Modern Day Marine 2026

The U.S. Marine Corps is working toward adding an active protection system (APS) capability to its fleet of 8×8 wheeled Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACV). APSs on the market today are generally designed to defeat incoming anti-tank guided missiles and other infantry anti-armor weapons. However, many of them also have the inherent ability to down incoming drones or are being modified to address this ever-growing threat, something TWZ previously explored in a detailed feature. The Marines are already exploring additional options to improve the ACV’s defenses against uncrewed aerial attackers, as well as other upgrades to the vehicles.

Chris Melkonian, the Marine Corps’ current Program Manager for Advanced Amphibious Assault (PM AAA), talked today about APS for the ACV fleet and other plans for those vehicles at the annual Modern Day Marine exposition, at which TWZ is in attendance.

The Marines currently field two ACV variants, the baseline personnel carrier type (ACV-P) and a version optimized for command and control tasks (ACV-C). The service is in the process of acquiring two more variants, one armed with a turreted 30mm cannon (ACV-30) and a recovery vehicle version fitted with a crane and other specialized features (ACV-R). The Corps is presently targeting 2028 for reaching initial operational capability with the ACV-30 and the ACV-R.

The Marines view the entire ACV family as central to its ability to conduct amphibious operations, as well as for providing additional lethality and other support to forces once ashore. At present, the service is planning to acquire a total fleet of 608 ACVs, consisting of 389 ACV-Ps, 33 ACV-Cs, 152 ACV-30s, and 34 ACV-Rs. Prime contractor BAE Systems has also proposed additional variants, including ones configured for electronic warfare or dedicated to the counter-drone role.

In 2018, the Corps announced it had selected the ACV as the replacement for its Cold War-era tracked Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) family. The service announced the formal retirement of the AAV last fall.

There are already “things that we’re doing today to make the ACV family vehicles even more capable,” Melkonian said at Modern Day Marine. “The analogy I use is the ACV that Marines are using today is not the ACV that they’re going to use in the future.”

This includes an “active protection system,” he added. “We’re working with the vendor to mature that capability. We’re going to move that right into production.”

Recently released budget documents also say that the Marines are asking for $28.35 million in Fiscal Year 2027 for “Ancillary Equipment” for the ACV fleet, which “is primarily attributed to the procurement of Special Mission Kits for the Active Protective System (APS).” Those same documents further note that the “funding provides APS production kits, integration kits, installation labor, countermeasures, and spares for 21 ACV-P vehicles and will add a new defensive capability to existing vehicles.”

However, neither Melkonian nor the budget documents have said what specific type of APS the ACVs are now in line to get, or when. TWZ has reached out to the service for more information.

This is certainly not the U.S. military’s first foray into APSs for armored vehicles. The U.S. Army previously integrated the Israeli-designed and combat-proven Trophy APS onto a portion of its M1 Abrams tanks.

TROPHY is the world’s ONLY operational APS (Previous Version – Updated Video Available)

That service is also now in the process of adding another Israeli-developed APS, Iron Fist, onto at least some of its Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The Army’s version of Iron Fist, now designated as the XM251, is also set to be fitted to next-generation M1E3 tanks and a planned replacement for the Bradley family, tentatively designated the XM30.

There are other APS designs on the market today that the Marines could have chosen for integration onto the ACV, as well.

As noted, APSs available today are generally designed to neutralize anti-tank guided missiles and other infantry anti-armor weapons. They typically achieve this through the use of ‘hard-kill’ projectiles designed to destroy targets either using an explosive warhead or via the sheer force of impact. Hard-kill APSs use a mixture of sensors, which can include small-form-factor radars and electro-optical/infrared cameras, to cue those interceptors to engage incoming threats.

From when the Marines first announced the selection of BAE’s ACV back in 2018, TWZ has noted that an APS could provide the vehicles with a valuable extra layer of defense against anti-armor missiles and rockets. More capable infantry anti-armor weapons continue to be developed and proliferate globally. Those threats present additional challenges in beach landing scenarios for amphibious vehicles like the ACV, which move much more slowly in the water than they do on land.

The threat that drones pose, and to armored vehicles in particular, which TWZ has been sounding the alarm on for years, has also now been fully rammed into the public consciousness. This is thanks largely to the stark visuals of tanks and other vehicles being attacked by uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) that emerge on a daily basis now from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

A Ukrainian drone from the 79th Air Assault Brigade drops a 40mm HEDP grenade on a Russian UR-77 Meteorit, causing a catastrophic payload explosion. pic.twitter.com/SsaQCKXsNL

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) August 14, 2023

Drones are an ever-more common and still evolving threat across a growing number of conflict zones worldwide. First-person view (FPV) type kamikaze drones controlled via fiber optic cable have become a particular point of concern, since they are impervious to radio frequency jamming. In turn, this has already prompted the development of a variety of active and passive countermeasures for armored and unarmored vehicles. We will come back to this in a moment.

TWZ has previously laid out a detailed case specifically for using hard-kill APSs to provide added counter-drone defense for armored vehicles. The Israeli firms behind Trophy and Iron Fist have both now notably demonstrated the ability of their respective systems to defeat uncrewed aerial threats in certain envelopes, as can be seen in the videos below. It should be noted that Trophy, Iron Fist, and other hard-kill APSs have a limited number of engagement opportunities and are not really intended to defeat large volumes of threats simultaneously, such as drones attacking in swarms.

Trophy® APS – The land maneuver enabler

Iron Fist APS | Active Protection System for Armored Vehicles

When it comes to the APS capability now planned for Marine ACVs, “that is not going to be the end-all, be-all,” Melkonian, the Marine Corps’ Program Manager, said today. “We’re constantly looking at what the next generation of APS is and how we can get that onto the platform in a lightweight form factor.”

Melkonian also highlighted other potential counter-drone and more general survivability upgrades that could be on the horizon for ACV. This could include the integration of directed energy weapons and some form of added overhead protection. Top-down attacks on vehicles where the armor is typically thinnest can be very threatening, in general.

As an aside, the Army has already been working to acquire hundreds of Top Attack Protection (TAP) add-on armor systems for installation on its M1 Abrams tanks and other armored vehicles. This reflects an expanding global trend in the integration of so-called ‘cope cage’ type armor around the turrets and other areas of armored and unarmored vehicles, primarily to protect against drone attacks. The first cope cages appeared on Russian tanks in the lead-up to the all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This kind of armor does present tradeoffs, including the potential to interfere with other capabilities, such as APSs.

