection was being provided to the truck-mounted Type 88 launcher by a Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS), also from the 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment. MADIS utilizes the JTLV and distributes different sensors and effectors between individual JLTVs, as you can read more about here. In this kind of scenario, it would be tasked with protecting the coastal missile battery against kamikaze drones and other aerial threats at short ranges.

The vessel sank rapidly, meaning that the Philippine Air Force wasn’t able to deliver more munitions onto the target. FA-50 light combat aircraft and A-29 Super Tucano turboprop close support aircraft had both been prepared to strike the same ship, but were stood down.

Other air assets taking part included a U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and an MQ-9 drone.

With the ship sunk or sinking, a coup de grace was provided by a U.S. HIMARS, which fired onto the same coordinates.

Also involved in Balikatan is the Royal Canadian Navy frigate HMCS Charlottetown, although it appears that it didn’t take part in the live-fire event.

According to a Philippine military spokesperson, another round of live-fire drills will take place tomorrow as part of Balikatan, utilizing a stand-by target vessel. This will also allow Philippine Air Force aircraft to take part.

The live-fire drills, conducted under the Balikatan exercise, signaled a notable expansion of Japan’s military role in the region as Tokyo strengthens security partnerships with its allies amid growing tensions with Beijing.

Overall, the live-fire exercise is highly significant due to its proximity to the Chinese mainland and the long range of some of the missiles that have been employed.

The Luzon Strait, into which the various missiles and rockets were fired, sits between Taiwan and the Philippines, spanning about 220 miles at its narrowest point. It serves as a vital shipping route and a highly strategic military corridor, particularly for China’s rapidly expanding naval forces. From this passage, assets stationed in the South China Sea can move into the Philippine Sea and the wider Pacific, and back again. This includes China’s growing fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, some of which underpin its second-strike nuclear deterrent.

The strait is also a crucial gateway for the U.S. Navy entering the South China Sea and would likely be a central battleground in any major conflict over Taiwan. Because of its importance, the area is closely monitored for activity both above and below the surface. In the event of war, it would quickly turn into a dense anti-ship missile engagement zone (SMEZ). The live-fire campaign today gave just a small taster of that kind of contingency.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Army test-fired a Tomahawk cruise missile from a Typhon launcher in the central Philippines, successfully hitting a target around 370 miles away in Nueva Ecija.

On this occasion, the Tomahawk missile was supporting ground troops in a night land maneuver exercise led by the 25th Infantry Division in Fort Magsaysay, part of the Balikatan exercise.

The Typhon ground-based missile system can also fire SM-6 multi-purpose missiles, which are used in this application in a quasi-ballistic missile land-attack mode. As for the Tomahawk cruise missile, this provided land attack and anti-ship capabilities. 

As we have discussed before, Typhon’s arrival in the Philippines in 2025 sent a clear signal to Beijing and throughout the region. It is a glimpse of what’s to come as the service works through plans to permanently base these systems in China’s backyard.

Compared to the longer-range Typhon, which is deployed further from the Luzon Strait, for the Balikatan exercise, the shorter-range NMESIS and Type 88 anti-ship missiles are pushed much closer to the zone in which their likely wartime targets would be found. As we have explored in the past, anti-ship missiles of this kind, and especially NMESIS, can also be deployed deeper into the strait, making use of smaller Philippine islands, like the Batanes island chain, although that ratchets up their exposure to counterstrikes considerably.

For both these kinds of missiles, their survival would rely upon the dispersal of launchers and other vehicles, as well as regularly moving them around to help prevent them from being targeted by the enemy. Of course, with the uncrewed NMESIS, this is designed from the ground up to not put personnel in harm’s way. All of this kind of doctrine is central to the Marines’ Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) strategy, which is now a core tenet of how it would fight in the Pacific.

Already, China has voiced its displeasure at the deployment of the U.S. Army’s Typhon system to the Philippines. What is now becoming a regular appearance of NMESIS, backed up by other highly mobile strike systems, including allied anti-ship missiles, within reach of the Luzon Strait, will undoubtedly trigger similar concerns in Beijing. However, the live-fire sinking exercise today underscores how critical this waterway is to the U.S. military and its allies in the region, just as it is to China. Having more varied and more mobile anti-shipping assets in the northern Philippines complicates targeting for China, while extending the capabilities of the anti-access strategy of the U.S. military and its allies in the Luzon Strait, should a conflict break out.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Iranian state media says two missiles have struck a US navy destroyer to prevent it entering the Strait of Hormuz after the warship ignored warnings to halt. The attack comes after US President Donald Trump announced a naval mission to ‘guide’ stranded ships through the strait.

Recently uncovered wreckage of an Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) reveals that Ukraine is employing the AIM-120C-8 version, a weapon that is close to the ‘top of the line’ for these missiles. Ukraine can employ AMRAAMs of all types from its F-16 fighters, as well as from the ground-based National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) air defense system.

