Navy

The TWZ Newsletter

Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.

The U.S. Navy is exploring options for a new long-range anti-radiation missile designed to home in on radars to help neutralize enemy air defense networks. The capabilities the service wants for this Advanced Emission Suppression Missile (AESM) sound curiously similar to the ones it is already working to acquire through the AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER). There is one crucial difference: the AESM needs to be able to engage targets in the air, as well as on the ground. This would give the Navy a single missile it could use to attack critical airborne early warning and control planes, as well as potentially other aerial targets, and air defenses down below.

Naval Air Systems Command’s (NAVAIR) Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (PEO U&W) recently put out a contracting notice regarding the AESM.

NAVAIR is “conducting market research to identify potential sources capable of providing an advanced, anti-radiation guided missile weapon system, or key subsystems thereof, with a longer range than existing in the Navy’s current inventory, including associated engineering, manufacturing, testing, and logistics support,” the notice explains. “This All Up Round (AUR) must be compatible with existing launch platforms (e.g. F-18, F-35) and infrastructure currently supporting the Navy and Air Force’s existing inventory of anti-radiation guided missiles.”

The notice later elaborates that AESM needs to be compatible, at least, with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler, and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It is unclear whether “existing inventory of anti-radiation guided missiles” includes the AARGM-ER, which is a substantial new evolution of the AGM-88 design and is still under development. TWZ has reached out to NAVAIR for more information.

“NAVAIR is seeking to enhance its capabilities to suppress and neutralize enemy air defenses in contested environments,” the AESM notice adds. “This effort aims to identify and potentially acquire a weapon system that provides similar or improved capabilities compared to its current weapons inventory, focusing on extended range, advanced targeting, counter-countermeasures, and integration with existing and future platforms.”

No specific range requirement is included in the notice beyond that AESM needs to be capable of “engaging targets at significant standoff distances.” The missile also needs to have an “advanced anti-radiation seeker with broad frequency coverage,” the “ability to target modern and advanced radar systems,” a “precision navigation and guidance system (e.g., GPS/INS with anti-jamming capabilities),” and the “potential for pre-emptive targeting capabilities.”

Much of this sounds, at least in broad strokes, like the requirements for the AGM-88G. “The AARGM-ER incorporates hardware and software modifications to improve AGM-88E AARGM capabilities to include extended range, survivability and effectiveness against future threats,” according to NAVAIR’s own website.

However, as noted, the requirements laid out in the AESM notice notably differ from those for AARGM-ER in one key respect: the explicit call for anti-air engagement capability. Prospective offers are required to “describe ability to engage air-to-air and air-to-ground targets.”

AESM also needs to have “robust ECCM [electronic counter-countermeasures] capabilities to defeat enemy countermeasures, including chaff, flares, jamming and anti-ARM [anti-radiation missile] techniques.” This might also point further to emphasis on the air-to-air role. Radar blinding chaff and infrared decoy flares are countermeasures typically associated with the air and naval domains.

U.S. military interest in very-long-range air-to-air capable anti-radiation missiles traces all the way back to the Cold War, primarily as a means for engaging enemy airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) planes. Anti-air weapons designed around this role are often colloquially referred to as ‘AWACS killers,’ a reference to the U.S. E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft. A very-long-range air-to-air missile could be used against other aerial targets, as well.

This is also not the first time the Navy, as well as the U.S. Air Force, has pursued an air-launched weapon that would blend together traditional anti-radiation and air-to-air capabilities. Starting in the mid-2000s, the two services worked together on a single missile to replace the AGM-88 and the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) dubbed the Joint Dual-Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM), which then evolved into the Next Generation Missile (NGM). The NGM effort came to an end, at least publicly, in 2013, ostensibly over high costs. A more secretive parallel development effort, called the Triple Target Terminator (T-3), continued for at least some time afterward. A possible successor to T-3, called the Long Range Engagement Weapon (LREW), emerged in 2017. How far the LREW effort subsequently progressed, and what its current status might be, are unclear.