Improved “situational awareness, that’s kind of a gateway to counter-UAS, in terms of the ability to sense your environment,” Melkonian also noted today while talking about other possible upgrades for the ACV. “Take all that video on board and then be able to feed that into [a] counter-UAS system.”

Melkonian highlighted several other areas of interest where the Marines are looking to improve the ACV’s capabilities. His list included things like reducing the vehicle’s signatures to make it harder for enemies to spot, improving its mobility while in the water, and upgrades to just help keep everything inside dry.

“Marines operate in very humid, very difficult environments,” he explained. “The ability to dehumidify the vehicles is a critical enabler, being able to improve the maintenance strategy and keeping [sic] those components running for as long as they need to.”

Broadly speaking, the Marines are interested in new “lightweight solutions, advanced technology, and anything that’s going to be marinized. It must be marinized,” he added. “I can’t tell you how many solutions have been picked, and that’s one of the first questions we ask, and sometimes the solutions are designed for a marinized environment, sometimes they’re not. Marines go where no one else goes, and we’ve got to be able to make sure that our capabilities can support their needs.”

The core marinization requirement will apply to the APS integration just like any other upgrades for Marine ACVs.

Altogether, the addition of active protection systems looks to be just one important upgrade for the Marine Corps’ ACV fleet now on the horizon.

Eric Tegler contributed to this story.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. Marine Corps wants to field its first conventional takeoff and landing Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones in 2029, and is also looking at the possibility of fielding similar drones with short takeoff and landing capabilities. The news comes soon after the service outlined its plans for Kratos’ XQ-58 Valkyrie, and potentially other CCAs, to be paired with its F-35s as a “bridge” to an entire family of next-generation air combat capabilities, which could include a sixth-generation crewed fighter. You can read more about the implications of that in our previous coverage.

Updates on the latest developments within the Marine Corps’ CCA program were provided by Col. Scott Shadforth, a program manager for the Expeditionary and Maritime Aviation Advanced Development Team (XMA-ADT), at the annual Modern Day Marine conference in Washington, D.C., at which TWZ is in attendance.

The Corps’ CCA efforts currently fall under a program called Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Uncrewed Expeditionary Tactical Aircraft (MUX TACAIR). The MAGTF is the primary organizing concept around which the service deploys air and ground forces.

Shadforth defines the CCA program as “how the Marine Corps is going after increasing the lethality of existing and future tactical aircraft in a high-threat environment.”

The MUX TACAIR effort emerged out of a previous effort that the Marine Corps War Fighting Lab sponsored as part of a Rapid Defense Experimentation Reserve (RDER) with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). This earlier program was known as the Penetrating Affordable Autonomous Collaborative Killer — Portfolio (PAACK-P).

The Marine Corps is kicking off its CCA efforts with a landing gear-equipped version of the XQ-58. In contrast, the previous PAACK-P program involved the rocket-assisted takeoff (RATO) variant of the XQ-58. Meanwhile, the MQ-58 designation refers to Marine-specific variants of Kratos’ Valkyrie now in development, although it remains unclear how official this is. 

As Shadforth explained, under MUX TACAIR, the Marine Corps is attempting to answer the question: “How do we take that essential [XQ-58] airframe itself and turn it into a conventional takeoff and landing [CTOL] platform so that it’s reusable at a higher rate?”

The OSD effort involved four flights of the XQ-58, culminating in the fall of 2024. At the beginning of this month, the Marine Corps completed a risk-reduction flight involving XQ-58 payloads and integration at China Lake.

Up to this point, the tests have all involved RATO variants of the XQ-58, but the Marines are targeting a first flight using conventional takeoff and landing sometime in the mid- to late summer of this year.

Shadforth confirmed that the “ultimate goal” for the MQ-58 effort is to get its hands on “deliverable prototypes” in the summer of 2029. In an ideal case, he added, these would be delivered to VMX-1 in Yuma, “so the Marine Corps can actually get their hands on the aircraft and fly the aircraft in a tactical environment and develop the CONOPS for how they’re actually going to employ those.”

VMX-1, or Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron One, has multiple aircraft types in its inventory and is responsible for tests and evaluations of all types of Marine aircraft and associated systems, while assisting in the creation of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). You can read more about its work here.

MUX TACAIR doesn’t start and end with the MQ-58, however.

Shadforth said that the Marine Corps is currently exploring further MUX TACAIR options with “several vendors,” including General Atomics and Anduril. Meanwhile, the branch is also working with Northrop Grumman as part of the MQ-58 effort.

As to how the CTOL MQ-58 will be best integrated with the fleet of Marine Corps F-35Bs, which feature short takeoff and landing (STOVL) at the heart of their capabilities, this is something the service is still weighing up.

According to Shadforth, the Marine Corps “is always going to be interested” in finding ways for fixed-wing aircraft to operate from shorter runways, suggesting that a STOVL-type CCA could well be part of its future plans. Of course, a return to the RATO-capable MQ-58 could be one way of achieving this.

For now, the Marine CCA effort is squarely focused on the CTOL variant of the Valkyrie, but Shadforth said that it’s also looking toward the future, including “other vendor offerings, whether they exist in reality or not, that remove the need for landing gear.” CCAs that offer either runway independence or that are able to operate from shorter or improvised airstrips represent a capability “the Marine Corps will be interested in exploring,” Shadforth added. One obvious candidate here would be the X-BAT, the jet-powered autonomous stealth ‘fighter’ drone designed to take off vertically and land the same way, tail first, after completing its mission. 

At this point, it should be recalled that Kratos said earlier this year that the CTOL version of the Valkyrie being developed for the Marines will still be able to make rocket-assisted takeoffs from static launchers. This means the drone will retain a valuable degree of runway independence, though it will have to touch down on a runway at the end of its sortie.

Before that, Kratos also unveiled a special launch trolley that allows variants of the XQ-58 without landing gear to take off from traditional runways, though not land back on them, as seen in the video below.

Kratos Valkyrie Trolley Launch System

An aircraft with some kind of STOVL capabilities “just kind of opens up the world to us, where we don’t need 7,000-, 8,000-, 9,000-, or 10,000-foot paved runways. Those are always capabilities that we’re interested in,” Shadforth said.