A photo showing part of an AMRAAM missile body clearly marked with the AIM-120C-8 designation began to circulate online recently. According to available accounts, the wreckage was found in the aftermath of a Russian air attack on Dnipro in central Ukraine, during which the Ukrainian Armed Forces were active in defense of the city.

Previous imagery of Ukrainian F-16s had confirmed they were using some version of the AIM-120C, which can be identified on account of its cropped fins for internal carriage in the F-22 and F-35. This appears to be the first confirmation that the AIM-120C-8, specifically, has been supplied to Kyiv, in addition to earlier AIM-120A/B versions.

As we’ve discussed in the past, the AIM-120C offers some significant advantages over the earlier AIM-120A/B models.

In general, the ‘Charlie’ version offers a range of advanced capabilities that reflect the continuous development of both this specific sub-variant and the AIM-120 series overall. Even in its earliest sub-generation versions, the C-model features notable upgrades in terms of range, guidance, resistance to countermeasures, and other key areas.

Successive improvements reportedly introduced on the AIM-120C family include a new WDU-41/B warhead (AIM-120C-4), a new WPU-16/B propulsion section with a larger motor and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) upgrades (AIM-120C-5), and an updated proximity fuze (AIM-120C-6). Meanwhile, the AIM-120C-7 features further improved ECCM, an upgraded seeker, and a longer range.

The exact differences between the AIM-120C-8 and the AIM-120D are somewhat unclear, although the D-model, at least, is understood to feature two-way datalink with third-party targeting capabilities. The AIM-120D may also feature an active electronically scanned array (AESA) seeker, while the C-8 remains a mechanically scanned antenna. There have been previous suggestions that the AIM-120D is reserved for the U.S. military and its closest allies, while other international customers receive the AIM-120C-8.

It was an AIM-120D that was used for what the U.S. Air Force described as the “longest known” air-to-air missile shot, during a series of tests in airspace near Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in the fall of 2024. The launch platform on that occasion was an F-22. This would fit with reports that the D-model features significantly greater range than earlier versions, although, once again, the precise differences between AIM-120C-8 and AIM-120D are unclear.

Both the AIM-120C-8 and the AIM-120D have also been further enhanced under the F3R program, developed for the U.S. Air Force. F3R stands for form, fit, function refresh, and is primarily intended to eke out more performance from the missile, as you can read more about here. It’s not clear if Ukraine’s AIM-120C-8s also benefit from the F3R improvements.

A recent promotional video from Raytheon includes footage of a separation launch of the latest-generation AMRAAM F3R from a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet:

Air Dominance With a Digital Edge

The plan was for the U.S. Air Force to begin to receive AMRAAMs incorporating F3R starting early 2023, as part of the Lot 33 production run. The U.S. AMRAAM program of record is expected to continue into around 2027 or 2028. As for the AIM-120C-8, these missiles are expected to remain in production for international partners long beyond 2030.

Regardless, the AIM-120C-8 offers Ukraine a notably long-range weapon.

While official performance figures are classified, it is generally assumed to be able to hit targets at a distance of between 75 and 100 miles. Of course, in practical applications, a whole range of factors impact a missile’s reach, above all, the energy and altitude state of the launching aircraft and the target.

In an air-to-air context, the weapon goes some way toward closing the gap with Russia’s R-37M missile, known to NATO as the AA-13 Axehead. According to the manufacturer, at least in its export form, the R-37M can defeat “some types” of aerial targets at a range of up to 124 miles. This likely refers to only larger, less agile, aircraft targets and is very much a “sales brochure figure,” with all the caveats that entails.

At this stage, we don’t know for sure whether the wreckage in Dnipro came from an air-launched AMRAAM, i.e., fired by an F-16, or if it was an effector from a ground-based NASAMS.

In the case of the F-16, the importance of the AMRAAM cannot be overstated. This was the first active-radar-guided air-to-air missile to be fielded by Ukraine. This is a class of weapons that the Ukrainian Air Force long campaigned for. One of its fighter pilots, the late Andrii Pilshchykov, better known by his callsign “Juice,” told TWZ back in 2022: “The lack of fire and forget missiles is the greatest problem for us.”

More recently, Ukrainian F-16s have had to rely more heavily on AMRAAMs. Earlier this year, reports emerged indicating that Ukraine had been left late last year with only “a handful” of U.S.-made AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for its F-16s, after the supply of these short-range weapons dried up.

This left the F-16 pilots with AMRAAMs plus the jet’s internal 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon.

As we have discussed many times before, taking out slow-moving drones via another fixed-wing aircraft with guns can be very challenging and downright dangerous, especially for fast jets. AMRAAMs can be employed against drones and cruise missiles, too, but are more expensive weapons than the Sidewinders. Each AMRAAM costs around one million dollars.

To help plug the gap, Ukrainian F-16s have begun using laser-guided 70mm Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rockets. These rockets provide an extremely valuable, lower-cost option for engaging long-range kamikaze drones and subsonic cruise missiles. U.S. Air Force F-16s began using them in combat last year, as we were first to report.

