Test

Speaking prior to the news of Wood’s injury, former Australia fast bowler Jason Gillespie said he was “concerned about the robustness” of England’s attack.

“Do they have enough work in the bank to be fit and strong enough to bowl consistently high pace across the course of a whole match and then back it up in subsequent matches?” Gillespie told Stumped on BBC World Service.

“That is the big question mark for me.”

Wood’s absence would be keenly felt by England in the day-night conditions at the Gabba – a ground where they have not won since 1986.

England have a poor record in floodlit Tests, having won only two of their previous seven, including three defeats in Australia.

Australia have won 13 of their 14 day-night matches and, in Mitchell Starc, have the best pink-ball bowler in the world.

The pink ball does not behave differently to its red counterpart, but can be harder to see under lights.

Part of Starc’s success in pink-ball matches is the number of deliveries he bowls over 87mph and Wood, England’s fastest option, took nine wickets when he last played a day-night Test against Australia in Hobart in 2022.

Speaking on the For The Love of Cricket podcast, former England seamer Stuart Broad said: “There’s something about the pink ball, you just can’t pick it up quite as well. You get no clues as well, so the seam is black against the pink background, whereas with a red ball and white seam you might see Mitchell Starc’s in-swinger coming back into the stumps or scrambling around.

“It’s just the lights are reflecting off the pink ball so it’s almost like a big planet coming flying towards you.

“It means you’re just judging it from the movement off the surface or reading off the movement of the ball, but at such pace it’s quite difficult to do.”

Without Cummins and Hazlewood, Australia could field an unchanged attack for the pink-ball Test.

In Perth, left-armer Mitchell Starc took 10 wickets and was named player of the match. He was joined by fellow seamers Scott Boland and debutant Brendan Doggett, along with all-rounder Cameron Green and off-spinner Nathan Lyon.

Lyon struggled in Perth after being struck while batting by England fast bowler Mark Wood. If Australia decide to omit their frontline spinner in Brisbane, his replacement would be either seamer Michael Neser or all-rounder Beau Webster.

Khawaja’s place is under scrutiny after he was not fit to open the batting in either innings in Perth.

In the second innings, Travis Head was promoted from number five and struck one of the all-time great Ashes hundreds to lead Australia to victory.

If Khawaja is left out on his home ground, it would leave the door open for Josh Inglis, who made a hundred for a Cricket Australia XI against England Lions on Monday.

Australia have not lost an Ashes Test in Brisbane since 1986. They have lost only one of their 14 previous pink-ball Tests and have beaten England in all three Ashes day-nighters.

England opted against sending any of their first-Test XI to play in a two-day pink-ball match between England Lions and the Prime Minister’s XI in Canberra, starting on Saturday.

The tourists have arranged two extra training sessions in the run-up to the second Test.

They will return to practice at Allan Border Field on Saturday, when captain Ben Stokes is due to speak to the media.

There was a time in the middle of the previous decade when Australian pitches offered next to no encouragement for bowlers.

On England’s Ashes tour of 2017-18, the fourth Test in Melbourne yielded more than 1,000 runs for only 24 wickets. The Melbourne Cricket Ground was given a warning by the International Cricket Council for what the governing body deemed a ‘poor’ surface.

Since England last visited Australia in 2021-22, pitches have given much more to the bowlers.

For the past four years, pitches in this country have been rated as faster, bouncier and more inconsistent than anywhere else in the world. Pace, bounce and inconsistency is the perfect recipe for tough batting.

At this point, it is worth stating there is a subjectivity to what constitutes a ‘good’ pitch.

Quite often, a pitch can be described as ‘good’ when it is friendly for batting, yet that does not always produce the most thrilling spectacle.

Perhaps it is better to describe a ‘good’ pitch as one that produces an even contest between bat and ball.

Pitches also change over the course of a Test, offering different challenges to batters and bowlers as a match progresses.

Take the first Ashes Test as an example. In the first three innings, the highest total was 172 and batting looked devilishly difficult.