Overall, this is a somewhat surprising route, considering that the XQ-58 in its basic form is already runway independent. This would suggest the Marines, in the future, are looking specifically for something that combines STOVL performance with faster sortie rates. After all, the XQ-58 also requires some infrastructure for that and requires a reset time. A STOVL or VTOL type of CCA would also be able to deploy and operate alongside the F-35B more seamlessly.

“As far as how CCA is envisioned integrating with existing STOVL-type platforms, the Marine Corps is kind of on the front end right now of getting CCA out to the operational forces. A lot of that’s going to come through experimentation and evaluation. As we target the 2029 timeframe to get prototypes out to VMX-1, part of their mission set is going to be: now we’ve physically got these things, how are we actually going to employ them with the various tactical aircraft we have available?” he continued.

As well as the STOVL F-35Bs, these tactical aircraft include CTOL/carrier-capable F-35Cs and potentially legacy F/A-18 Hornets, as well as other Joint Force capabilities.

Shadforth continued: “Those are issues that are going to have to be explored and experimented with for how we’re going to see how those CCAs are going to operate. The point being there’s no set solution at the moment.”

In terms of missions, the Marine Corps is initially focusing MUX TACAIR on an “electronic warfare type platform,” Shadforth said. “Those are the payloads we’re interested in looking at at the moment.”

XQ-58A Valkyrie Demonstrator Inaugural Flight

But Shadforth confirmed that other efforts with different vendors are exploring how to use the space within the Valkyrie air vehicle to see what other payloads and capabilities are available to the Marine Corps. Not only usefulness but timeliness are important factors here, Shadforth added.

Kratos is known to be working on a miniature cruise missile called Ragnarok, which the XQ-58 can carry in its internal bay and externally under its wings, and you can read more about it here. Renderings have also shown Valkyries with AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) under their wings. The drone can carry Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) internally, and has demonstrated drone launch — launched effects are therefore almost certain to be included for the electronic warfare mission.

Within all this, it is important to remember that, at this point, the Marine CCA effort is still very much in the prototyping phase, led by the MQ-58. As Shadforth noted, the service has “not entered into a specific acquisition-type construct yet,” beyond developing these prototypes. Nevertheless, with a timeline now in place to get the first MQ-58s to Yuma, and with conventional takeoff and landing trials expected in the next few months, MUX TACAIR reflects the overall acceleration of the Corps’ CCA program.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Deliveries of the CH-53K King Stallion to the U.S. Marine Corps are starting to ramp up, with the planned 16-aircraft annual milestone now expected for Fiscal Year 2029. The Marine Corps also says that, for the future, they are open to developing a mine countermeasures version, something that would be able to replace the current MH-53E.

Updates on the latest developments within the Marine Corps’ CH-53K program were today provided by Col. Kate Fleeger, a program manager for the H-53 Helicopters Program, at the annual Modern Day Marine conference in Washington, D.C., at which TWZ is in attendance.

Fleeger confirmed that, while the legacy CH-53E and MH-53E are “both still healthy and viable” and critical components of the Marine Corps fleet, the focus is now very much on the CH-53K as the future of heavy lift.

Currently, four Marine Corps squadrons have CH-53Ks as part of their stable, and Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 461 (HMH-461), which was the first fleet squadron, is fully outfitted with Kilos.

“We also have our training squadron, HMHT-302, which has received multiple CH-53Ks and will continue to be a dual type/model series training squadron throughout the transition from the Echo to the Kilo,” Fleeger explained. “We also have the CH-53K in our developmental test squadron, HX-21 at Patuxent River, and with our operational test squadron, VMX-1, in Yuma, Arizona.”

With the CH-53K “rocking and rolling across the board,” the 25th example off the Sikorsky production line in Stratford, Connecticut, was delivered earlier this week. Fleeger said that the service expects to add another eight aircraft for the rest of the year. This is part of a total Marine Corps program of record of 200 aircraft, a figure that has not changed. On top of this figure, Israel has procured 12 CH-53Ks, and Fleeger confirmed that the country is “in conversations” about the potential for additional aircraft.

As part of ongoing training work, HMH-461 has been putting the CH-53K through its paces “in every clime and place in CONUS,” Fleeger said. This has included taking the aircraft on detachments at the Weapons and Tactics Instructor (WTI) school in Yuma, and in exercises out of Twentynine Palms, California.

Fleeger said she is “extremely happy with how the aircraft is performing” with the operational fleet.

Meanwhile, the CH-53K is also still being tested, with the two units covering operational and developmental tests. “We are continuing to expand the envelope of the baseline aircraft that’s been delivered to the fleet, whether it’s expansion of the envelope with the existing equipment, or whether it’s modifications that allow for additional capability moving forward, and ultimately providing those modifications to fleet aircraft,” Fleeger explained.

Part of the recent mission expansion saw one CH-53K lifted by another example of the same type, to broaden options for the Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel, or TRAP mission. The aircraft that was lifted had its gear boxes and engines removed, but this is common practice, Fleeger said. The purpose of the test was not only to set up and document the flight characteristics, but also the rigging procedures. In the test, the aircraft that provided the sling load weighed about 28,000 pounds, which is well below the 36,000 pounds maximum external load for the CH-53K.

“When you talk to the pilots that lift something like that, even something that heavy, there’s very little ‘feel’ in the cockpit that you have a significant load underneath,” she added.

One of the other elements of additional testing has involved aviation ground fuel delivery. This involved a CH-53K landing with fuel and then providing this fuel to a V-22 tiltrotor that landed next to it.

At the same time, the transition to the CH-53K has involved training pilots with four Containerized Flight Training Devices (CFTD) now delivered. “They are state-of-the-art, fully immersive environments that have some of the highest fidelity visual databases and digital acuity that you’ll see in flight simulation today,” Fleeger said.

“The pilots have every opportunity to see exactly what’s going to happen in the aircraft before they even get in the aircraft. The idea here is the first time a pilot sits in that cockpit on the flight line is kind of a non-event, because he’s basically seen everything he needs to see along the way.”

These new CFTDs consist of a mobile box with the “guts of the simulator inside.” As Fleeger explained, “Gone are the days of the big dome, fully motion-based simulators that we’ve had previously. The motion platform is no longer a big portion of what provides the training fidelity. The majority of that fidelity actually comes from the visual systems, the realism of the visual system, and the haptic cueing to the pilots.