While somewhat less likely, there’s also a possibility that the Dnipro wreckage came from an AIM-120C-8 fired by a NASAMS.

Deliveries of the first two Ukrainian NASAMS batteries were expedited after Russia’s large-scale missile and drone assault on major population centers in Ukraine in late 2022.

A video showing the Ukrainian NASAMS in action:

Привітання до Дня Повітряних Сил ЗС України 2023

As we explored at the time, a critical advantage of NASAMS is the fact that it fires the exact same missiles used in air-to-air applications. It does not require a special AMRAAM variant or major modifications to existing missiles. In addition, it can fire other types of effectors, including the AMRAAM-ER, which is a hybrid of the AIM-120 and the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), and the infrared-homing AIM-9X Sidewinder and IRIS-T missiles. 

It might be expected that Ukrainian NASAMS is being fed with older AIM-120A/Bs, which, in the ground-launched application, are capable of engaging targets from relatively close ranges to up to roughly 20 miles away and from around 1,000 feet to 50,000 feet. These targets include everything from cruise missiles — which it is very good at engaging — to crewed aircraft and drones.

Another major factor behind the appearance of the AIM-120C-8 wreckage could be the indication that stocks of older (AIM-120A/B and earlier C-version) missiles have been depleted, leading to the inclusion of higher-end C variants. If so, this would increase the pressure on at least some of the foreign partners who are supporting Ukraine with weapons, particularly given the global imbalance between the supply and demand for munitions. The conflict in Iran is likely to intensify this strain, as the United States is reportedly delaying deliveries to customers to prioritize replenishing its own inventories.

As it stands, we now have confirmation that Ukraine is using what is almost certainly the most advanced and capable version of the AMRAAM that is available to all but the very closest U.S. military allies. As such, it should provide Ukraine with a particularly powerful tool in its ongoing battle against Russian air attacks.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The U.S. Navy has shared details about what looks to be a previously undisclosed effort to rapidly arm ships in two carrier strike groups with radar-guided Longbow Hellfire missiles to protect against drones. This reflects a larger push to expand shipboard defenses against uncrewed aerial threats, which now includes four Arleigh Burke class destroyers sailing with new launchers to fire Coyote interceptors. TWZ was first to report on the appearance of one of these launchers on the USS Carl M. Levin, with Naval News subsequently sharing more information.

The dangers drones pose, including to Navy warships, are not new. Still, the service’s experiences in recent years during operations in and around the Red Sea, as well as against Iran, have firmly driven home the critical need for more shipboard defenses against uncrewed aerial threats.

“Supplemental funding was provided to rapidly field CUAS [Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems] solutions for the Gerald R Ford Carrier Strike Group (CSG) which included the procurement of Longbow Hellfire launchers, Coyote launchers, and the installation/integration work,” according to a line item in the Navy’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request, which the service rolled out in full earlier this week. “Funding was also provided to rapidly field CUAS solutions on the Theodore Roosevelt CSG to include Longbow Hellfire Launchers, Coyote launchers, and the installation/integration work.”

“FY2024 and FY2025 [Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025] funding utilized to rapidly field CUAS solutions for the Gerald R Ford Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and the Theodore Roosevelt CSG, which included the procurements of Longbow Hellfire launchers, procurements of Coyote launchers, installations, and integration work,” the newly released budget documents also note.

The same line item is present in the Navy’s proposed budget for the 2026 Fiscal Year, but makes no mention of the Hellfire or Coyote integration efforts. An early type of naval launcher for Coyote was first seen on Arleigh Burke class destroyers assigned to the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group last year, and we will come back to developments on that front later on.

The Navy’s latest budget documents do not say which ships in the Gerald R. Ford and Theodore Roosevelt CSGs may have received the Longbow Hellfire launchers, or whether they are currently installed. TWZ has reached out to Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), as well as the Long Hellfire’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, for more information about this integration work and what it has entailed to date.

The millimeter-wave radar-guided Longbow Hellfire, which also carries the designation AGM-114L, has a demonstrated counter-drone capability, as well as the ability to strike targets on land or at sea. The Navy previously announced modifications to its Freedom class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) to allow them to engage uncrewed aerial threats with AGM-114Ls fired from launchers specifically designed for those vessels. However, LCSs are not a component of a typical carrier strike group. On the surface, Navy carriers are usually escorted by a mix of Ticonderoga class cruisers and Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

In June 2025, Naval News did report that two Arleigh Burke class destroyers – the USS Jason Dunham and USS The Sullivans – had previously been involved in testing of various new capabilities, including Longbow Hellfire in the counter-drone role. Neither of those ships were assigned to the Gerald R. Ford or Theodore Roosevelt CSGs at that time. No specific details were available then about what the integration of AGM-114L had consisted of, either.

In March, Lockheed Martin did unveil a containerized Hellfire launcher called Grizzly, development of which started last year. At the time, the company said Grizzly could be adapted for shipboard use.