In the final innings, Australia’s run chase, Travis Head made a target of 205 look minuscule. The run chase could have been much more difficult on the fifth day of a Test, when a pitch would be at its oldest and most worn.

Because of the rapid nature of the first Test, Head was batting on the second evening, when the pitch may have been at its best for run-scoring.

“The pitch was brilliant,” said former Australia opener Simon Katich on BBC Radio 5 Live.

“For Australia to chase 200 for the loss of two wickets summed it up. In Australia if you can wear the new ball down you will score quickly from 40 to 50 overs. England weren’t able to do that and paid the price.”

Roger Stone’s sentencing Thursday is shaping up as a test of judicial independence after President Trump inserted himself in the court’s deliberations over the fate of his longtime confidant.

If U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentences Stone in line with the Justice Department’s new and lower recommendation, partisans will see that as caving to Trump, former federal prosecutor Harry Sandick said. If she gives a jail term closer to the maximum, she’ll be seen as defying the pressure.

“Given how polarized the country is, some people will look to Jackson to be a hero and give him a long sentence, and others will look to her to be a hero and give him a short sentence, but she’ll likely come in somewhere in between,” Sandick said. “She doesn’t need to be a hero. She’s a federal judge.”

Jackson said Wednesday that she’ll allow Stone to remain free regardless while she considers his bid for a new trial and any other motions filed after the sentencing. Speculation that sending him straight to prison could prompt Trump to swiftly pardon him rose after the president issued a slate of high-profile clemencies Tuesday in cases often supported by conservatives.

The Stone case stems from the U.S. investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and was always politically charged. But it turned surreal last week when senior Justice Department officials overruled career prosecutors who had recommended a prison term as long as nine years. The rare step seemed a reaction to angry tweets by Trump. The prosecutors quit the case in response, and Trump mocked them afterward on Twitter.

The about-face over the sentencing recommendation prompted Democratic lawmakers to accuse Trump of using the Justice Department for his own bidding. It also set up a rare clash between the president and his attorney general, William P. Barr, who complained on television that Trump’s comments were harming the public perception of the Justice Department as impartial. Even the chief federal judge in Washington issued a statement affirming that public pressure wouldn’t affect sentencing decisions.

The four prosecutors who oversaw Stone’s case made a comprehensive argument about why he should be locked up for seven to nine years. It was based on sentencing guidelines and details of his case, including his combative and disruptive behavior during the court proceedings. Stone, 67, asked for no prison time at all.

The Justice Department said the line prosecutors didn’t calculate Stone’s offenses correctly and revised the sentencing recommendation to between three and four years. In his tweets, Trump called the original sentencing recommendation “a miscarriage of justice” and suggested the prosecutors behind it were minions of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, whose probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election he has often derided as a corrupt “witch hunt.”

However she rules, Jackson may use the hearing to grill Justice Department lawyers about the decision-making behind the scenes, given how quickly the prosecutors who were most familiar with Stone’s case were overruled.

Jackson is “entitled to ask DOJ to explain in some way why they changed their position within 24 hours,” said Mimi Rocah, a former federal prosecutor in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office who’s running as a Democrat for Manhattan district attorney. “Judges are in charge when it comes to sentencing, so none of this would be out of the ordinary.”

Sharon L. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who’s now in private practice in New York, said Jackson could go so far as to ask Barr himself to appear.

“I think what has happened calls for that sort of drastic order,” McCarthy said.

Judges frequently hand down sentences that are lower — sometimes much lower — than what prosecutors suggest, and it’s possible that Jackson would have done so in Stone’s case even if Trump hadn’t weighed in or the Justice Department hadn’t reversed course. The perceived interference from the White House may complicate such a decision in Stone’s case.

Indeed, Trump’s commentary on the case could blow back on Stone if Jackson — who has also been criticized by Trump on Twitter — feels the need to demonstrate her independence by giving Stone a longer sentence than she otherwise would have, said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at Loyola Law School.