Another training aid is the Advanced Aviation Training Device, or AATD, new for the H-53 community, but loosely based on some of the early developmental training systems that arrived with the V-22, with its interactive cockpit learning environment.

“This is a lower fidelity,” Fleeger said, “There’s just screens, computer monitors, if you will, that show the pilot the outside visuals. But the pilot also has a see-through virtual-reality goggle set that he puts on. It’s absolutely amazing technology that really allows you, with very little additional cost, to be able to get that immersive and simulated environment.”

The AATD is designed primarily as a familiarization training device or for refresher-level training. “You got a few minutes, you go spend some time in here,” Fleeger explained. “You brush up on some stuff. It can also be used for some of the more advanced activities, like tactics, techniques, and procedures development. You can get in there and try some things out before you get to the aircraft and do it in the real world.”

The AATD has been so successful at its current location in New River, close to the training squadron, that the Marines expect to expand throughout the rest of the fleet as it works through the CH-53K transition.

Concurrently, Fleeger says the service has been “very forward-leaning with our Marines in the maintenance shed and making sure that they have the training tools that they need in order to prepare for a state-of-the-art, very data-intensive, data-rich aircraft.”

Maintenance of the fleet benefits from a fully condition-based maintenance model, at least for some of the CH-53K’s components.

“We can look at the vibratory signatures, the temperature signatures on gearboxes, for example, and we can understand when that gearbox might be approaching the end of its life.” The result is that the fleet is increasingly able to manage the maintenance rather than having the maintenance manage them. They can decide when they want to change that gearbox, for example, depending on operational commitments, the amount of flight time they may have planned, the criticality of that flight time, the availability of spares, and so on.

All of this training, including shipboard evolutions, is building up toward the first operational deployment, with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, in Fiscal Year 2027. Last month, the CH-53K fleet hit 10,000 fleet flight hours, a big milestone considering there are currently only 25 aircraft in the fleet.

At this stage, there are 12 aircraft sitting on the production line in Stratford, in various phases of completion.

“The fact that there are 12 aircraft is a big improvement as we move forward in the ramp-up through low-rate initial production,” Fleeger explained.

Once Sikorsky hits the milestone of 16 production aircraft per year, this will trigger the start of the Marine Corps CH-53K transition from East Coast to West Coast, and thus across the entire heavy-lift fleet.

Fleeger said that the line will be “getting up there” toward full-rate production at the end of Fiscal Year 2028, with the milestone to be achieved in FY29.

“The East Coast squadrons will complete transition, and then the transition plan will move out to the West Coast, and we will start transitioning the West Coast squadrons there as well,” Fleeger added. The CH-53E is slated to be retired in 2032.

As for the Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon, it is slated to be withdrawn in 2027. Exactly what will happen with its primary airborne mine countermeasures mission, a general capability set that is increasingly in the spotlight, is unclear. Currently, the Navy is beefing its MH-60 Seahawk mine countermeasures capabilities to help offset the loss. Still, the unique heavy countermeasures sled-towing capability that will be gone when the MH-53E leaves the inventory is likely to be felt, as will the heaviest vertical lift capability organic to the U.S. Navy.

According to Fleeger, “there have not yet been conversations about the Navy procuring the CH-53K or producing a minesweeping variant.” However, she added that “we are certainly open to that in the future, should that need arise.”

Whether or not the CH-53K eventually adopts another new mission, the type is clearly keeping busy for the time being, as the Marine Corps looks forward to taking it on its first operational deployment next year.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The video below shows HAWK systems in service in Ukraine.

Американський ЗРК HAWK (Яструб) захищає небо України!

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

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

The PATRIOT Missile in Action

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

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

The general in charge of keeping the United States Marine Corps sustained in a fight dismisses the notion that China poses a near-peer threat to the U.S. It’s far more serious and will make the currently paused conflict with Iran pale by comparison should the two superpowers come to blows, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Sklenka, the USMC Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics. 

“There is no threat that looms larger than the People’s Republic of China,” Sklenka said during the 2026 Modern Day Marine Expo in Washington, D.C.. “Don’t listen to this garbage about them being a near peer. They’re a peer because they rival us in nearly every single measure of national influence.”

As the “lead strategist” and former Deputy Commander of U.S. IndoPacom, Sklenka said he “got to be pretty familiar with how General Secretary Xi was thinking and what his intentions are.”

The Chinese leader’s “vision is to upend the international structure [and] supplant us as the global leaders. And in many ways, it’s been Xi’s thinking, his vision, that has helped my own thinking about the demands of modern warfare, particularly when waged in the Pacific and particularly waged against a peer adversary, something that’s new to all of us.”

Epic Fury offers some sobering lessons, Sklenka noted. While the U.S. is able to pour forces into theater via uncontested skies and largely uncontested seas, Iran was still able to inflict a great deal of pain on America and its allies during the fighting. It still is economically through an ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz. A fight with China would be far worse, Sklenka cautioned.

“We’re about two months into combat operations with Epic Fury. We’ve got service members who have tragically been wounded and killed by Iran. They’ve launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at our bases and our allies throughout the region – Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan – reinforcing the point that the bases that we have, they’re no longer administrative garrison sanctuaries. We really need to start looking at our bases as war fighting formations, just as critical of a war fighting formation as our divisions, wings and [Marine Expeditionary Units] MEUs.”

We’ll talk more about that later in this story.

You can see damage to U.S. bases in the Middle East in the following satellite images.

Iran has “illustrated how a mid-tier power can hold a significantly superior force at risk” Sklenka suggested. “As a learning organization, we ask ourselves, ‘how do we carry every lesson from this fight forward, and how do we ensure that we’re equally prepared to dominate the conflict with China?’”

“Think about the complexities and complications that we’re [facing] with Iran, and then ask yourself, ‘how are we going to respond and act when we’re going up against a nation that’s number two in national GDP?’” he added. “The fact is that Iran doesn’t have anywhere near China’s economic might. They don’t have their industrial base. They certainly don’t have their military modernization trajectory.”

“Over the last 10 to 15 years, the Chinese manufacturing base has been out-producing us” Sklenka posited. “Xi is on a wartime footing. There’s no doubt about that. It’s underpinned by an industrial base that’s out producing the world in ships and steel, precious minerals and satellites, munitions.”