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

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

AARGM F-18

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

TWZ has previously highlighted much of this in a past feature discussing the use cases for the Navy’s new AIM-174B air-launched version of the Standard Missile 6 (SM-6), which was officially unveiled in 2024. Navy officials have previously hinted at further long-range air-to-air capabilities to come when talking about the AIM-174B.

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

“Clearly we recognize that we’ve got to find opportunities to increase reach and range for our weapons,” Navy Rear Adm. Michael “Buzz” Donnelly, then director of the Air Warfare Division (N98) within the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, said at the Navy League’s annual Sea Air Space symposium in April 2025. “We’re doing it in air-to-air. We just recently fielded the air-launched SM-6, or the AIM-174, that we’re capable of carrying off the F-18 Super Hornet. And we’ll look at increasing range and incrementing beyond that.”

“That’s [the AIM-174B] an operational capability. And, as you can see, that one being revealed and shown into the area, there are many more behind [it], things that we’re doing there, making sure that we are staying ahead of the conflict, making sure that we’re prepared for the fight that’s going on,” Navy Rear Adm. Keith Hash, head of NAVAIR’s Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD), also said during a panel discussion at the WEST 2025 conference in January 2025. “And those activities and that development is active and strong.”

In addition, the Navy is now working together with the U.S. Air Force on the development of the AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile. The AIM-260 is intended as a longer-range and otherwise more capable direct successor to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

As described now, AESM would also offer air-to-surface capabilities in line with a traditional anti-radiation missile in the same package. Even in a future missile ecosystem that also includes the AGM-88G, AIM-174B, and AIM-260, having a single hybrid anti-air/anti-radiation missile would offer extremely useful additional flexibility, especially for addressing threats that might appear unexpectedly in the course of a mission.

One missile capable of being used in those disparate roles could also offer valuable magazine depth benefits, particularly if it has a form factor that allows it to be carried internally by various stealthy crewed aircraft, such as the F-35, and/or advanced combat drones. There had been some speculation that the aforementioned LREW effort, and possibly one or more of its predecessors, had been aiming for a missile that could serve in the anti-radiation and air-to-air roles, and fit inside F-22 and F-35 weapon bays. At the same time, a missile designed to be carried externally could help maximize range, which would be an important consideration for AESM. As an aside, scalable missile concepts have been raised in the past as a way to readily adapt a core design for internal or external carriage.

Altgoether, there is a possibility that AESM requirements could be met by a further variation on the AARGM-ER design. The U.S. Air Force is also already acquiring a more general high-speed strike derivative of that missile called the Stand-In Attack Weapon (SiAW). Prime contractor Northrop Grumman has also proposed a surface-to-surface version called the Advanced Reactive Strike Missile (AReS).

The “market research” the Navy is doing now is intended to see what other options might be available. The AESM contracting also highlights the possibility of a weapon that could be further exported to allies and partners. Additional customers could help defray development and acquisition costs, and support production at scale.

Much is still to be learned about the Navy’s plans for AESM, but the Navy certainly seems to have kicked off a new hunt for an ‘AWACS killer’ type missile that could also be used against other targets in the air and on the surface.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The defense ministry said Friday it has relieved Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Kang Dong-gil from duty over his alleged involvement in former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s botched martial law bid in late 2024.

The move came a day after the ministry took a similar action against Ground Operations Commander Gen. Joo Sung-un over suspicions of martial law involvement, marking the second such suspension of a four-star general appointed under President Lee Jae Myung’s administration.

“The defense ministry excluded the chief of naval operations as of Friday as allegations in relation to the insurrection case have been identified,” ministry spokesperson Chung Binna said in a briefing.

Kang, who served as chief of the directorate of military support at the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time of the martial law imposition, was among the seven top-brass officers appointed as four-star generals in September last year.

The allegations involving Kang and Joo were not previously verified ahead of their appointment, a ministry official said, acknowledging limitations in the procedure amid efforts to fill the leadership vacuum caused by the martial law bid.