“If Judge Jackson were inclined to give a lower sentence, that actually makes it harder for her to do so now,” Levenson said.

Jacob S. Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor and Securities and Exchange Commission trial attorney, said that “the irony of the president’s tweet is that it could end up backfiring.” The judge may decide “that to protect the integrity and project the independence of the judiciary, she may end up imposing a longer sentence than she may have originally intended,” Frenkel said.

Randall Jackson, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan who prosecuted Bernard Madoff, says the judge isn’t likely to adjust her sentence in response to Trump. Even so, he said, the furor that erupted over suspected interference by Trump and Barr could hurt Stone in court.

“A reasonable observer could question whether this is the type of thing that is going to distract the judge from what most defense attorneys would want the judge to be focused on, which is the mitigating factors for their client that could lead to a lower sentence,” Jackson said.

Travis Head’s blistering century completes an astonishing eight-wicket win for Australia in the first two-day Ashes Test since 1921, as England suffer a crushing defeat in the first 2025 Ashes Test in Perth.

MATCH REPORT: Head leads Australia to crushing defeat of England

Available to UK users only.

Travis Head’s 69-ball century in Perth helps Australia take a 1-0 series lead against England in the Ashes.

Makeshift opener Travis Head smacked an explosive 69-ball century to power Australia to victory in a high-octane first Ashes Test on Saturday as England meekly surrendered in the Perth Stadium cauldron.

Chasing 205 to win, Head slammed 123 as the hosts romped home on the second day by eight wickets in an electric start to the five-match series. Marnus Labuschagne was not out on 51, and Steve Smith was on two.

Head’s heroics came on the back of a blistering spell from the marauding pace pair Scott Boland and Mitchell Starc after lunch that prompted a stunning England collapse.

The tourists were cruising at 65-1 and building an ominous second-innings lead, but Boland and Starc left them reeling with four wickets in as many overs.

A ruthless Boland accounted for Ben Duckett (28), Ollie Pope (33) and Harry Brook (0) in the space of 11 balls, then two deliveries later, Starc sent Joe Root packing for eight.

When Starc removed skipper Ben Stokes (2), England were flailing at 88-6 and the veteran paceman had bagged a 10-wicket haul for only the third time after his first innings 7-58, a career-best.

England were partially rescued by a crucial 50-run stand between Gus Atkinson (37) and Brydon Carse (20) before being rolled for 164 at tea.

When they returned, Usman Khawaja again failed to show as an opener as he battles back stiffness, with Australia signalling their intent by sending in Head.

Head, who has opened nine times previously in Test cricket, quickly got into his destructive rhythm, crunching some lovely boundaries, including big sixes off Carse and Mark Wood.

He made it look easy, making a mockery of the struggles other batsmen had on the bouncy track, bringing up his half-century in 36 balls, passing 4,000 Test runs in the process.

Looking to emulate him, debutant Jake Weatherald also went on the attack, but it cost him, out for 23 after a mistimed pull shot was taken by Ben Duckett off Carse.

An unruffled Head kept the pressure on, slamming four boundaries in one Stokes over and sending a six back over the head of Jofra Archer on his way to a 10th Test century.

He eventually fell to Carse, going for another big hit.

Starc stars

Australia resumed on a paltry 123-9 in their first innings and added just nine before Nathan Lyon was removed by Carse for four to leave England with a 40-run advantage.

Stokes was the star of the show, claiming 5-23 off just 36 balls to give England a golden opportunity to win a Test in Australia for the first time since the 2010-11 series.

They had all been out for 172 at the hands of Starc on day one.

Australia were banking on the 35-year-old to emulate his exploits in the second innings, and he whipped the sold-out Perth Stadium crowd into a frenzy when he removed Zak Crawley in his first over.

The veteran consigned Crawley to a pair, diving to his left in an incredible feat of athleticism for a memorable caught-and-bowled.