China’s “shipbuilding capacity is reported to be 230 times the capacity that the United States has,” the general continued. “They more than doubled their nuclear powered submarine construction, their arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles is undergoing a rapid expansion.”

First made-in-China aircraft carrier, the Shandong, enters service

“Their nuclear stockpile is the fastest growing in the world. They’re pursuing innovative, intelligentized warfare tactics,” Sklenka pointed out. “They’re using artificial intelligence, drone swarms, exploring the cognitive and innovative domains to achieve their dominance. They’re building a military design to dominate the Pacific, and I believe ultimately beyond the Pacific.”

China’s intent, Sklenka added, “is clear. They want to regain that self-identified moniker of the Middle Kingdom, and they want to resume what they believe is their rightful place in the world. They’re not interested in sharing that position with us or with anybody else. General Secretary Xi’s view is that it’s their time, and this is the context. I bring that all up for our transformation.”

“None of us in uniform today have ever had to operate in a world where a legitimate peer simultaneously contests us in every single domain,” said Sklenka. “We are talking terrestrially and non-terrestrially, kinetically and non-kinetically. We’re going to have to fight to get to that fight, and we’re going to have to embrace these challenges and not operate under the auspices of how we did in the 80s and 90s. History is proven, and our current operations are confirmed, that the society that can project and sustain power and sustain their forces most effectively, ultimately, they prevail.”

Looking to the future, Sklenka echoed warnings that TWZ has made for years about the vulnerability of U.S. military installations, both home and abroad. No increases in magazine depth, additional weapons systems or advancements with AI and other new technologies will ultimately matter “if you can’t get off the installation in the first place,” he stated. “The ability to mobilize and deploy is underpinned by the readiness of our installations. It’s a concept that we’re just now really starting to wrestle with.”

“Our bases, posts and stations…are the front lines of decisive terrain. And I’m not just talking about those in the first island chain. This isn’t just [Marine Corps Installations Pacific] MCIPAC. Our CONUS installations are subject to non-kinetic attacks. Non kinetic-attacks, they’re going to be just as debilitating and just as strategically consequential as any kinetic attack that’s going to be out there. And they’re going to carry an air of non-attrition that’s designed to both confuse decision makers and sow chaos during the most critical phases of the fight, the beginning, the first shots of that next war.”

That first salvo, Sklenka said, is most likely not going to be delivered by a missile or bomber.

“They’re likely not going to be fired in the South China Sea or in the Taiwan Strait,” he explained. “They’re going to be a cyber attack against a power grid on our base, a disinformation campaign targeting military families or a drone swarm coming off one of our installations.”

The localized drone attack concern is exactly what TWZ has long predicted and became a reality last year in Russia and Iran. Last June, Ukraine launched Operation Spider Web, an audacious near-field attack on Russian air bases, destroying a large number of strategic bombers with remotely operated drones set up in trucks placed near those installations.

Spider Web was followed about two weeks later by an operation Israel carried out, using drones pre-positioned inside Iran to attack the Islamic Republic’s air defenses.

You can see video of one attack during Operation Spider Web below.

The United States Marine Corps on Tuesday gave us our first glimpse of its evolving plan for its ground forces to succeed in the battlefield of the future. Dubbed Ground Combat Element 2040 (GCE 2040), it calls for ensuring that Marines are not just equipped with the latest technology, but that they know how to use it, all while maintaining readiness as they integrate these new systems into their formations. While all the final details remain in flux, we are getting a general idea of some of the elements the plan will include.

A working concept of the plan was presented for the first time today during a panel at the Modern Day Marine Expo held in Washington, D.C. It builds on the vision of former Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger’s Marine Force Design 2030 initiative, according to one of the current Corps leaders working to implement GCE 2040.

“This is really an opportunity for us to describe the future of the ground combat element in the United States Marine Corps,” explained Maj. Gen. Jason Morris, the Corps’ Director of Operations, Compliance, Policies and Operations. We want to “make sure that we have a clear vision of the capabilities required to field the most lethal, survivable ground combat element in the world, and make sure that we’ve got a pathway over the next three fiscal year defense programs that we are keeping our eye on the horizon, staying adaptable and incorporating new technologies into our Marine divisions and those subordinate elements that are a part of it.”

In addition, the Marines are “also continuing to refine the force design vision, to make sure that we are ready to go for any crisis, contingency or conflict in the future,” Morris added.

To better explain the GCE 2040 concept, Morris played a video laying out some of what it entails.  The video, which has not been yet been shared online, and a document that will be published in coming weeks, focuses on how the Marine Corps approaches human-centric warfare of the future.

“GCE 2040 is about equipping the Marine, not the machine,” the video stated. “While looking ahead to integrate robotic and autonomous systems into our formations and operationalizing AI at the tactical edge through concepts like Project Dynamis [an integrated battle management system being developed by the Marines], the Marine Corps will enable combat formations to sense, make sense and act with greater speed and precision than any adversary.”

Under GCE 2040, Marines will “integrate advanced sensors and intelligence networks to find and fix the enemy across all domains” while “conducting expeditionary maneuver in contested spaces and sustaining a resilient force through all phases of the operation,” the video stated. In addition, Marines will employ “joint forceful fires and achieve the effects of mass while mitigating vulnerabilities striking adversary targets from land, air and sea,” and establish “persistent, survivable [command and control] networks that enable decision making at machine speed from the strategic level down to the squad.”

The objective “is to generate the tempo of decision and action that allows us to shape, seize and hold key maritime terrain, deter aggression and prevail decisively in any future conflict,” the video explained.

This broadly fits with the U.S. military’s push to create ever larger and faster kill webs, in order to break the enemy’s decision cycle.  

When we asked for more details, the Marines told us that the plan includes addressing the need for ground-based air defense down to the squad level. 

“The proliferation of inexpensive one-way attack drones is the most significant tactical threat we face,” the Marines told us. “While systems like the Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) and Medium-Range Intercept Capability [MRIC] are critical for a layered defense at echelon we must continue to thicken the protective layer that cover Marines at all echelons.”

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

In a broader context, including air defense and offensive capabilities, the Marines told us “We must increase investment in multi-domain lethality and targeting systems that enable the right weapon to engage the right target at the right time to maximize the efficient use of lethal means against the enemy… The modern battlefield demands that we develop and field dispersed, AI-enabled targeting systems to create a network of sensors across the entire GCE.” 