The official said the ministry continues to firmly carry out measures to determine the circumstances surrounding the martial law imposition, regardless of the ranks of personnel involved.

The deputy chief of the Navy will serve as acting Navy chief following Friday’s decision, the ministry said, adding disciplinary action will be considered for Kang.

On Thursday, the ministry said it has identified around 180 personnel as having been involved in the martial law imposition following a monthslong probe into about 860 general-level and field-grade officers.

It also concluded that some 1,600 personnel across the military affiliated with the Army, counterintelligence command, special operations command and Defense Intelligence Command were found to have been mobilized on the night of the martial law imposition.

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

The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bainbridge is deployed in support of the U.S. Southern Command mission, The USS Truxtun, a warship of the same class, collided with a Navy supply ship in South America on Wednesday, injuring two people. File Photo by PO2 Triniti Lersch/U.S. Navy/UPI | License Photo

Feb. 12 (UPI) — Two U.S. Navy ships collided during a refueling operation in South America, injuring two people, U.S. Southern Command said.

The incident occurred on Wednesday when a Navy warship collided with a Navy supply vessel. Two people suffered minor injuries and are in stable condition.

The warship is the Arleigh Burke-class USS Truxtun guided missile destroyer. The other vessel is a Supply-class fast combat support ship, USNS Supply. Both ships remain operational and have continued to sail following the collision.

U.S. Southern Command did not specify the exact location where the crash took place. The cause of the crash was not specified either.

The supply ship has been recently posted in the Caribbean which falls under the purview of U.S. Southern Command. Southern Command presides over military operations throughout South America, Central America and the Caribbean.

The United States has increased its presence in Southern Command’s region in recent months as operations against alleged drug smuggling vessels have intensified.

Last month, President Donald Trump and members of his cabinet presided over the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro and his wife.

It is rare for U.S. Navy vessels to crash into each other. In 2017, 17 sailors were killed in two separate crashes between Navy ships in the Pacific Ocean. The U.S. Navy determined both crashes were avoidable.

The TWZ Newsletter

Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.

The U.S. Navy’s top officer says global proliferation of increasingly capable air defense systems underscores the vital need to move ahead with work on the F/A-XX next-generation carrier-based fighter. He further warned that the Navy’s “ability to fly with impunity” using non-stealthy types like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, even against smaller nation-state adversaries like Iran and non-state actors, is now “fleeting.”

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Daryl Caudle talked about F/A-XX and the threat ecosystem during a live question-and-answer session at the Apex Defense conference in Washington, D.C., yesterday. Breaking Defense was first to report on Caudle’s remarks. F/A-XX has been in purgatory since the Pentagon announced its intention to shelve it last year, primarily to prevent any competition for resources with the U.S. Air Force’s F-47 sixth-generation fighter. Congress is now pushing ahead with legislation that could jumpstart the Navy’s next-generation fighter program. Boeing and Northrop Grumman are currently in the running for F/A-XX. Lockheed Martin was reportedly eliminated from the competition last March. Boeing is also the prime contractor for the F-47.

The “next-generation airframe, F/A-XX, is so vital,” Caudle said yesterday. “This [carrier] air wing of the future design is so important for so many reasons … nothing delivers the mass of an air wing if you want to deliver mass fires.”

“I know these things are expensive, and I know the defense industrial base is compressed, but we have got to figure out how to walk and chew gum here with aircraft,” he added. It is worth noting here that both Boeing and Northrop Grumman have pushed back publicly, to different degrees, on concerns that the U.S. industrial base cannot support work on two sixth-generation fighter programs simultaneously.

You can listen to Adm. Caudle’s full opening remarks at the Apex Defense conference and the follow-on question-and-answer session in the video below.

CNO APEX REMARKS

Caudle has long been outspoken in his support for F/A-XX, which is the Navy’s planned successor to its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets. In addition to being very stealthy, the sixth-generation jets would come with increased range and other advancements, giving the Navy’s carrier air wings a major boost in kinetic capability. F/A-XX will also be able to perform electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, as well as contribute to battle space management.