Duckett and Pope settled in, safely reaching lunch at 59-1.

But Scott Boland began to find his radar when they returned.

Duckett edged to Steve Smith in the slips, then Pope did the same to wicketkeeper Alex Carey before Brook repeated the feat to Khawaja.

After a first innings duck, Joe Root was desperate for runs, but he was no match for the relentless Starc, dragging a thick edge onto his stumps to cap a miserable start to the series.

Brendan Doggett then cleaned up Jamie Smith (15), Carse and Archer (5).

England went down to a crushing defeat in the first Ashes Test after Travis Head’s blistering century completed an astonishing Australia fightback in Perth.

In the first two-day Ashes Test since 1921, Head dismantled the England attack with the second-fastest Ashes hundred of all time, made off only 69 balls.

Head’s 123 led Australia to their target of 205 in 28.2 overs – just a session of batting. An eight-wicket victory puts the home side 1-0 up in the five-match series.

It was a devastating and rapid turnaround by the home side, who gave up a first-innings lead of 40 and were 105 behind when England reached 65-1 just after lunch.

Led by Mitchell Starc’s 10-wicket haul, helped by some awful visiting batting, then pulling off a masterstroke to promote Head up the order, Australia extended English pain in this country. The record stands at 14 defeats and two draws in 16 Tests since 2011.

England lost six wickets for 39 runs in 11 overs. A horror spell of 3-0 in six balls accounted for Ollie Pope, Harry Brook and Joe Root, ripping the guts out the middle-order.

Though Gus Atkinson and Brydon Carse swiped a half-century stand, England were rolled over for 164 in 34.4 overs. They lost their last nine wickets for 99 runs.

Australia faced making the highest score of the match in order to win, only for Head to play one of the all-time great Ashes innings.

England were shellshocked. The pace bowlers that ran rampant over the Australia batters only 24 hours below were reduced to a rabble. The partisan Perth crowd revelled in the chaos.

The only question was whether the game would bleed into a third day. Head ensured England have extra time for a post-mortem before the second Test, a day-nighter in Brisbane, begins on 4 December.

Mitchell Starc takes the wicket of Zak Crawley, who’s caught behind by Usman Khawaja at first slip, for a duck as England fall to 0-1 at the end of the first over of the innings on day one of the first Ashes Test in Perth.

FOLLOW LIVE: The Ashes first Test – day one

Available to UK users only.

Although a number of England Ashes triumphs at home and abroad have been built on pace, they have never fielded as many express pace bowlers in the same team.

The side that won at home in the famous series of 2005 included Steve Harmison, Simon Jones and Andrew Flintoff.

Raymond Illingworth’s triumphant visitors to Australia in 1970-71 had Bob Willis, Peter Lever and John Snow, and the England team that won in 1954-55 included Brian Statham and Frank ‘Typhoon’ Tyson.

Perhaps England’s most famous Australian tour of all, the 1932-33 Bodyline series, caused diplomatic tensions between the two countries for a short-bowling plan designed to unsettle the great Don Bradman.

On this occasion – one of the most eagerly anticipated Ashes series in recent memory – England are looking to reverse an awful record – they have not won a Test in Australia since 2011.

Only five members of the 16-man squad have played a Test in Australia, but Atkinson says that could work in England’s favour.

“It could be an advantage,” he told BBC Sport. “There are a lot of players who have said they have had some tough times here in Australia.

“For us, we are a very relaxed, very positive group. No scarring. It’s very exciting. We all see it as a huge opportunity to do something special.”

Australia’s net session on Wednesday was briefly delayed by the threat of lightning.

The home side are expected to give a debut to opener Jack Weatherald, with uncapped pace bowler Brendan Doggett also coming in following injuries to captain Pat Cummins and and fellow seamer Josh Hazlewood.

