Replacement

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is in the early stages of the search for a replacement for the C-146 Wolfhound cargo plane. The C-146s are unassuming twin-engine turboprop aircraft with civilian-style paint schemes that provide important logistical, medical evacuation, and other support, particularly to far-flung U.S. special operations forces. However, they are also based on a long-out-of-production design that was never in widespread use anywhere, and that makes them increasingly difficult and costly to sustain.

Col. Justin Bronder, head of SOCOM’s Program Executive Office for Fixed Wing (PEO-FW), spoke to TWZ and other outlets about the C-146 replacement plans at a roundtable on the sidelines of the annual SOF Week conference yesterday. The Wolfhounds are part of what SOCOM refers to as its Non-Standard Aviation (NSAv) fleets.

There are some 20 Wolfhounds in service today, which are operated by Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). The C-146, which AFSOC began flying in the early 2010s, is a militarized version of the Dornier Do-328, something we will come back to later on. The Air Force also has another Do-328, nicknamed Cougar, that has been used to conduct research and development and test and evaluation activities in support of SOCOM.

“So we have had a highly successful Non-Standard Aviation program, again that really developed under the crucible of where those operations that the Command [SOCOM] was in many parts leading in the really peak days in the War on Terror,” Col. Bronder explained. “So those aircraft, again, battle-proven C-146 Wolfhound aircraft, [were] set up at various TSOCs [theater special operations commands], providing the direct support.”

However, “those aircraft were fairly constricted by their short range, [and] by being a unique aircraft. There wasn’t a large global backbone to sustain them,” he continued. “So it was a successful model, but maybe not a very cost-effective one.”

The Air Force’s official C-146 fact sheet says the aircraft can fly up to 1,500 nautical miles while carrying 2,000 pounds of cargo. The Wolfhound does offer the flexibility to operate from shorter runways and semi-prepared airstrips, as well as roads.

“We’re looking for ways to recapitalize that fleet with something that’s more cost-effective, leverages a commercial kind of sustainment enterprise better, and then it again provides maybe a more capable aircraft to cover down on larger areas faster,” Col. Bronder added. “So those are the types of requirement spaces we’re working through as we plan out what the next phase of NSAv looks like.”

The Do-328 was first developed in the 1980s as a commuter airliner. A jet-engined 328JET derivative followed in the 1990s. Both variations only saw relatively limited sales. Just 217 examples were reportedly built, inclusive of both turboprop and jet-powered versions, during the production run in the 1990s. Only a fraction of those aircraft are still flying. Several attempts have been made to revive production of modernized versions of the design, but so far without success. Last year, Deutsche Aircraft unveiled the first prototype of its new D328eco, but, at the time of writing, it has yet to fly.

With the exception of a lone example operated by the Botswana Defence Force, the U.S. Air Force is the only military user of the Do-328. All of the Air Force’s examples were acquired second-hand. The C-146s supplanted an even smaller fleet of Bombardier Q-200s, a version of the De Havilland Canada DHC-8, or Dash 8, which AFSOC had begun flying in the NSAv role in the late 2000s.

Since the early 2010s, the C-146s have been criss-crossing the globe, providing discreet support to U.S. operations forces, sometimes right at the tactical edge. As one known example, Wolfhounds were heavily involved in supporting the opening phase of the French intervention in the northwest African country of Mali in 2013. C-146s continue to be used to move special operations forces and cargo, as well as to help evacuate injured personnel and perform other light utility-type missions worldwide. They have even sometimes been employed as VIP transports in more far-flung locales.

The C-146 fleet has also received various upgrades over the years. This includes unspecified modifications that have enabled the aircraft “to land at more austere, semi-prepared runways,” which “resulted in an approximately ten-fold increase in the number of available runways worldwide,” according to a declassified annual Air Force report published in 2015, which this author previously obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

As Bronder made clear yesterday, SOCOM and AFSOC are still very early in the process of laying out the requirements for a successor to the C-146. Any desire for boosts in range, performance, payload, and other capabilities will need to be balanced against the need for any future NSAv aircraft to be able to operate from the same kinds of remote and austere locations as the Wolfhound does today.

SOCOM is certainly looking to move quickly on securing a replacement for the C-146. It is asking for $55 million to buy the first three of these new NSAv aircraft in its Fiscal Year 2027 budget.

“The current C-146A fleet will be divested of on a schedule that maintains this critical TSOC capability, as transition to the new aircraft occurs,” the budget documents also note.

