Stealthy

Russia is displaying some of its newest air-launched precision weapons in public for the first time at the El Alamein International Airshow in Egypt this week. The S-71K Kovyor and related S-71M Monokhrom, and the S8000 Banderol, reflect Russia’s effort to field larger numbers of relatively inexpensive standoff weapons alongside its more sophisticated and costly missile types. As such, their development and early employment are closely tied to the war in Ukraine, but they also reflect wider global interest in these kinds of weapons.

The weapons, seen in the tweet embedded below, comprise, clockwise from top left: S-71K Kovyor, an unknown smaller guided munition, S8000 Banderol, and S-71M Monokhrom:

For Russia, the requirement has become increasingly important as the war in Ukraine has evolved into a prolonged contest in which industrial capacity is as critical as technology. Russia has expended huge numbers of cruise and ballistic missiles against Ukrainian targets while also developing an enormous strike-drone campaign. At the same time, Ukrainian air defenses have become progressively more capable, forcing Moscow to use combinations of missiles, drones, decoys, and different flight profiles to penetrate or saturate the defensive network. One lesson is the fact that a weapon does not necessarily have to be as capable as a high-end cruise missile if it can be manufactured in much greater numbers and still present a credible threat to the target.

The S-71M, which TWZ previously reported on in detail after Ukrainian intelligence obtained an example, is a compact, turbojet-powered weapon with a distinctly angular airframe intended to reduce its radar signature. Imagery from Egypt gives a better look at its front end, including a faceted nose flowing into a broad central fuselage. The nose has at least one optically flat transparency for an infrared or TV seeker. Its wings are sharply swept and fold against the belly of the weapon for carriage, while the rear of the weapon terminates in an inverted-V tail arrangement. The overall shape is notably different from Russia’s more conventional cruise missiles of the past.

Ukrainian analysis found that the S-71M incorporates an OFAB-250-270 high-explosive fragmentation bomb as its warhead and relies primarily on inertial guidance, rather than carrying a sophisticated terminal seeker, although the seeker window raises questions about that.

Ukrainian intelligence also described its construction as being relatively straightforward, with fiberglass composite material making up much of the outer structure and no evidence identified of specialized radar-absorbing coatings.

As we noted previously, the weapon appears intended as a less expensive, but still survivable standoff weapon option that can be produced in significant numbers.

The S-71M has been tested from the Su-57 Felon fighter, also present at El Alamein. In a press release, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), responsible for the Su-57, said that the S-71M and the S-71K displayed alongside it “were designed for fifth-generation fighters,” although there is no reason why they couldn’t be launched from a wide variety of platforms.

A Su-57 performing at El Alamein, with one of its main internal weapons bays apparently loaded with Kh-69 standoff missiles:

Regardless of launch platform, the nature of the war in Ukraine make that the S-71M particularly useful. Russia has increasingly relied on extemporized glide bombs for attacks against targets relatively close to the front, but those weapons require the launching aircraft to operate within a certain distance of Ukrainian defenses. At least in their earlier iterations, such weapons were also crude and prone to failure. Longer-range cruise missiles offer considerably greater standoff but are more complex and expensive. The S-71M sits somewhere between those categories, providing an air-launched, powered weapon with a relatively large warhead and some degree of low observability without the cost and complexity of a full-size, truly stealthy cruise missile.

The S-71K appears to represent a more capable version of the basic concept. Public information remains limited, but the weapon has been associated with electro-optical guidance and greater onboard processing, potentially giving it a capability to deal with targets in a more flexible manner than the largely pre-programmed S-71M. Exactly how that capability is employed, and how autonomous the weapon actually is, remain less clear from the imagery and information released to date.

As displayed at El Alamein, the S-71K retains the overall faceted, low-observable appearance of the S-71M but has a visibly different airframe and wing arrangement. Its body is notably broad and compact relative to its length, with folding wings that are relatively thick, and a more refined inverted-V tail giving it more the appearance of a small uncrewed aircraft than a conventional air-to-surface missile.