The CNO highlighted many of these expected capabilities in his comments yesterday. He also called particular attention to how “vital” F/A-XX will be because of “the CCAs [Collaborative Combat Aircraft drones] that it will command and control.”

“But the bigger part is … just the ever-lowering cost of entry” when it comes to air defense threats, Caudle said. “The folks that used to be not in [the] headspace that I needed a stealth aircraft of this level to fly a mission into their country, will gain capability that the F-18 will not match against.”

“This is an ever-evolving theme, and when you’ve got partnerships … well coupled with each other across China and Russia and Iran and North Korea, and terrorist groups that are getting that kit from all of those through back-channel ways, our ability to fly with impunity with our existing airframes is fleeting,” he continued. “So, if I don’t start building that [F/A-XX] immediately, you’re not going to get it for some time.”

“I hate to say it, sounds cliche, but you know, when things heat up in Iran, guess who steamed over there? Right? It was the United States Navy and the Abraham [Lincoln Carrier] Strike Group,” the Navy’s top officer added. “So you can imagine what that looks like 10 years from now, with a different Iran, with different capability, that can go against F-18 capabilities of today.”

U.S. military operations in and around the Middle East in the past two years have provided substantial evidence to underscore Caudle’s remarks. There were multiple reported instances in which Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen were able to threaten existing fourth and fifth-generation U.S. fighters, at least to a degree, with their relatively modest air defense capabilities. Sources differ on the total number, but the Houthis were also able to successfully down 20 or so MQ-9 Reaper drones.

🇾🇪🇺🇸 | The Houthis show footage from the shootdown of another U.S. Air Force MQ-9 Reaper UCAV.

If I’m not mistaken, that would be the 20th MQ-9 downed by the Houthis from Yemen. pic.twitter.com/SCwRVLSs7s

— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) April 18, 2025

TWZ has previously explored in detail the scale and scope of Houthi air defenses, as well as their ability to punch above their weight, and not just against U.S. forces. Infrared sensors and seekers, including the repurposing of heat-seeking air-to-air missiles as surface-to-air weapons, have been a major factor, given that they are not impacted by radar cross-section-reducing features on stealthy targets. They are also passive, meaning that they do not pump out signals that can give opponents advanced warning that they are being tracked and targeted.

Infrared capabilities can also help in cueing traditional radars, and pairing the two together offers benefits for spotting and tracking targets, whether they have features to reduce their radar and other signatures or not. This also just allows the radars to not have to start radiating (and expose themselves as a result) until very late in the engagement cycle. The Houthis have also focused heavily on mobile systems that are hard to find and fix in advance, and that present additional complications given their ability to pop up suddenly in unexpected locations.

The air defense assets the Houthis have arrayed over the past decade or so are directly reflective of developments in Iran, which has put a similar focus on infrared capabilities and mobile systems. Though B-2 stealth bombers were the centerpiece of the Operation Midnight Hammer strikes on Iranian nuclear sites last year, stealthy F-22 and F-35 fighters were still used to help clear the way by targeting air defense sites in the country.

This all, in many ways, reflects broader air defense global trends that have been emerging in China, Russia, North Korea, and elsewhere. As Adm. Caudle noted yesterday, there has also been cooperation on various levels between America’s adversaries, well beyond Iran and the Houthis, on the development and proliferation of more capable air defense systems.

The threat picture also goes beyond individual anti-air weapons and sensors. Fully-networked integrated air defenses, which offer a multitude of benefits when it comes to operational flexibility and more efficiently utilizing available resources, are only set to become a bigger part of the equation. These networks will be able to detect, successfully track, and engage targets in ways that federated air defense systems cannot. The barrier to entry in acquiring these capabilities is likely to keep dropping as time goes on, as well.