As an aside, the Navy has talked about a containerized counter-drone launcher able to hold up to 48 Hellfires as being a future armament option for its forthcoming FF(X) frigates. There has been no indication, though, that this is an operational capability now.

Lockheed Martin has also been developing a ship-based launch capability for its AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), which is derived from the laser-guided AGM-114R variant of the Hellfire. For more than a year now, the company has been publicly displaying a model of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer fitted with six four-cell JAGM Quad Launchers (JQL; pronounced jackal). At the same time, there have been no signs so far that the Navy is actively moving to field those launchers on ships of this class.

Hellfire, in general, does have a long history at this point of being integrated onto a wide variety of platforms, including helicopters and ground vehicles. A tripod launcher even exists for laser-guided variants of the missile.

With all this in mind, it is not surprising that Longbow Hellfire in some configuration would be an attractive immediate option for the Navy to help bolster shipboard defenses against ever-growing drone threats.

As the Navy’s latest budget documents note, the service has also been working to add other counter-drone interceptors to its ships, such as the combat-proven Coyote. The USS Carl M. Levin, as well as the USS John Paul Jones, the USS Paul Hamilton, and the USS Decatur, have all now received new eight-cell Coyote launchers. All of those warships are currently assigned to the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group. This builds on the integration of the earlier four-cell launchers on at least two other ships in the class, the USS Bainbridge and the USS Winston S. Churchill.

“This is the first deployment of this launcher which increases the cell count from four to eight and provides increased marinization,” a Navy spokesperson told TWZ when asked for more information after Carl M. Levin emerged with the new Coyote capability. “We are working [on] plans for future carrier strike group deployments to install these and potentially other containerized launchers.”

“This is a non-permanent change; launchers can be removed after the completion of a deployment and transferred to other ships—accelerating the deployment of advanced capabilities throughout the Fleet,” that spokesperson added.

The Navy has previously confirmed plans to integrate Anduril’s Roadrunner-M counter-drone interceptors on additional surface warships. The service has also been working with the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) on the development of Roadrunner-M, as well as another interceptor called White Spike from Zone 5 Technologies, under a project called Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems – NEXT, or Counter-NEXT.

Zone 5 White Spike Counter UAS drone interceptor flight tests

Navy plans for additional shipboard counter-drone capabilities go beyond physical interceptors, as well. Just this week, the service disclosed a live-fire test of a palletized version of the AeroVironment LOCUST laser counter-drone system onboard the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush. You can read more about that test, which occurred in October 2025, here.

Demand within the Navy, as well as the rest of the U.S. military, for an array of layered counter-drone capabilities is likely to remain high for the foreseeable future. As noted, these threats are not new and are continuing to expand in scale and scope, driven now in large part by advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Automated targeting and fully networked swarming capabilities are not only proliferating, but the barrier to entry, even for non-state actors, is low.

More launchers for counter-drone interceptors, whether they are loaded with Longbow Hellfires, Coyotes, or something else, are only likely to continue appearing on Navy warships as the service works to further address this threat.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. Navy has handed Lockheed Martin a formal contract to integrate the Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) surface-to-air missile with the Aegis Combat System. The Navy’s main Aegis-equipped ships today are its Arleigh Burke class destroyers. The service is also seeking just over $1.73 billion to order its first-ever tranche of PAC-3 MSEs, 405 in total, as part of its proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year.

The idea of combining PAC-3 MSE and Aegis, as well as the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS), first emerged in 2023. Since then, TWZ has highlighted how this offers the Navy a valuable alternative source of anti-air interceptors, and maybe even eventually a replacement for the venerable Standard Missile-2 (SM-2).

Lockheed Martin announced it had received the PAC-3 MSE/Aegis integration contract, said to be a multi-million dollar deal, earlier today, around the Navy League’s annual Sea Air Space exposition, at which TWZ is in attendance. The Navy has separately shared more details about its PAC-3 MSE acquisition plans as part of the full rollout of the Pentagon’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2027, which also occurred today.

Per the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, the service sees PAC-3 MSE integration with Aegis as providing an additional means of intercepting “a wide range of threats, including tactical ballistic missiles, air-breathing threats, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial systems.” As mentioned, Arleigh Burke class destroyers make up the vast majority of American warships equipped with the Aegis Combat System today. There are also a steadily shrinking number of Ticonderoga class cruisers with this combat system.

PAC-3 MSE has been in full-scale production since 2018. Pairing it with Aegis “has been in the works, I probably think, close to 10 years,” Chandra Marshall, Vice President and General Manager of the Multi-Domain Combat Solutions business unit within Lockheed Martin’s Rotary and Mission Systems division, told our Jamie Hunter on the floor of Sea Air Space. She added that the goal now is for the Navy to achieve initial operational capability (IOC) with this combination in approximately 18 months, or by the end of 2027 if the clock starts now.