Meanwhile, the Banderol represents a somewhat different path to the same general problem. Ukraine’s intelligence service previously obtained and analyzed an example of the small jet-powered cruise missile, which TWZ reported on last year. The weapon is considerably smaller than Russia’s principal cruise missiles and has been associated with launch from drones and helicopters. Its reported range of around 500 kilometers (311 miles) and relatively small warhead make it something of a complementary system intended to provide another, more economical way of putting a precision weapon onto a target from the air.

In terms of its appearance, the Banderol is more conventionally missile-like, with an ogival central fuselage, a pointed nose, and sharply swept folding wings. Its proportions underline just how small it is compared with Russia’s better-known air-launched cruise missiles.

The Banderol is particularly relevant in the context of the economics of the Ukraine conflict. Russian forces have increasingly used combinations of relatively inexpensive one-way attack drones and more expensive cruise and ballistic missiles. The drones can be produced in large numbers and used to complicate air-defense operations, while the more capable missiles provide greater speed, range, payload, or penetration capability. A small turbojet-powered weapon such as Banderol offers another point on that spectrum.

At leats one image has recently emerged showing a Banderol carried by a Russian Mi-28NM Havoc attack helicopter. This would be in line with unconfirmed reports from Ukraine last month that Russia was using the Mi-28 as an additional launch platform for the weapon, including firing them from over the Sea of Azov to attack targets around Odesa.

Its reported use also illustrates how the distinction between a cruise missile and a large one-way attack drone is becoming increasingly blurred. The Banderol incorporates a conventional missile-like airframe and jet propulsion but has been associated with drone operations and makes extensive use of commercially available components. TWZ’s earlier examination of the weapon also highlighted the extent to which modern Russian weapons programs can combine relatively simple airframes with foreign-sourced electronics and propulsion technology.

Likely Banderol loitering munition on the ground (perspective exaggerates it’s size) and under Orion drone.

Banderol has been reported as one of the munition used in recent strikes and appears to use a jet engine and a FAB-100 warhead or similar. pic.twitter.com/j50DUsNuVe

— krakek (@krakek1) April 27, 2025

Seen together at El Alamein, the three weapons provide an unusually useful snapshot of where Russian air-launched strike development is heading. They are presented alongside a fourth, so-far unidentified munition. This unnamed weapon is notably short and fat, with a cruciform tail, and an optical window in the nose. Its overall size and shape suggest it may have been developed specifically to arm drones.

The appearance of the weapons at an arms fair underscores the fact that Russia is not the only country confronting the problem of producing and fielding sufficient precision weapons at an acceptable cost. The growing interest in lower-cost cruise missiles, loitering munitions, attritable aircraft, and other forms of expendable precision strike is now evident well beyond Russia.

Russia is also clearly trying to make these weapons harder to intercept, an increasingly important consideration as Ukrainian air defenses have demonstrated an ability to shoot down even glide bombs in some circumstances. The S-71K in particular incorporates unusually pronounced low-observable shaping, suggesting that survivability was also a central requirement from the outset.

There is, however, a significant complication to Russia’s attempt to turn its wartime experience into an export opportunity. Buying any kind of weapons from Moscow has become considerably more difficult because of sanctions, restrictions on access to foreign technology and financing, and the wider political risks associated with maintaining a Russian defense relationship. Those factors matter just as much to a prospective customer as the performance of the weapon itself.

Author’s note: earlier reporting on the S-71 family appears to have transposed the S-71K and S-71M versions. Most authoritative accounts now indicate that the more refined, more stealthy version is the S-71K Kovyor (meaning carpet), while the simpler weapon is the S-71M Monokhrom.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The U.S. Navy made a major splash this weekend when it revealed the existence of the AIM-424 Malice Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile (LRAAM), which is already deep in development. At the same time, the service also highlighted plans for a new Compact Air-to-Air Missile (CAAM) optimized for shorter-range engagements and internal carriage on stealthy fighters like the F-35 and future drones as part of its larger future missile vision. Readers can first get caught up on what is known about the long-range AIM-424 in our initial reporting on that missile here.

As described so far, the core goals for CAAM sound virtually identical to what the service has outlined previously in relation to a “Compact Variant” of the AIM-9X Sidewinder (AIM-9X CV), which TWZ was first to report on. A missile in this general category would offer a boost in magazine depth that could be especially valuable for more localized defense of carriers and other high-value assets against large waves of missiles and drones.