The plan also involves evolving how Marines view technology. Autonomous systems and AI are a central focus of the new plan. The Marines state that these are not just tools, but are members of the team and the Marines are being trained to consciously accept risk with hardware rather than troops. 

Both AI and large quantities of autonomous systems will be critical to enabling future kill webs as discussed above. The USMC also says interoperability, both with other U.S. military branches and allies will be more critical than ever to achieving its aims going forward.

“The fact is that the Marine Corps is focused on the human being, individual, sailor, how we recruit and develop them, and how we build them into lethal combat teams,” proffered Maj Gen. Farrell J Sullivan, Commanding General of the Second Marine Division. “That has always been the case, and that will always be the case in the Marine Corps going forward, but modernization matters, and although we’re doing well, we have a long way to go, and as long as I’m in command of Second Marine Division, I will not be satisfied with where we are”

The GCE 2040 concept, he added, draws on lessons learned from modern combat that has evolved over the past decade into one where unmanned systems – like large drones such as Shahed-136s and smaller, first-person view (FPV) types – have become a major threat in Ukraine, the Middle East and many other places around the world.

The following image shows a U.S. Air Force E-3 Sentry AWACS destroyed in a combined Iranian missile and drone barrage during the now-paused war.

The following video shows an Iranian-backed militia using FPV drones to strike a Black Hawk helicopter and a critical air defense radar at an American base in Iraq.

The new plan envisions future combat particularly in the Pacific, where Marines would likely have to fight inside the Chinese weapons engagement zone and across wide swaths of ocean. In such a battle, they would face standoff weapons and non-kinetic effects like advanced electronic warfare far more damaging and disrupting than what U.S. forces have faced in the fight against Iran. A Pacific conflict would also strain logistics as like never before.

“When you envision the type of fight we’re preparing for, where we face a peer or near peer adversary in a high-end fight, where all domains are contested, and in some the adversary will have an advantage, that’s not the battlefield we have fought on, at least not since I’ve been in the Marine Corps,” Sullivan stated. “And we see, if you look back over the last 10 or so years, how that manifests itself in places like Ukraine. Again, I don’t want to have a bias towards that conflict and say that all the future will look exactly like that, because it won’t, but we would be criminal not to be paying attention to that.”

Clearly the USMC is painting in very broad strokes at this time as there is still a lot more work to do to hammer out the details of GCE 2040.  The Marines say they will provide more details in the next few weeks and we continue to cover this issue as they become available.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Bell has put forward a new concept for a next-generation tiltrotor aircraft armed with anti-ship cruise missiles and other munitions for the U.S. Marine Corps. The design is based on what has been newly named the MV-75A Cheyenne II, which is in development for the U.S. Army. This comes as the Corps has said “everything is on the table” as it starts to formulate a new vision for what will succeed its AH-1Z Viper and UH-1Y Venom helicopters.

A model of the new armed MV-75 concept for the Marines is currently on display at the annual Modern Day Marine conference in Washington, D.C., at which TWZ is in attendance. It is painted in the markings of Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 267 (HMLA-267), a unit currently equipped with AH-1Z and UH-1Y helicopters, which perform attack and armed utility mission sets, respectively.

The model’s most immediately eye-catching details are its armament. This includes two stub wings, each with a single pylon, mounted on either side of the top of the forward fuselage, situated between the main wing and the cockpit. A Naval Strike Missile (NSM), a stealthy anti-ship cruise missile with secondary land capability, is loaded on the left side. The Marine Corps is already fielding NSM in a ground-launched configuration. The missile is also in U.S. Navy service as a sea-launched weapon, as it was originally designed.

On the right side of the model, there is a pair of missiles, which are intended to reflect the Marine Corps’ forthcoming Precision Attack Strike Munition (PASM) capability. PASM is a version of L3Harris’ Red Wolf, a small, lower-cost cruise missile that you can read more about here.

It is interesting to note that the missiles on the model also look similar in broad strokes to Lockheed Martin’s Common Multi-Mission Trucks (CMMT, pronounced ‘comet’). Red Wolf and CMMT are just a few examples of a growing field of missile-shaped ‘air vehicles,’ many of which can be readily reconfigurable to perform a host of different tasks, including acting as a kinetic munition, an expendable electronic warfare system, or a decoy. Designs in this general category increasingly blur the line between uncrewed aerial systems, especially longer-range kamikaze drones, and traditional cruise missiles.

The stub wings could be used to carry other stores, such as AGM-114 Hellfire missiles or Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) laser-guided rockets, per Bell.

Two additional launchers are attached to the sides of each of the main landing gear sponsons. These are intended to depict launch tubes for the ALTIUS-700M loitering munition or something similar, according to Bell. This is a general category of uncrewed systems now commonly referred to as launched effects. There are also five apertures on either side of the fuselage through which additional munitions or drones could be fired via Common Launch Tube (CLT).

“There are some restrictions of [sic] where you can place them [launchers and/or pylons for munitions and other stores], because anything that’s forward firing would need to have the clearance to get past the [rotor] tip path plane and [have] it fit inside the fuselage,” Bill Hendricks, Senior Strategy Manager at Bell, told our Eric Tegler on the show floor at Modern Day Marine. “Our assumption is that, should the Marine Corps pursue something like this, they would want to be able to employ ordnance while in airplane mode with the nacelles forward. So the weapons that we have currently on that conceptual model would be something that you could fire in airplane mode.”

The design also has a three-barrel Gatling-type cannon or machine gun in a turret under the nose. What is depicted is in line with the M197 20mm Gatling-type cannon found on Marine AH-1Zs today. An improved, lightweight evolution of that cannon, the XM915, was also expected to arm the Army’s now-canceled Future Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA).

The video below shows a live-fire flight test of the XM915 mounted on a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.

XM915 20mm firing

The model of MV-75 derivative for the Marines also has a sensor turret in the nose with a pair of large apertures in front, which typically reflect electro-optical and/or infrared video cameras inside. It has a retractable in-flight refueling probe, as well. The Army’s plans for in-flight refueling capability for the Cheyenne II are evolving. This is also a feature expected to be found on a special operations version of the MV-75.