“So, there’s two pieces of it. So the PAC-3 missile, there’s a small update to it to be able to communicate with S-band radar. So, currently it communicates with X-band [radars]. So, now with this update, it will be able to communicate both with S and X-band,” Marshall explained. “And then we have to integrate PAC-3 as a missile type with the Aegis Combat System.”

“We have a very open architecture [with Aegis], so the way that we componentize everything, we feel like it’s a very short putt for the Aegis integration of the PAC-3 missile,” she added. “So, it’ll just be another missile in the inventory for the Navy to be able to diversify based on the threat.”

You can read more about the Aegis Combat System and how it has evolved to adopt a modular, open architecture approach, specifically to make it easier to add new capabilities and functionality, in this previous TWZ feature. Lockheed Martin has already demonstrated the ability of a modular and scalable version of the system, called the Virtualized Aegis Weapon System, to fire a PAC-3 MSE from a containerized Mk 41-based launcher on land.

Aegis: Capable. Proven. Deployed.

No changes to the Mk 41 VLS – another Lockheed Martin product – are planned or required as part of the PAC-3 MSE integration. Work has been ongoing on adapting the interceptors into launch canisters, allowing them to slot right into existing Mk 41 cells. At just over 17 feet long, PAC-3 MSE should fit in shorter so-called tactical length versions of the Mk 41, as well as one with longer strike-length cells.

Lockheed Martin has said in the past that each canister will contain a single PAC-3 MSE missile. At around 11 inches wide, the PAC-3 MSE is just over half the maximum diameter available in a Mk 41 cell. This raises the question of whether future canisters could be designed to hold multiple interceptors, which would give ships valuable additional magazine depth.

From a capability standpoint, PAC-3 MSE is generally discussed in comparison to SM-2 surface-to-air missiles in the Navy’s arsenal today. In terms of missiles that can be fired via the Mk 41, SM-2 is a middle-tier anti-air capability that sits between shorter-range RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM; which can also be quad-packed into a single cell) and upper-tier SM-6s and SM-3s. The SM-6 is a multi-purpose weapon that can also be employed against targets on land and at sea. SM-3s, of which there are multiple variants in service today, are specifically designed as anti-ballistic missile interceptors.

“A lot of places the Navy has said ‘I got red or yellow challenges that I can’t deal with.’ This missile does a really good job at that. When you marry them all together, it is very complimentary to SM-6,” Chris Mang, Vice President of Strategy & Business Development at Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control, told TWZ at last year’s Sea Air Space conference. “You’d always want a layered defense, right? I’ll pick the longest shot I can get, but then at a certain point, MSE really starts to outperform in certain envelopes.”

For the Navy, PAC-3 MSE also presents important logistics, cost, and supply chain benefits. The latest conflict with Iran has only underscored now long-standing concerns about U.S. munition expenditure rates, especially when it comes to anti-air interceptors. A large-scale, high-end fight with a near-peer adversary like China would put much more pressure on munition stockpiles and the U.S. industrial base working to restock them. As such, it would be a boon for the Navy to have an additional stream of interceptors to arm its warships.

As noted, the Navy is already moving to buy hundreds of what documents currently refer to as the “PAC-3 MSE / Navy” missile, as well as launch canisters. The service’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request puts the unit cost for each missile at $4.05 million. The canister adds another $200,000 to the price tag. The Army’s Fiscal Year 2027 proposed budget says the unit cost for standard PAC-3 MSEs has risen now to $5.3 million. The exact reasons for the cost discrepancy between the Army and Navy versions are unclear.

“Both quantities and unit cost are estimates based on U.S. Army contract pricing. Both quantities and unit cost will adjust based on award of DoN CLINs [Department of Navy Contract Line Item Numbers] on ARMY contract in execution and final cost of the Navy components (radio, canister, etc),” per the Navy’s latest budget request.

At $4.05 million, the Navy’s PAC-3 MSEs will be slightly cheaper per missile than the Block IA version of the SM-6. The service’s latest budget request puts the unit cost of the latter missiles at $4.348 million. The cost of a current-generation Block IIICU variant of the SM-2 is unclear, given that they have often been procured as upgrades of existing Block IIICs rather than new-production missiles. Historically, the average price point for an SM-3 Block IIIC has been around $3.6 million.

“By leveraging the high-volume Army PAC-3 MSE production contract, the Navy achieves significant cost avoidance through economies of scale, as unit price decreases with larger quantities,” the Navy’s latest budget documents also note.

Lockheed Martin announced in January that it had reached an agreement with the U.S. government to ramp up annual PAC-3 MSE production, for domestic and foreign customers, from 600 to 2,000 missiles. Last week, the company received a contract to help further accelerate production of these missiles. This could all help drive down the unit cost of the missiles going forward, as well as speed up their delivery.

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

It is worth pointing out here that PAC-3 MSE’s performance in the Middle East, as well as in Ukraine in recent years, has also prompted a significant increase in demand from the U.S. Army, as well as foreign Patriot operators. The overall Patriot user base is also expanding.