The “Compact Air-to-Air Missile (CAAM) effort is a future inner boundary weapon. Requirements are being evaluated and assessed by N98 [the Air Warfare Division of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations] at this time,” a Navy official told TWZ when asked for more information. “The Navy does not plan to provide routine updates beyond approved public releases because of operational security and program sensitivity.”

Mention of CAAM was included in the same briefing where the AIM-424 was first unveiled at the Tailhook Association’s annual convention this weekend. A central focus of the CAAM is on “increasing internal carriage capacity for inner boundary weapon,” according to that presentation.

For the Navy, at present, “internal carriage” is a consideration most applicable to the service’s F-35Cs and, by extension, other variants of the Joint Strike Fighter. Internal weapons bays will also be a feature on whatever design the Navy may ultimately select as its future sixth-generation carrier-based combat jet, currently referred to as F/A-XX. Future Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) type drones or other uncrewed aircraft the service might acquire in the future could also have internal bays. We will come back to this later on.

The description of CAAM as an “inner boundary weapon” points to a focus on shorter-range engagements, where there could also be less total time to react overall.

In terms of what the Navy’s core requirements for the CAAM might be beyond internal carriage, details are limited. A rendering included in the presentation at Tailhook this weekend shows a relatively generic-looking design with fins only at the tail and a yellow band around the front of the body indicating the presence of a high-explosive warhead.

However, earlier this year, the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD), part of Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), did put out a contracting notice regarding rocket motor developments to support CAAM and other developments.

NAWCWD “intends to procure on a Full and Open competition basis to develop and demonstrate technology that results in greatly enhanced kinematic capability for the next generation of tactical missiles,” the notice explained. “To support this technological development efforts, NAWCWD is interested in maturing high total impulse loaded and energy tailorable solid propulsion systems for transition into compact weapon systems, including a Compact Air-to-Air Missile (CAAM).”

“Requirements will include tasking and products needed to provide a Concept Design with build-to-print data package, identify critical technology gaps, conduct critical component and rocket motor experiments, conduct a Design for Manufacturing & Assembly study to identify features required to meet manufacturing and cost goals, and provide a plan to mature the CAAM HLG Concept Design to a maturity state ready to enter a Department of Defense (DOD) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) program,” the notice added.

“HLG” here stands for “Highly Loaded Grain.” This, in turn, refers to solid-fuel rocket motors designed to maximize output per volume. This is an area of missile technology where the Navy has already been heavily investing for years with a broad eye toward increasing the range and improving the performance of future missiles. Furthermore, a missile with an HLG rocket could offer substantially increased capability over a similarly-sized design with a non-HLG motor. This, in turn, offers particular advantages when designing missiles for carriage in internal bays with rigid dimensions.

“The Next-Generation Highly Loaded Grain project team has matured the technology and seeded the development of future mission-modular propulsion systems that can increase weapon ranges by up to 1.5x while maintaining inner boundaries for short-range and time-critical missions,” according to one fact sheet detailing notable achievements by NAVAIR’s Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCAD) in 2023. Note here also the explicit mention of ‘inner boundary’ design considerations.

As mentioned earlier, the Navy has previously used virtually identical language to describe the planned AIM-9X CV, which is also a joint program with the U.S. Air Force.

“The AIM-9X CV repackages the SIP IV technology into a compact airframe optimized for internal carriage on advanced aircraft with improved kinematic performance,” according to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, released earlier this year. “The program will deliver increased capability to the warfighter with greater standoff range, increased aircraft weapon station capacity, and maintains inner boundary performance.”

How exactly the CAAM and the AIM-9X CV programs may be related is unknown, but they clearly have the same general goals if they are not different names for the same development effort. From what was shown this weekend, CAAM is a distinctly different-looking missile from the AIM-9X, and plans for a compact Sidewinder variant or derivative could also be a stepping stone to a new design intended to fill the same general role.

U.S. defense contractors have been publicly showing concepts for compact air-to-air missiles for years now. This includes Raytheon’s Peregrine, unveiled in 2019, which was said to be roughly half the size of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) while still offering comparable range. The company said it also had equivalent maneuverability to current-generation Sidewinders. Raytheon is the prime contractor for the AIM-120 and the AIM-9, as well as the newly unveiled AIM-424.