Compared to the AH-1Z and UH-1Y, with this tiltrotor design, “now you have additional range, you have additional speed, more operational flexibility, you can cover more area with one platform,” Bell’s Hendricks highlighted at the Modern Day Marine show.

“If that was something that we were asked to look at, then we can certainly explore that,” he added when asked about the possibility of extra fuel carried externally for even greater reach. “That’s not something that we’ve looked at with that conceptual design, because an MV-75 variant in that configuration with internal fuel would still have a range, after a short takeoff or a running takeoff, in excess of 1,000 nautical miles.”

As a single replacement for the AH-1Z and UH-1Y, an armed MV-75 derivative would come in a larger and more expensive package, which would present additional tradeoffs for the Marines to consider. As an aside, the service is also now in the process of charting a separate course to a replacement for the MV-22 Osprey.

As noted, the Marine Corps has now begun to lay out a new vision for what will succeed its AH-1Z and UH-1Y helicopters. The service has previously told TWZ that this effort, currently known as Future Attack Strike (FASt), will also help fill certain capability gaps created by the retirement of the AV-8B Harrier jump jet and legacy F/A-18C/D Hornet fighters. The Marines have long said the main replacements for the AV-8Bs and F/A-18C/Ds will be variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

“So, right now, for FASt, everything is on the table. Manned, unmanned, optionally-piloted, I think, are good avenues to take a look at. Conventional rotary-wing, tiltrotor. Maybe there’s something else out there,” Col. Scott Shadforth said in response to a question, also from Eric Tegler, while speaking today at Modern Day Marine. “There is no steadfast, solid response to that.”

Shadforth is currently Director of the Expeditionary Maritime Aviation-Advanced Development Team (XMA-ADT) within Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). XMA-ADT focused on rapid prototyping and experimentation to help refine future Marine Corps aviation requirements in cooperation with the Navy.

“So, as we look at unmanned, manned-unmanned teaming, air-launched effects, all the capabilities to help extend the range of various assault support or attack type platforms, all of those are on the table for consideration by the Marine Corps at this time,” he added.

In the meantime, the Marines are notably working to integrate a standoff strike capability onto the AH-1Z through the aforementioned PASM, which will open up significant new operational possibilities. The service has also been looking at ways to expand the roles and missions of the UH-1Y, to include anti-submarine warfare capability and acting as an airborne drone controller.

It is important to note that this is not the first time Bell has shown models and renderings of armed variations of this design, originally branded as the V-280 Valor, that could perform sea control and other maritime mission sets. This has included versions with internal bays, as well as pylons under the wings and ones mounted on the sides of the rear end of the fuselage.

Previous navalized concepts have also included folding main wings and rotors, similar in form and function to those features on the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, to help reduce the aircraft’s physical footprint when operating from ships. Bell has said previously that the ‘stowed’ configuration of the V-280 could be small enough to fit inside the hangars on Arleigh Burke class destroyers, as well as those on larger naval vessels.

Bell has also pitched navalized V-280/MV-75 designs in the past, paired together with its uncrewed V-247 Vigilant tiltrotor drone. This has included previous proposals specifically aimed at meeting future Marine Corps aviation requirements, which have evolved significantly in recent years.

“I can see conceptually, where the Navy could, if this is what they wanted, adopt like this to [meet] their sea control, or ASW [anti-submarine warfare], or ASuW [anti-surface warfare] mission set [sic], because of the additional range that it gives you,” Bell’s Hendricks said when asked about whether this concept could also be relevant to that service’s needs. “It would outperform the speed and range of an H-60, and so that would give them more operational reach.”

In recent years, the Navy has been exploring options for replacements for its MH-60R and MH-60S Seahawk helicopters, as well as its MQ-8C Fire Scout drone helicopters. However, at least in the near term, the service seems to be leaning more toward a major evolution of the Seahawk platform rather than an entirely new platform.

The Marine Corps has made clear that all options are currently on the table, including a tiltrotor like Bell’s MV-75 or a derivative thereof, as the service works to firm up requirements for a replacement for its AH-1Z and UH-1Y helicopters.

Eric Tegler and Phil Hladky contributed to this story.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. Marine Corps is set to test at least two new autonomous cargo helicopters, as it seeks to field platforms that can rapidly resupply Marines in contested environments. The service recently awarded contracts for two such platforms, one being the R66 Turbinetruck that inserts Sikorsky’s MATRIX autonomy system in the proven Robinson R66 airframe. The second is the Uncrewed 505, a development of the Bell 505 in a program led by Near Earth Autonomy, in collaboration with Bell Textron, Moog Inc., and XP Services.

This is all part of ongoing efforts to develop uncrewed logistics platforms that the Marines can use in contested environments, something that is of particular relevance as the branch looks to the requirements for a future conflict with China in the Pacific.

Lockheed Martin announced yesterday that its Sikorsky subsidiary and Robinson Unmanned had received a contract for the Turbinetruck from the Marine Corps. This comes under the Marines’ new-look Autonomous Aerial Logistics Program Medium Aerial Resupply Vehicle — Expeditionary Logistics (MARV-EL). The contract is worth $15.5 million and covers Increment 2 of MARV-EL.

“As we expand the MATRIX family, we also extend the reach of uncrewed solutions for both civil and military customers,” said Rich Benton, vice president and general manager of Sikorsky. “The commercially developed R66 Turbinetruck is simple, economical, and re-configurable; ideal for high-risk, hard-to-reach environments, where keeping personnel out of harm’s way is essential.”

“Our partnership with Sikorsky brings the trusted performance and reliability of the R66 platform into the unmanned logistics arena,” added David Smith, president and CEO of Robinson Helicopter Company. “The R66 Turbinetruck represents a significant step forward in expanding proven rotorcraft into scalable, autonomous cargo solutions for demanding operational environments. Together, we are delivering a game‑changing capability that will enhance warfighter readiness and open new opportunities for safe, reliable, and affordable autonomous transport.”

Robinson Unmanned | The Future of Autonomous Rotorcraft is Here

The R66 Turbinetruck puts together the R66 airframe from the Robinson Helicopter Company, a single-turbine engine design that is best known as a five-seat light rotorcraft on the commercial market. The R66 was selected for the Turbinetruck application primarily on account of its reliability, low maintenance demands, and high level of versatility. The aircraft is currently in widespread civilian service as a trainer, passenger, and utility helicopter.