Boeing says its MQ-28 Ghost Bat drone is on track for its first live-fire weapons shot, which will be of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), next month. The company says the MQ-28’s development is otherwise now “hitting its stride,” amid talk of new customers, possibly including the U.S. Navy and Poland. Boeing’s Australian subsidiary first began development of the Ghost Bat for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), which has already conducted extensive flight testing with its fleet of eight prototypes.

Steve Parker, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space, and Security, provided a general update on the MQ-28 program at a media roundtable ahead of the 2025 Dubai Airshow in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), at which TWZ was in attendance. Boeing officials had said on various occasions earlier this year that the AMRAAM shot could come in late 2025 or early 2026.

At the Avalon Air Show in Australia in March, “I talked about doing a weapons shot off the MQ-28 later this year, or early in 2026. We are on track for next month,” Parker said during his opening remarks. “This weapon shot is something we’re really excited about.”

In addition to being a first for the MQ-28, the planned shot also looks set to be a first for any CCA-type drone, at least that we know about.

“It’s an air-to-air missile, and if you were to guess it was an AMRAAM, AIM-120, you would be correct,” he added later on during the roundtable when asked for more specifics.

The test itself will be carried out over the sprawling Woomera Range Complex (WRC) in southern Australia and reflect “a tactically relevant scenario,” according to Parker. The MQ-28 will attempt to down a real airborne target with the AIM-120.

Parker did not offer any specific details about how the engagement might be prosecuted, including how the drone would find and track the target. The MQ-28 is a highly modular design intended to allow for the ready integration of various munitions, sensors, and other payloads. The entire nose can be swapped out. It is worth noting here that at least two of the RAAF’s initial batch of MQ-28s have been spotted with an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor in the nose, which would be very relevant for this upcoming air-to-air weapons test.

Broadly speaking, IRST sensors offer a valuable means of spotting and tracking aerial threats, especially stealthy aircraft and missiles, which can be used as an alternative and/or companion to radars. IRSTs have the additional benefit of being immune to electronic warfare attacks and operating passively, meaning they don’t emit signals that could alert an opponent to the fact that they are being stalked.

“I’m not going to get ahead of the customer here, but we’re well positioned for this,” Parker continued in his response to the question about the AIM-120 shot at the roundtable. “We’ve been sort of testing out some of these capability demonstrations. You would know that the Wedgetail [Boeing’s E-7 airborne early warning and control aircraft] has already controlled two live MQ-28s with a digital, virtual MQ-28 in the pattern, as well, [and] with a target. We’ve already been doing this. So, we’ve already been doing a bunch of multi-ship activities.”

Boeing announced the MQ-28/E-7 team testing back in June. This was one of a number of Ghost Bat capability demonstrations that the company conducted in cooperation with the RAAF this year, as you can read more about here.

“This program is really hitting its stride,” Parker said.

As noted, the RAAF has already acquired eight MQ-28s, all pre-production prototypes, also referred to as Block 1 Ghost Bats. The service has also awarded Boeing a contract to deliver at least three more examples in an improved Block 2 configuration. The Block 2 drones are seen as a pathway to an operational capability, though when that might actually materialize is unclear. Australian officials have also raised the prospect in the past of an expanded family of Ghost Bats, which might include versions that are substantially different from the baseline design. Boeing itself has hinted at the potential for the drones to get significant new capabilities down the road, including the ability to refuel in mid-air.

Regardless of how the MQ-28 itself evolves, Boeing clearly sees potential opportunities for sales beyond the RAAF, as well. The U.S. Air Force has utilized at least one Ghost Bat in the past to support test work related to its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drone program, which is structured around multiple iterative development cycles. Boeing did take part in the initial stages of the first phase of that program, or Increment 1, but was cut last year in a down-select. The company could compete in the next cycle, or Increment 2, with the MQ-28 or another design.

In September, the U.S. Navy announced it had hired Boeing, as well as Anduril, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, to develop conceptual designs for carrier-based CCA-type drones. Boeing has so far declined to share specifics about what it is working on under that contract, but the Navy has said that there is “strong interest” in the Ghost Bat in the past. Boeing has previously pitched a carrier-capable version of the design at least to the United Kingdom, as well.