In the meantime, the Wolfhound fleet will continue providing important, if not often overlooked, support to American special operations forces around the world.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The U.S. Air Force has confirmed it has come up with a new set of requirements as it continues to look for a successor to its hard-working MQ-9 Reaper fleet. In contrast to the Reaper, the replacement aircraft is likely to be more flexible in terms of mission spectrum. At the same time, the service wants to use new manufacturing technologies to ensure that it can be built at scale and at a lower price point than the MQ-9. This would allow it to be bought in larger numbers and risked more freely in contested environments.

All this reflects the continued high utility placed on the MQ-9 fleet, as well as its considerable loss rates sustained against mid-tier and lower-tier adversaries. It also points away from filling the MQ-9’s role with a far more exquisite, costly, but more survivable asset, which seemed to have been the direction the Air Force was heading, at least in part, for many years now. With this in mind, this new direction appears to accept that many losses will occur in future combat scenarios and embraces that reality to leverage quantity over quality for whatever eventually takes over from the MQ-9.

Testifying before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Maj. Gen. Christopher Niemi, the acting head of Air Force Futures, said that a new requirements document for an MQ-9 replacement had been approved. Aviation Week was first to report the development.

The approval clears the path for the Air Force to begin a new acquisition process for an uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) that will assume the MQ-9’s role. A medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) system, the Reaper is primarily used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike missions.

Niemi told the Senate Armed Services Committee that improvements in technology since the MQ-9 was developed mean the service now considers it possible for a new drone to be “more flexible,” leaning upon open architectures.

At the same time, modern production methods mean the new drone will be easier and cheaper to produce “in mass numbers,” Niemi said. The result should be a drone that the Air Force can “use in a more attritable way.”

Interestingly, within the Air Force, there has in recent years been a shift away from the term attritable — meaning inexpensive enough to be willing to lose on high-risk missions while being capable enough to be relevant for those missions — to “affordable mass.” This is something TWZ previously highlighted was already happening back in 2021.

This change came about as a way of helping define the kinds of advanced drones that the Air Force is planning to acquire in the coming years, reflecting that their capabilities will necessarily come at a cost that will make them less than “attritable.”

Last month, the Air Force published a market survey notice, requesting information from industry on a new attritable ISR drone.

This notice included some key performance parameters for the drone, including a range of up to 932 miles and a 20-hour endurance. The attritable nature of the drone was reflected in a requirement for it to fly 100 missions with a “low-to-medium acquisition” cost.

The basic Reaper can fly for more than 20 hours unarmed, or more than 12 hours with weapons. In the case of the MQ-9B version, with an extended wingspan, flight endurance can be increased to more than 40 hours.

“Operators desire low-cost, fast-to-field, fast-to-deploy airborne ISR mass to increase mission flexibility and mission surging,” the market survey notice added.

The process of figuring out what to replace the Reaper with has been ongoing for many years now. However, the latest effort is noteworthy for its emphasis on a lower-cost, more attritable platform.

Back in 2020, the Air Force published a request for information for a program dubbed MQ-Next, also seeking an MQ-9 successor. This was focused on ISR and strike capabilities, but also stated a desire for reduced operating costs and greater persistence, survivability, and range.

By 2021, the Air Force was concentrating more on a family of systems — the so-called Next-Generation Multi-Role Unmanned Aerial System Family of Systems (Next-Gen Multi-Role UAS FoS) — including a growing emphasis on low-observable (stealth) technologies. The same year, the service said it was seeking a replacement for the MQ-9 that could possibly include defensive counter-air capabilities to protect high-value manned aircraft, such as tankers, as well as potentially fly red air aggressor missions. Fast forward to today, and it’s clear that these higher-performance air-to-air focused missions could be taken over, at least in part, by the current Collaborative Combat Aircraft program. As a result, whatever replaces the MQ-9 is unlikely to have such broad requirements.

The Next-Gen Multi-Role UAS FoS included scope for platforms that could be survivable and reusable, or ones that would be attritable or expendable. This was not a single platform solution, either. It would likely need to include a mix of systems.

The 2021 document also stipulated that the MQ-9’s successor should be tailored for Great Power Competition, pointing to a drone ecosystem suitable for the kinds of highly contested environments that would be encountered during a conflict with a peer rival such as China or Russia. At the same time, the solution was also intended to fly missions in more permissive environments, like the MQ-9.

Around this same time, the Air Force also said it wanted to leverage advances in development and manufacturing, meaning that smaller numbers of manned aircraft could be produced quickly to meet dynamically evolving threats. This reflected the Air Force’s “Digital Century Series” that was in vogue at that time, and which led to talk about “throwaway” technology and essentially “disposable” aircraft. Some of this appears to have made it into these new requirements, which stipulate that the aircraft needs to be able to fly just 100 missions.