In the late 2010s, Boeing also put forward a concept for a multi-stage Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile (LRAAM), which had a design that raised the possibility of whether the first stage could be used as a more compact, stand-alone weapon. In 2022, Boeing notably received funding for further development of that missile under a contract from the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) to “investigate advanced missile sub-system components to support the Compact Air-to-Air Missile [CAAM] and Extended Range Air-to-Air Missile Systems [ERAAM].”

During the 2010s, Lockheed Martin promoted a compact anti-air missile design called Cuda, with a focus on internal carriage, as well. However, Cuda had largely disappeared from the company’s marketing materials by the end of the decade.

Regardless, the use case for such a CAAM-type missile is clear-cut, especially for the Navy and its carrier air wings. In particular, the service is facing a threat ecosystem that is rapidly evolving in scale and scope, including multiple different classes of anti-ship missiles (ballistic, cruise, hypersonic) and long-range one-way attack drones. There is a very real prospect of large-volume and complex attacks made up of very different tiers of weapons incoming from multiple vectors simultaneously, creating a greater risk that both long- and short-range defenses will be overwhelmed. TWZ previously explored this reality in depth in discussing how the long-range AIM-174B, an air-launched version of the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) that was officially unveiled in 2024, fits into the service’s larger plans.

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

Added localized defensive capability and capacity could also be relevant for aerial force packages pressing their way to a target in hostile territory, where similarly growing aerial threats could materialize suddenly and in close proximity. Depending on its capabilities, CAAM might even be able to provide a new layer of defensive capability against incoming anti-air missiles, including for larger aircraft. So, giving individual aircraft more total engagement opportunities will only become more valuable, if not vital, as time goes on.

As noted, stealth platforms with limited internal bay space face particular constraints in this regard. For years, more magazine depth via smaller missiles has been seen as a key avenue for improving payload limitations for platforms like the F-35 and F-22 when operating in their most low-observable (stealthy) configuration. In many scenarios, these aircraft can get closer to their targets without detection, offering different options for the employment of what could be shorter-range weapons. A compact air-to-air missile design that still offers comparable performance to larger existing designs, through the use of a high-load-grain rocket motor and other features, would be even more of a boon. Having something that is capable of short-to-intermediate-range engagements, but that can be loaded in greater numbers internally would expand tactical flexibility, amplify lethality, and increase utility of the aircraft as they can down more targets on a single sortie in certain scenarios.

The continued growth of drone threats, especially those posed by long-range one-way attack types, has added another dimension to this equation. Limited magazine depth limits the ability to rapidly retask stealthy platforms to respond to often unpredictable high-volume drone attacks. Furthermore, the anti-air version of the 70mm Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) laser-guided rocket, the U.S. military’s current go-to lower-cost air-to-air weapon against drones, cannot be fired at all from the internal bays on the F-35 or the F-22. CAAM can offer the ability to address these threats better than aircraft like the F-35 and F-22 can today.

A weapon like CAAM would also be especially relevant for future collaborative combat aircraft, which have extreme constraints on payload capacity, internal and external, as well as total takeoff weight. For CCA-type uncrewed aircraft, keeping the airframe size as small as possible to meet requirements is also essential for meeting affordability and producibility targets. Arming these platforms with an AIM-120-sized missile might not necessarily be required, or even be ideal, especially when operating along the leading edge of the air-to-air battle, closer to threats. In those scenarios, having the option of carrying even twice as many missiles per sortie, internally (if available) or externally, even if they have shorter reach, could be hugely beneficial.

There could easily be interest in a CAAM-like missile from other branches of the U.S. military, if it is not already a joint service effort. The Air Force is already known to be involved in the AIM-9X CV effort. The service has publicly pursued new compact and lower-cost air-to-air missile concepts over the years under various different project names. This includes its own CAAM effort, through which Boeing previously received funding.