The Navy does still, of course, see F/A-XX as critical to projecting carrier-based airpower into denser, higher-end air defense threat ecosystems, especially in any future conflicts against a major competitor like China or Russia. A year ago, the U.S. Air Force released a report projecting that American aircraft will be challenged by anti-air missiles with ranges up to 1,000 miles by 2050.

“This [F/A-XX] is, again, a global solution, not just for a pressing scenario,” Adm. Caudle said yesterday.

As an aside, it is interesting to point out that the air defense arsenal of another smaller country, Syria, has been credited with helping ensure the F-22 survived post-Cold War drawdowns in defense spending. The program was severely truncated later on as a cost-cutting measure, a decision that has been increasingly questioned in hindsight.

The F/A-XX saga still has yet to play out, but Iranian air defenses, in particular, look to have emerged as a major factor in whatever the future might hold for that program.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The TWZ Newsletter

Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.

An elite U.S. Navy test and evaluation squadron, the VX-9 “Vampires” based out of NAWS China Lake, are now flying the U.S. Air Force’s F-35A model. The Navy traditionally flies the carrier-capable F-35C and the Marines fly both the short-takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B and the F-35C.

The news that the seagoing service is operating the A model of the Joint Strike Fighter came from aviation photographer @Task_Force23, who captured the VX-9 F-35A as it did a low-approach at Mojave Air and Space Port on January 23rd. He was kind enough to share his photos with our readers.

The aircraft in question was 17-5240, an F-35A that had previously served in a test capacity with the USAF’s 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron based at Nellis Air Force Base. As for how the jet ended up being flown by the USN, the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) tells us:

“We have a service agreement whereby the Air Force can loan the Navy an aircraft and they have done that before.”

We have asked additional questions about the arrangement to the JPO, we will update this post when we hear back.

Regardless, it makes sense that Navy can pull from the Air Force’s much larger F-35A fleet for test and evaluation duties, the activities of which often benefit both services due to the joint nature of the F-35 program. The entire F-35C production target for the Navy and Marines is 273 aircraft (as of 2024), and many of those aircraft are yet to be ordered and delivered. In comparison, the USAF had well over 500 F-35As in its inventory at the start of fiscal year 2025. That number has only grown.

The F-35C that the Navy flies has much larger wings than the A, allowing it to approach the carrier at lower speeds. It also has a beefier landing gear for carrier operations, a robust tail hook, and it carries more fuel, among other tweaks. While the two fly similar and conversion from F-35C to A is likely relatively seamless, the C model is restricted to 7.5Gs compared to the A’s 9Gs. Due to the big wing and G restriction, they perform different in areas of the envelope, such as turns. High speed performance is also a bit different due to the big wings on the C. But those differences are fairly minimal, especially for test duties of a relatively mature aircraft that often have more to do with avionics, software, and weapons integration than raw performance and flying qualities. There are other use cases VX-9 could have for F-35As, as well, but generally this would be a capacity issue.

Still, it is certainly… different… seeing an F-35A emblazoned with NAVY on its side and VX-9’s iconic bat on its tail.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

ST. PAUL, Minn., Jan. 26 (UPI) — A aging, decommissioned destroyer that plays a little-known, but vital, role in maintaining the self-defense systems of Navy warfighting ships is on its last legs, but there’s no clear plan to replace it, government watchdogs say.

The Government Accountability Office reported last week that the 564-foot Self-Defense Test Ship, which before being decommissioned in 2003 was a Spruance-class destroyer known as the USS Paul F. Foster, is aging quickly and is beset by problems

That could compromise its one-of-a-kind role as a vessel fitted to undergo missile attacks as a way to test the Navy’s shipboard self-defense systems.

The unique vessel is equipped with the SSDS Mk 2, the command-and-control system aboard the Navy’s amphibious ships and aircraft carriers, which can be operated by remote control without any crew onboard as a safety precaution as it faces incoming missiles.

The insights it provided about the effectiveness of shipboard self-defense systems were used extensively by the Navy to address the needs of the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier and the DDG 1000 Zumwalt class destroyer in the last decade, and the test ship is expected to continue to carry out more vital tests over the next few years.