Meanwhile, the latest statements from the service describe a drone with increased flexibility achieved through open architecture, rather than building bespoke batches of drones for particular requirements. Previous statements from the service outlined an aspiration to have its new drone capable of accommodating rapidly reconfigurable payloads, something that open architecture would expedite.

Above all else, the MQ-9 successor will still have to operate in contested environments.

In his testimony yesterday, Niemi presented a vision of a new drone, the design of which would stress being attritable, rather than survivable.

The Pentagon has long worked on the basis that a future conflict with a peer rival, and especially with China in the Pacific, would see it facing highly robust anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) scenarios. With that in mind, previous Reaper replacement studies had suggested that low observability would need to be incorporated into the design.

The latest thinking seems to reject that, or at least reorient the program toward a lower-cost platform of the kind that the Air Force would be able to field in mass, as well as to absorb the anticipated attrition in a high-end conflict. This does not preclude this airframe from featuring low-observable elements. In fact, it most likely will. But those would be more aggressively balanced against cost.

Concerns over the MQ-9’s vulnerability to air defenses have been ongoing for years now, although usually the nuances of this issue are not portrayed accurately in the media. Regardless, many MQ-9s were lost over Yemen, against a bottom-tier force. The war with Iran earlier this year underlined both the great utility and vulnerabilities of the platform. At least 24 Air Force Reapers were destroyed during the war, but these aircraft were pushed deep into Iran, loitered there for hours on end, and did some of the most important air-to-ground strike and surveillance work during the air campaign. While the Air Force says it plans to “buy back” some of the losses from that conflict, that will come with a hefty price tag, something that the service will want to avoid with its next ISR/strike drone. Furthermore, production of the MQ-9A model has now ended in favor of the MQ-9B.

The assumption that the MQ-9 replacement will be acquired in significant numbers is also noteworthy in terms of the current Air Force Reaper fleet, which includes more than 130 MQ-9As, according to Aviation Week.

What appears to be missing at this stage, or at least obscured, is an acquisition strategy for the new drones. As well as the aerial platforms, the MQ-9 successor will require suitable new ground control systems, sensors, and data exploitation technologies, all of which are compatible with open-architecture standards. These systems will also have to leverage the latest technologies to allow the drones to be more effective and more survivable over the battlefield.

Since MQ-Next, the U.S. drone landscape has changed considerably in terms of manufacturers. A few years ago, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics would have been seen as the front-runners for the MQ-9 replacement. Now, there are more contenders, often with a founding focus on rapidly scaling up production at low cost. Still, these firms have much to prove, especially considering the risk in replacing an aircraft as important as the MQ-9. At the same time, in the more advanced drone space, the legacy defense “prime” contractors are also making major progress in leveraging new technologies to reduce production costs and migrating away from exquisite, very expensive drones as their default offerings.

Back in 2021, the Air Force was promoting a “Speed to Ramp” initiative for its MQ-Next, which would see the first iterations of this capability fielded before “the 2026/2027 timeframe.” Other solutions under the same effort would begin to be fielded “in the 2030 timeframe,” the Air Force said.

While the latter timeline might still be somewhat achievable, it will require a considerable effort and investment and, not least, the firming up of the requirements for exactly what the Air Force wants its MQ-9 replacement to look like.

What we do know is that, while the Reaper’s replacement might not be as survivable as once envisioned, it will certainly be tailored to the increasingly harsh realities of a conflict against an advanced peer-state adversary. 

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

April 22 (UPI) — Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell‘s term is nearing its end and President Donald Trump is pushing for his replacement but an investigation into Powell may hold up the appointment of a new chair.

The Justice Department opened an investigation into Powell over the renovation of the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building in Washington, D.C., which Trump claims has exceeded $3 billion. The renovation was not the beginning of Trump’s feud with Powell but it has added to his effort to oust the chairman before the end of his term.

Powell’s term as chairman of the Federal Reserve will end in May but he will remain on the Board of Governors until January 2028.

Typically when a Fed chair’s term ends, they resign. However, Powell said he plans to stay put until a replacement is appointed.

At least one lawmaker, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he would not vote on a new chairman until the investigation into Powell is over.

The Justice Department alleges that Powell made false or misleading statements to Congress about the cost of the renovation project at the Federal Reserve headquarters during his testimony to the House Committee on Financial Services in June.