What is clear now is that the Navy is pushing to maximize the anti-air capabilities of its aircraft at both the shorter- and longer-range ends of the engagement spectrum.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Saab has unveiled its roadmap for its Autonomous Collaborative Platform (ACP) program, a stealthy, supersonic ‘fighter drone,’ which could enter service in the 2030s with the Swedish Air Force and potentially other customers. The aerospace and defense company is already working on two uncrewed technology demonstrators and today presented a full-scale mock-up of an operational drone that those two aircraft could inform. This drone, compared to the U.S. Air Force Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), for example, is a higher-end proposition, more advanced, larger, and with superior performance than those being test flown in the United States.

TWZ was among other members of the media who were briefed on the ACP program by Peter Nilsson, the head of Saab’s Advanced Programs business unit. He was talking at Malmen Air Base in Sweden, during an event to celebrate the Swedish Air Force’s 100th anniversary.

As for the name, Nilsson confirmed that, before settling on ACP, Saab had used the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) and Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) nomenclature. Meanwhile, the ACP falls under Sweden’s overarching KFS project, which stands for Koncept för Framtida Stridsflygplan, or Concept for Future Combat Aircraft.

The most significant element of the announcement was the full-scale mock-up of what Saab is calling aircraft A3. The idea of this is to show how a potential high-end ACP could look, and the kinds of capabilities it might bring, provided the company is awarded a development contract.

Broadly speaking, aircraft A3 has a lot in common with a previous concept that the company released back in 2024.

The concept retains the same tailless, stealthy configuration, with significant internal capacity for fuel and internal stores. The stealthy, chisel-type DSI air intakes remain on either side of the fuselage, but the prominent bulge roughly above where the engine nozzle would be is removed. The overall geometry remains similar: a sleek, blended wing/body configuration with cropped wings and a prominent chine running around the arrow-like forward edges, giving it something of a resemblance to the Cold War-era Saab Draken fighter, with its distinctive double-delta wing.

In the meantime, Saab is working on aircraft A1 and A2, uncrewed technology demonstrators that are being funded by the Swedish Ministry of Defense.

The first of these, A1, is expected to fly within the next 15 months,” according to Nilsson. The defense ministry called upon Saab to “go from concept to first flight within 36 months,” providing what Nilsson described as a “quite challenging” timeline.

Aircraft A1 uses the same GE Aerospace F414 engine that powers the Saab Gripen E/F crewed fighter. The turbofan produces around 22,000 pounds of thrust and will ensure A1 has supersonic performance.  However, for Saab, the main goal of A1 is to demonstrate that the company can build and fly a low-observable drone.

Saab provided imagery of wind-tunnel models of the A1. Overall, it appears loosely similar to the A3 mockup, with the exception of the twin, outward-canted tailfins. Aircraft A1 will have capacity for an internal weapons bay, although it will not be used for stores release tests. The next test article, aircraft A2 will have an internal weapons bay, and will presumably be used to test ordnance. Otherwise, A2 will be used for tests of other advanced technologies, including new materials and sensors.

No artwork of aircraft A2 was provided, but Nilsson said it will be “not quite” identical to A1, in terms of appearance. It will also be powered by the F414.

The F414 was selected due to its availability and the fact that the company has plenty of experience with the engine due to the Gripen E/F program. Saab is looking at other potential powerplants for the A3, but acknowledged that, should Sweden buy a productionized ACP, the engine commonality would be a big advantage, including, for example, when an engine needs to be changed at a remote airbase. This kind of maintenance is central to the Gripen concept of operation and would be retained for the ACP.

Saab is contracted until 2030 to develop the A1 and A2 demonstrators. What happens next will depend on the Swedish Ministry of Defense, and there is currently no agreement for a follow-on ACP contract, which would see the design advanced to a production-oriented prototype like the A3.

“We have floated the view that this would be a great asset to the Gripen E, but right now there is no commitment,” Nilsson remarked. Saab envisages the Gripen E serving as a tactical mission commander for one or more ACPs, working in conjunction with the company’s GlobalEye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft, a type also ordered by Sweden. Outside of Sweden, the drone could work with a wide variety of other crewed platforms, too.

Pending investment from the Swedish government, Saab may decide to use its own funds for early development of the A3. However, Nilsson noted that “if a customer does not come along I don’t know when my CEO will stop me spending — you need a customer to buy into this.”