Combining the R66 airframe with Sikorsky’s MATRIX system provides the ability to perform autonomous uncrewed operations. MATRIX has previously been proven in a U.S. Army UH-60M helicopter, giving it a ‘robotic brain,’ and the culmination of a series of tests stretching back years now that have been steadily working on ever-greater pilot-optional capabilities for the Black Hawk family. As we have noted in the past, the same technology could easily find its way onto other aircraft, as evidenced by the Turbinetruck.

Sikorsky and DARPA Autonomous Black Hawk Flies Logistics and Rescue Missions Without Pilots on Board

Lockheed Martin says the Turbinetruck is intended to give the Marines “flexible, affordable and rapid combat sustainment,” with its primary roles including the delivery of ammunition, medical supplies, and other essential equipment directly to the troops that need it. These critical loads need to be supplied “regardless of terrain, weather, or enemy threat,” the company adds.

According to Robinson Helicopter, the Turbinetruck can carry a load of 1,300 pounds internally, or external loads supported via a cargo hook. The internal cargo compartment is accessed via front clamshell doors and a right-hand baggage door. A total useful load of 1,500 pounds can be transported, and the aircraft has a range of more than 325 nautical miles.

When it comes to MARV-EL, this now stipulates an uncrewed aircraft that can carry a logistic payload of between 1,300 and 2,500 pounds to a combat radius of 100 nautical miles, operating through a common digital handheld device.

In an operational scenario, the mission objectives would be entered into the Turbinetruck using a digital tablet. The system would then automatically create a flight plan, using sensors and algorithms to guide the helicopter safely to the target location.

The Turbinetruck would allow the Marines to conduct critical logistics missions without having to put any additional personnel at risk, as would be the case if crewed rotorcraft were employed at the tactical edge of the battlefield. Crewed rotorcraft also come with increased demands on maintenance and availability. Meanwhile, crew-rest cycles might mean that the aircraft have to stay on the ground during high-tempo operations, while these assets will inevitably be in heavy demand for all kinds of other missions in any kind of high-end fight.

A video outlining the Robinson R66 Army Trainer, a crewed version of the helicopter offered to the U.S. Army schoolhouse:

Robinson R66 Army Trainer Helicopter | Press Conference & Official Reveal | AAAA in Nashville

At the same time, the MARV-EL concept is especially tailored for the Indo-Pacific theater, in which Marines and other U.S. military forces would be expected to fight from and around austere forward operating bases — a concept known as Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations — as well as unimproved landing zones, and from the decks of ships.

In this context, the Turbinetruck, and the MARV-EL program, more generally, hope to fill a notable capability gap between small tactical drones and larger crewed airlifters. This is something that Lockheed Martin describes as a “middleweight” uncrewed logistics platform capable.

Robinson Unmanned will deliver the first R66 Turbinetruck to Sikorsky for integration, test and evaluation, and demonstration. At that point, the aircraft will undertake capability demonstrations to prove out the MATRIX system in the R66 airframe.

Since MATRIX is platform-agnostic and has an open architecture design, it is intended to be easily integrated into various airframes.

As for the rival Uncrewed 505, this takes the Bell 505 Jet Ranger X helicopter and combines it with Near Earth’s Captain autonomous system, and Moog’s Genesys avionics. The 505 is also a single-turbine helicopter that is in use in similar training, passenger, and utility roles as the R66.

The MARV-EL Increment 2 program will also see the Uncrewed 505 prototype developed for the Marine Corps. Near Earth says it will spend the next 36 months integrating and flight-testing the autonomous flight system in the Uncrewed 505, before progressing from early demonstrations to full mission capability.

“The program is to develop an uncrewed aerial logistics aircraft for where the risk and need are highest,” said Lyle Chamberlain, CTO of Near Earth. “We are combining our Captain autonomy architecture with a proven Bell 505 platform to move cargo without putting Marines in harm’s way. To be as intuitive as possible, we are designing the aircraft around existing Marine Corps workflows. Operators will be able to request, dispatch, and manage missions through familiar command-and-control pathways, including MAGTAB and MANGL integration. At the same time, cargo can be loaded with standard pallet jacks and forklifts. This approach reduces infrastructure burden and helps make autonomous resupply practical for expeditionary operations.”

Near Earth says the Uncrewed 505 is optimized for efficient transportability, with two aircraft fitting inside a C-130 cargo aircraft with minimal disassembly.

Other aircraft have previously emerged out of the MARV-EL program.

These included the Kargo UAV, a rotary-wing drone from the Kaman Corporation, which previously developed an optionally crewed version of its K-Max helicopter.

KARGO UAV | Transforming Expeditionary Logistics

Notably, Kaman partnered with Near Earth Autonomy for the autonomy system for both the Kargo UAV and the optionally crewed K-Max.

Another competitor for MARV-EL was the SeaOnyx from Leidos. In 2023, it was announced that Leidos had won a Marine Corps contract to develop a prototype of this autonomous resupply vehicle under the Medium Unmanned Logistics Systems — Air (MULS-A) program, which later became MARV-EL.

However, neither of these platforms met Marine Corps requirements, leading to MARV-EL being recompeted. At the same time, the previous requirements (including delivering a logistics payload of 300-600 pounds within a radius of 25 to 100 nautical miles to a combat area) were made more ambitious, increasing cargo payload and range.

Overall, MARV-EL again highlights the Marines’ growing focus on expeditionary warfare in contested environments, in the Pacific theater especially. With their versatile airframes, the R66 Turbinetruck and the Uncrewed 505 could be adapted for other missions, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), electronic warfare (EW), communications relay, and search and rescue. All of these are growth areas for the Marines specifically and the U.S. military more generally.

A video outlining the Bell 505, as offered for the U.S. Army Flight School Next requirement:

Bell 505: Ideal Trainer

At the same time, the R66 already has a foothold with the U.S. military, with TH-66 Sage used to train U.S. Army and Navy helicopter operators, under contract. The Army is also now looking at both the R66 and the Bell 505 for its Flight School Next training helicopter program.

Whichever design or designs are ultimately selected for the MARV-EL requirement, the Marines can expect a new medium-weight logistics platform that bridges the gap between smaller drones and larger crewed aircraft currently in use. At the same time, it will help reduce risk by keeping more fixed-wing and helicopter crews out of harm’s way.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com