Adding the Navy to the mix will add to that demand, even with the production ramp-up, and could add to already growing concerns about production backlogs now. Integrating PAC-3 with Aegis and the Mk 41 VLS could also spur additional interest from other navies globally that have ships with that combat system and/or launchers.

Reuters reported just last week that U.S. officials had informed allies and partners in Europe that deliveries of unspecified munitions could now be delayed due to American needs in relation to the war with Iran. When it comes to PAC-3 MSE, the budget documents the Army released today, at least, do not appear to show any changes to the delivery schedule for foreign customers.

Regardless of any of these issues, the Navy is now pushing full steam ahead on integrating PAC-3 MSE with Aegis and the Mk 41 VLS.

Jamie Hunter contributed to this story.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

April 19 (Asia Today) — North Korea launched multiple ballistic missiles on Saturday, just 11 days after its previous test, in what analysts describe as an effort to expand and demonstrate its nuclear delivery capabilities.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said the missiles were fired around 6:10 a.m. from the Sinpo area on the country’s east coast and flew about 140 kilometers over the East Sea.

The launch site, near a key submarine facility, has raised the possibility that the weapons could be linked to submarine-launched ballistic missile development, though officials said further analysis is needed.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff said it is assessing the missiles’ specifications and whether they were launched from land or underwater.

Sinpo is home to North Korea’s main submarine shipyard, where vessels such as the “Kim Gun-ok Hero” submarine have previously been unveiled.

Recent satellite imagery cited by the North Korea-focused outlet 38 North indicated that another submarine had been moved to dry dock, suggesting possible preparations for additional testing.

Yang Wook, a research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, said the relatively short flight distance raises questions about whether a full submarine-based launch was conducted.

“Given the 140-kilometer range, it is unclear whether this was a full SLBM test, but the location suggests it could be part of efforts to verify repeated launch capability,” he said.

If confirmed as an underwater launch, the test would mark North Korea’s latest step in diversifying its nuclear delivery systems, following demonstrations involving land-based missiles and sea-based platforms in recent weeks.

Under its latest defense development plan, North Korea has been expanding a range of strategic capabilities, including short-range ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, cruise missiles and solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile engines.

Analysts say the timing may also reflect broader geopolitical considerations. With the United States focused on conflict in the Middle East, North Korea could be seeking to exploit a perceived security gap while reinforcing its deterrence posture.

Some experts also suggest the launch may be intended to strengthen Pyongyang’s bargaining position ahead of potential diplomatic engagement tied to an expected visit by President Donald Trump to China next month.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260420010005867

April 19 (UPI) — South Korea’s Defense Ministry said North Korea test launched multiple, short-range ballistic missiles into the East Sea, also known as the Sea of Japan, Sunday morning.

“Detailed specifications are currently under close analysis by South Korean and U.S. intelligence authorities,” officials in Seoul said in a statement, according to ABC News.

“Our military is closely monitoring North Korea’s military activities under a firm combined defense posture and maintains an overwhelming capability and readiness to respond to any provocation.”

The Japan Times said the Defense Ministry of Japan also confirmed the activity.

“North Korea’s series of actions, including the repeated launches of ballistic missiles and other weapons, threaten the peace and security of Japan, the region and the international community,” the ministry said in a statement.

Newsweek said Pyongyang has increased its ballistic missile testing and nuclear weapons development since the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran began nearly two months ago.

Sunday’s missile launches appear to have come from Sinpho, a coastal city in North Korea where submarines capable of launching such weapons are built.

L3Harris is pushing its modular Wolf Pack family of “launched effects vehicles” for the U.S. Army, including to equip its H-60 Black Hawk series and AH-64 Apache helicopters, with an eye on the specific demands of a future conflict in the Pacific. The family of vehicles includes the Red Wolf, configured for long-range precision strikes against targets on land or at sea, and the Green Wolf fitted with an electronic warfare payload. Overall, these are part of a wider drive toward fielding modular, relatively cheap, and small systems that increasingly blur the line between uncrewed aerial systems, especially longer-range kamikaze drones, and cruise missiles, as well as decoys.

Readers can refer to our previous coverage of the Wolf Pack family, and it is also worth noting that the company is under contract with the U.S. Marine Corps to deliver the related PASM, the Precision Attack Strike Munition.

At the Army Aviation Association of America’s Army Aviation Warfighting Summit in Nashville, Tennessee, this week, TWZ caught up with Brad Reeves, the director of strategy and requirements for the Agile Development Group at L3Harris, to talk about the company’s vision for the Wolf family with the Army.

TWZ: What is the primary driver behind the Wolf family, and how is it relevant to the Army’s rotary-wing fleets?