But even after extensive upgrades in 2024 and 2025, the ship is on its last legs and could become inoperable at any time, the GAO warned, leaving the Navy without a clear plan for some way to replace its functionality quickly.

“The Self-Defense Test Ship is critical to the Navy’s ability to test and understand how ship self-defense systems will behave as missiles approach a ship,” said Shelby Oakley, director of contracting and national security acquisitions for the GAO and lead author of last week’s report.

He told UPI there’s a risk of a gap in U.S. testing and training capabilities if the test ship goes out of commission with no replacement immediately available — which could have dire repercussions as U.S. naval forces confront missile-wielding foes such as Yemen’s Houthi rebels in the Red Sea.

“Due to the speed of incoming missiles, the systems must function with precision. Without a test ship, the Navy is reliant on computer modeling to evaluate operational performance of self-defense systems at close range,” he said.

“Thus, without a test ship, the Navy would have less confidence that the systems will protect the ship from incoming fire, which could result in disastrous consequences in the heat of battle.”

The risk of having a gap in such test capability is amplified “when considering the steady advances in the weapons available to potential U.S. adversaries,” Oakley added.

The vessel underwent 14 months of repairs at Naval Base San Diego beginning in April 2024, after which it returned to its home base at Port Hueneme, Calif.

While it was out of commission, technicians examined and mended fuel tanks, the firefighting system, the fire main pipe and sea water service valves, according to the Naval Sea Systems Command.

Its superstructure was also inspected for corrosion and its deck was restored.

But Navy officials told the GAO during the lay-up period that regardless of any further maintenance it may receive in the next few years, “continuing to effectively operate it to the end of the decade will be a challenge based on its poor condition.”

The issue has come up as the Navy is struggling to achieve the goals of the Trump administration and bipartisan majorities in Congress to grow the size of the fleet.

The service has failed to consistently produce new ships at the scale, speed and cost demanded by the government due to “a series of interwoven, systemic issues,” such as ever-shifting specifications by military officials and the inability of defense contractors to find a stable and adequate workforce, according to a December report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Amid those challenges, a concrete plan to replace the self-defense test ship remains elusive. The Navy explored several options to do so in the decade between 2013 and 2023, including extending the service life of the current vessel, replacing it with commercial ships or decommissioning and converting another destroyer.

The last option appeared to become less feasible when Secretary of the Navy John Phelan extended the service lives of the five DDG 51 class destroyers that were identified as potential replacements.

A request for comment by UPI to the secretary’s office was not returned. But in a brief written response included in the GAO report, officials of the Navy’s Operational Test and Evaluation Force, or OPTEVFOR, concurred that a new test ship is needed and that a “capability gap” may be created due to the lengthened decommissioning schedule of the DDG 51 class destroyers.

They also confirmed the test ship is scheduled to be retired after a new round of testing for the SSDS Mk 2 system slated to begin in fiscal year 2027.

While the vessel can still be used, its down time due to maintenance needs are increasing and it’s becoming increasingly hard for the Navy to plan around them, said defense analyst Christine Cook, a senior fellow at the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“The age and condition of the ship means that it would be useful for the Navy to develop a plan and make investments in a new one,” she told UPI. “However, the question is always, what will the Navy not be able to do with the funds spent on a new test ship?

“Recommendations on gaps don’t always ask this question, but it is one that Navy programmers have to grapple with,” she said. “A delay in developing a plan for a replacement ship does not mean that the test ship is not available — but it does create some level of future risk.”

The Navy’s larger shipbuilding challenges are indirectly affecting the situation because the sluggish pace of new production is forcing its leaders to keep existing vessels in service longer, Cook added.

“If the Navy wants to keep ships operational longer because shipbuilding constraints mean that it can’t access sufficient new builds, then there may not be a ship available for retrofitting,” she said.

“The goal of growing the size of the Navy may require delaying ship retirements, which also means that the fleet needs more maintenance, competing with the ability to maintain the test ship.”