Saab’s broader ACP vision is based on an advanced platform that offers both low-observable features and supersonic performance.

The resulting drone should be capable of undertaking “high-risk missions in heavily defended airspace.” As well as air-to-air combat, missions would include electronic warfare, suppression of enemy air defenses, and deep precision strike.

If Sweden buys into the idea, a development contract could be expected around 2030. Thereafter Saab thinks it could have the A3 aircraft in the air sometime in the early 2030s, leading to initial operational capability from the mid-2030s.

With the ACP program, Saab hopes to stake its claim as the “first-mover in the segment” for high-end ‘loyal wingman’-type aircraft.

But even if the Swedish Air Force isn’t swayed by Saab’s ACP offer, the company is seeing the related spiral development as fundamental to its future as a builder of crewed combat aircraft, too.

The same basic architecture now being developed for the ACP could provide a technological and conceptual base for a future (crewed) Gripen successor. This would be required by the Swedish Air Force sometime after 2055. If there is demand, Saab says it could start development of such an aircraft in the mid-2030s.

A rendering of a potential future crewed combat aircraft that appeared in Saab’s presentation reveals a slightly more detailed version of a concept shown in the past. Namely, a design apparently tailored for high speed, as well as low observability. Some of the same features found in the A3 concept — notably the overall blended wing/body and cropped wings — appear in the crewed combat aircraft, although this adds outward-canted tail surfaces, mounted on booms that project relatively far beyond the engine nozzle. The nose and forward fuselage bear a resemblance to the F-35, and, overall, the aircraft seems to be around the same size as the U.S. design, perhaps a little larger.

For its part, the Swedish Air Force is still weighing up whether it wants to pursue a crewed successor to the Gripen, if it will abandon crewed fighters altogether, or if it will seek to join a foreign sixth-generation fighter program. A decision on this is likely sometime between 2028 and 2030.

Speaking to journalists at Malmen today, Brigadier-General Niclas Magnusson, the deputy commander of the Swedish Air Force, called for closer collaboration between the service and industry as Sweden seeks to define its future air combat requirements.

“We have to research and find the limits of what we are able to do,” Magnusson said, adding that he expected the future Swedish Air Force to field both crewed and uncrewed platforms.

That decision is still to come but will also be informed by the relative costs of the Gripen (more of which may still be acquired), higher-end drones, and potential future crewed platforms.

When it comes to the ACP, Nilsson suggested that the life-cycle cost will be around a third that of the Gripen, although acquisition cost won’t be as low as that.

“The problem is that this bloody aircraft is too low cost,” Nilsson added, pointing to the Gripen E.

Ultimately, the cost of the ACP will depend on the degree of capability that the customer demands.

Potentially, a single ACP could cost half as much as a Gripen. Open-source reports suggest that the Gripen E typically comes with a flyaway cost of roughly $70-80 million.

If the ACP is to offer “high-end survival,” Nilsson explained, then a customer would likely be able to field two to three ACPs for each Gripen. The ratio “is not one to 10.”

While Saab also wants to offer the ACP to other Gripen E/F operators as a priority, the fate of the program remains heavily dependent on larger questions about the future of the Swedish Air Force.

The program gives Saab a solid, and potentially unique, entrance into the CCA space. As we’ve said for years, fourth-generation fighters can remain highly relevant when paired with CCAs — and with a drone as advanced as this, potentially even more so.

The ACP will still come with a significant cost, but that could be offset by reducing or eliminating the need for a fifth- or sixth-generation crewed fighter for certain air forces.

For now, Saab’s high-end loyal wingman remains a proposal rather than a committed production program, but the company is clearly positioning it as more than another experimental drone. The A1 and A2 demonstrators are intended to prove the technologies needed for a survivable, supersonic, low-observable uncrewed aircraft, while the A3 concept unveiled today illustrates where Saab believes those technologies could ultimately lead.

Whether Stockholm opts for a new Saab-developed crewed fighter, joins an international sixth-generation program, or moves toward a force built around a greater mix of crewed and uncrewed aircraft, the ACP work gives the country a way to explore those possibilities without committing to one of them yet.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com