Brad Reeves: The Department of War has a heavy emphasis on the Pacific and a conflict over there. Mass is an issue. We have a lot of exquisite weapons today, but the numbers are not maybe as high as we might hope for a conflict over there. So, they’re trying to solve that problem. Affordable mass has kind of become the buzzword, which basically means, “hey, how do we get capability that we can buy in quantity without breaking the bank?” And so, with that, the Department of War, actually Secretary Hegseth, issued a memo on April 30 of last year. And one of the things he called out specifically was launched effects, the urgency to get that fielded beginning this year. So, that’s a high-emphasis item for those guys.

Launched effects are really meant to be an affordable mass solution for the Army. But the real story behind this is what we call our Wolf Pack family of systems, and our offering and the capability it brings. And the story here is it’s very capable, but it’s what it does for the Army and for Army aviation. So it’s transforming Army aviation, and it’s addressing platforms that lack some relevancy today in the fight. Black Hawks, Apaches, etc, have a very short-range capability, relatively speaking, when you’re talking about the Pacific, and you have the tyranny of distance and anti-access/area-denial threats. It’s a much harder challenge than what we’ve dealt with in the decades since those aircraft were first invented.

Now we’re basically bringing relevancy to those platforms. We’re transforming from a weapons-effectiveness range and lethality range of single-digit kilometers, maybe up to a dozen kilometers, and we’re now extending that to hundreds of kilometers. We’re taking what before was a single-mission aircraft that’s supporting the Army; it’s doing close combat attack missions for Army soldiers on the ground, and is basically specific to that single service. And we’re now expanding that, and we’re giving that platform a joint or coalition viability in a Pacific flight. And so, the relevance now has increased. We’re taking what was before, a single-domain, fully land-based capability. We’re turning it into multi-domain, so now surface, meaning maritime, and land. And then we’re taking the target sets, which were traditionally tanks, maybe threats that we get from ground forces, etc. Again, we’re expanding that so it can be maritime threats and ground threats. It’s kind of a revolution in the way that the Army is going to fight and what they’re going to contribute to the joint coalition force. The Army desperately needs this capability.

TWZ: And what are the differences between the Wolf Pack family members?

Brad Reeves: Our launched effects offering, we call it the Wolf Pack family of systems. Today, we have two high-level mission capability variants. We have the Red Wolf, which is the kinetic variant, so a cruise missile. We have the Green Wolf, which has a purely (non-kinetic) electronic warfare payload. So now you’re also doing suppression of enemy air defenses. These types of missions, the DILR mission — detect, ID, locate, report — and/or electronic attack to suppress this threat.

Wolf Pack is designed to have multiple variants, so one aircraft, let’s say an Apache in this instance, you could launch multiple variants, Green and Red. You have a Green Wolf that goes out ahead and is searching and building the EMBM, the electromagnetic battle management. Through some software we call DISCO, which is AI-driven software, it’s building the landscape where the threats are, whether on the surface or on the land.

TWZ: How does PASM, the Precision Attack Strike Munition, differ from these?

Brad Reeves: It comes out of our Wolf Pack family. It’s a unique variant designed for the U.S. Marine Corps AH-1Z Viper, and we’re delivering early operational capability. They did a long-range precision fire, LRPF, last September, and that was somewhat of a graduation event. Now we’re basically starting to work with production at our plant in Virginia.

TWZ: So these are basically loitering munitions?

Brad Reeves: We don’t consider it a loitering munition, but technically, by definition, yes, what it’s doing is it’s flying a pattern. It’s very smart: it goes out, starts detecting threats, then it will set up a pattern to make sure that a) it’s survivable itself, so it doesn’t fly over a threat and get shot down. But b), it will maximize the search pattern, and then it will deconflict with the others in the pack, so that you can, if you have a large area, you can have one, one will say, “hey, I’m going to go do maybe a zigzag pattern over here looking for threats. You go do a zigzag pattern and then report those back.” Once they find the threats, they’ve got options. Either the aircraft can just avoid the threats because they know where they are, or if they need to go through them, then you can either use electronic attack to jam them, or you can send a signal to one of the kinetic variants. Then the kinetic variant does the destruction of enemy air defenses mission.

That’s kind of why we call it the Wolf Pack: working together collaboratively in a pack to perform a mission that’s assigned by the pilot, and they do that autonomously. They have been ground-launched. They have been air-launched from both manned and unmanned platforms, and they can be launched from rotary-wing or fixed-wing. Since we’re here with the Army, the target is Black Hawks and Apaches very specifically.

TWZ: Would you say that the Wolf Pack is oriented generally towards the SEAD/DEAD mission?

Brad Reeves: It is much broader. But certainly one of the main applications is SEAD/DEAD. With the EW variant, that’s really applicable when you’re doing SEAD/DEAD, or you’re just looking for platform survivability, meaning you’re going towards a mission, but you want to maybe send something out ahead. These fly at high subsonic speeds. They’re going out ahead when launched from a helicopter. They’re scouting out the area, giving them the picture, and allowing them to either avoid, suppress, or defeat threats that may be in their way.

TWZ: Presumably, the cost point of these means the numbers can be fairly scalable, depending on the requirement?