Powell’s testimony was part of his semiannual report to Congress on monetary policy.

Following the hearing, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., submitted a request to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi for Powell to be investigated for perjury and making false statements. Luna said that Powell denied there would be “luxury features” included in the renovations, including a “VIP dining room, premium marble, water features and a roof terrace garden.”

Luna added that Powell “falsely claimed that the Eccles building ‘never had’ a serious renovation.” She notes that the building underwent renovations in 1999 and 2003.

“These are not minor misstatements,” Luna said. “Chairman Powell knowingly misled both Congress and executive branch officials about the true nature of a taxpayer-funded project. Lying under oath is a serious offense — especially from someone tasked with overseeing our monetary system and public trust.”

No charges have been formally filed against Powell. The challenge the Justice Department faces in convicting Powell of perjury or false statements is in proving that he willfully, knowingly made statements he knew to be false at the time.

Powell, who was Trump’s nominee for chairman in 2017, has said that the investigation into him and the Federal Reserve renovation is “pretext” to punish him for not following Trump’s direction to lower interest rates.

“No one, certainly not the chair of the Federal Reserve, is above the law, but this unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure,” Powell said in a video message in January. “This is about whether the Feed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions — or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.”

Last month, federal prosecutor George A. Massucco-LaTaif told Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg that the Justice Department does not know of any evidence that a crime has been committed in the Federal Reserve renovation project.

“We do not know at this time,” Massucco-LaTaif said. “However, there are 1.2 billion reasons for us to look into it.”

The fissure between Powell and Trump began and has continued over the Federal Reserve’s decision to maintain elevated interest rates in response to inflation. Trump has repeatedly called on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, saying the United States should “have the lowest interest rate in the world.”

All along the Federal Reserve continues to hold an elevated interest rate, currently between 3.5% and 3.75%, in an effort to tame inflation. Its target rate of inflation is 2% on an annual basis.

Economic markers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics show the rate of inflation remains at about 3%.

Trump has nominated Kevin Warsh to succeed Powell. Warsh served on the Fed’s board for five years after being appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006.

“I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt that he will go down as one of the great Fed chairmen, maybe the best,” Trump posted on social media in January. “On top of everything else, he is ‘central casting,’ and he will never let you down.”

Warsh faced his first hearing on the path toward confirmation on Tuesday when he testified before the Senate Banking Committee. Questions by senators centered on the Federal Reserve’s independence, something Trump’s influence has called into question.

If appointed, Warsh would be the wealthiest person to lead the Federal Reserve.

Presidents have butted heads with the Federal Reserve throughout its history, as monetary policy can reflect on how the U.S. population views the president’s performance. A president has never tried to fire the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is a non-partisan, independent agency made up of a board of governors posted in Washington, D.C., and 12 regional banks located across the United States.

Independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s function, keeping it from choosing policy based on the political goals of those occupying the White House and other branches of government.

Trump has not attempted to fire Powell yet but he did attempt to fire Fed board Gov. Lisa Cook. The attempt was unsuccessful as the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in October and ruled that she can remain at her post on an interim basis, at least for 2026.

The president does have some authority over choosing or designating a new Federal Reserve chair, Peter Shane, a constitutional law scholar in residence at NYU Law School, told UPI. However, a president must demonstrate a good reason for doing so.

There are two mechanisms in place that are meant to protect the independence of the Federal Reserve and its chair from political influence.

First, there is Supreme Court precedent. In 1935, the high court made a ruling in the landmark case Humphrey’s Executor vs. the United States. In this case, the court ruled that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not fire the commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, another independent agency, without cause.

The ruling affirmed that the authority to remove the head of any independent agency falls to Congress.

Second, there is the Federal Reserve Act. President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to decentralize the control over monetary policy in the United States. This established the Federal Reserve and set its independence as a foundational feature of its existence.

The Federal Reserve Act makes the Federal Reserve independent in setting monetary policy without the influence of the president or Congress.

Congress has the ability to change the Federal Reserve Act. It did so in 1977 with the Federal Reserve Reform Act.

This amendment, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, codified the objectives of the agency and established a requirement for the board of governors to report to Congress in hearings twice a year. It also added the requirement of Senate confirmation hearings for the chairman and vice chairman of the board of governors.

Last year, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act, calling for the board of governors of the Federal Reserve and all Federal Reserve banks to be abolished.

“Americans have suffered under crippling inflation and the Federal Reserve is to blame,” Massie said in a statement.

Since being introduced in March 2025 the bill has not progressed beyond being referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.