Brad Reeves: Absolutely, it depends on the mission set. One of the advantages is that, while it is an affordable mass munition, it also comes with significant capability. There are some, what I would call differentiators, that put this capability at the high end of the affordable mass, meaning it’s very inexpensive compared to traditional legacy weapons that the forces are using today. We usually say it’s about five times cheaper than what these aircraft would be using today. There are BAAs, broad area announcements, something the U.S. government will release to industry, asking for different capabilities. Right now, when they’re asking for this type of capability, they’re usually targeting somewhere between $300,000 to $500,000 for that market, per round, and we’re certainly in that sweet spot.

TWZ: Aside from the small turbine engine that they share, how modular are the Wolf Pack vehicles themselves?

Brad Reeves: Some people call it a truck, but for some reason, that offends me. But you’ve got the platform, and we’ve designed it modularly with what’s called WOSA, weapon open systems architecture. And so you can interchange the payload. You can take the platform, you can put a warhead in it, and it becomes kinetic. You can take the warhead out, you can put an EW payload in it. I’m oversimplifying a little bit because with the kinetic variant, there are sensors and other stuff. So you probably wouldn’t physically take a kinetic one and swap out the warhead for an EW payload.

TWZ: When it comes to Green Wolf, which has no warhead, is this designed to be expendable or recoverable?

Brad Reeves: We have both. We have a recoverable variant. It depends on what the customer wants. In some instances, they want recoverability. And with recoverability, you lose a little bit of range. So in some instances, it’s going to be on a one-way mission; they just want maximum range. Basically, the parachute equipment we use to recover it takes up a little bit of space that otherwise would be fuel tank space.

TWZ: How do these vehicles navigate?

Brad Reeves: It has the standard inertial navigation and GPS. It has those capabilities inside of it, and then the seeker effectively is used purely for in-game targeting.

TWZ: To what degree would you be able to surge production to meet urgent demands?

Brad Reeves: We gave our manufacturing team the problem and said, “Hey, multiple customers are asking for as many as a thousand per year. We expect this to really blow up. How do we know how big a plant to build? How do we know what we can do?” And so they actually designed a modular, scalable production plan. In theory, you can scale up to as many as you want. But right now, what we’re doing is we’re scaling towards a thousand a year, which is the current path, and then if the demand signal spikes, we have the ability to scale above that.

The beauty of this vehicle is that there’s a lot as a significant amount of commonality, which does allow us to scale, and also gives us economies of scale, price, etc.

Meet the “Wolf Pack”

TWZ: Where are you now with testing?

Brad Reeves: We’ve flown over 50 times in test events with the military. So we’ve done multiple services. We’ve done formal testing with those services. It’s been launched twice off the AH-1Z. We’ve launched off fixed-wing UAS, but this gets a little sensitive with the customers, as to what those platforms are. And we’ve done ground launch.

TWZ: Do you have a pathway toward testing on the Black Hawk and Apache?

Brad Reeves: I am very passionate about making sure this gets fielded to U.S. Army soldiers, specifically the Apache and the Black Hawk. Right now, we’ve obviously got Epic Fury. But if something lights off in the Pacific, this just pales in comparison. If I were young enough to be flying in that fight, I would want more capability. And so I am a little bit of a zealot. The U.S. Army, I know, has to have this capability, and I believe they want it. It’s going to be a game-changer for them, and it’s going to be important to the joint force and coalition forces. It is a significant transformational capability.

Jamie Hunter contributed to this story.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Multiple ballistic missiles fired from eastern Sinpo area in seventh such test this year.

North Korea has launched multiple ballistic missiles towards the sea off its eastern coast, according to South Korea and Japan.

The incident on Sunday marked North Korea’s seventh ⁠ballistic missile launch this year and its fourth in April.

The missiles were fired near the city of Sinpo on North Korea’s east coast at about 6:10am on Sunday (21:10 GMT, Saturday), South Korea’s military said in a statement. It added that South Korea had bolstered its surveillance posture and was closely exchanging information with the United States and Japan.

Japan’s ⁠government posted on social media that the ballistic missiles were believed to have fallen near the east coast of the Korean Peninsula. No incursion into Japan’s exclusive economic zone was confirmed.

South Korea’s presidential office said it has held an emergency security meeting, according to media reports.

Such tests violate United Nations Security Council resolutions against North Korea’s missile programme. The diplomatically isolated country rejects the UN ban and says it infringes on its sovereign right to self-defence.

The launches come as China and the US prepare for a summit in mid-May, ⁠in which Chinese President ⁠Xi Jinping and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, are expected to discuss North Korea.

North Korea has made “very serious” advances in its ability to turn out nuclear weapons, with the probable addition of a new uranium enrichment facility, ‌International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi said on Wednesday.

Late last month, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said his country’s status as a nuclear-armed ‌state ‌was irreversible and that expanding a “self-defensive nuclear deterrent” was essential to national security.