South Africa secured their first Test victory in India since 2010 as they triumphed in a low-scoring thriller inside three days in Kolkata.

The Proteas, who won the World Test Championship at Lord’s in the summer, had trailed by 30 runs on first innings – but reversed that to pull off a 30-run victory as the hosts, needing only 124 to win, were bowled out for 93 in 35 overs.

Veteran spinner Simon Harmer, 36, did the damage with four wickets in each innings for match figures of 8-51.

India were a batter short in their second innings after captain Shubman Gill suffered a neck injury on day two.

Gill remains in hospital for observation, with India having announced before play on Sunday that he would take no further part in the game.

More to follow.

Grindr has helped expand access to at-home HIV testing with Together TakeMeHome.

Back in 2023, the CDC announced the launch of Together TakeMeHome, “a project to distribute up to 1 million free HIV self-tests over the next five years.”

“HIV testing is a critical HIV prevention strategy and a key first step in the continuum of HIV care, yet too many people are unaware of their HIV status,” they said in a statement.

“By offering free HIV self-tests through mail delivery, TTMH addresses common barriers to HIV testing, such as stigma, privacy concerns, cost, and lack of access to HIV clinics, giving people who otherwise might not have tested an opportunity to know their status.”

After just two years, Together TakeMeHome has achieved its goal of distributing one million free HIV self-tests, with major help from one of its partners, Grindr.

According to the LGBTQIA+ social media company, nearly half of the kits were ordered through the app, with one in four people being first-time testers.

In a statement, the Managing Director of Grindr for Equality, Mohan Sundararaj, celebrated the major milestone, teasing that “it’s just the beginning.”

“The need for accessible testing remains urgent, especially as funding cuts and anti-LGBTQ laws threaten to reverse progress,” said Together, TakeMeHome proves that there’s a way forward that relies on collaboration, innovation, and the belief that everyone deserves the right to know their status,” Sundararaj wrote in a blog post via the Grindr website.

“At Grindr for Equality, we’re continuing to expand this model globally with public health officials, local advocates, and community organizations to remove barriers to prevention. Every test sent out is an act of care, an act of trust, and a step toward a healthier, more equitable world.”

Building Healthy Online Communities (BHOC) co-founder Jen Hecht echoed similar sentiments in a separate statement.

“Together TakeMeHome shows what’s possible when public health meets people where they are: online, in their communities, and on their terms. Reaching one million test kits is an incredible milestone for our program and the communities it serves,” Hecht said.

This program helps overcome barriers to testing, such as transportation, time, and concerns about privacy and judgment. We hear from our users that they appreciate the ease and convenience of ordering online and testing at home.

“This program is supported not only by the reach of Grindr’s digital platform but also by its advocacy, which has made a significant difference in our ability to navigate funding challenges and keep this work moving forward. It’s a powerful example of what partnership looks like in action – and we’re only getting started.”

Fortunately, the Together TakeMeHome program is showing no signs of slowing down. In September, an additional funding request for the project was approved, allowing it to distribute another 360,000 free HIV tests over the next year.

Free HIV at-home testing kits are now available for US Grindr users via the app or at together.takemehome.org

2025 has been a busy year for Grindr. Over the past few months, the company has introduced a range of new features and changes to its app.

In August, the platform introduced its new Grindr Presents feature, allowing users to access original content directly within the app.

Now, the company’s popular entertainment offerings, such as the Katya-hosted Who’s The Asshole podcast, the viral Daddy Lessons series, editorials, music drops, and more, will all be available via an in-app content hub.

In addition to making it easier for users to access their content, Grindr revealed that it will all be uncensored, so say goodbye to the unwanted bleeps and hello to Katya and friends’ uncut, profanity-filled interviews.

Lastly, the social media company teased that Grindr Presents isn’t a one-off decision; instead, it’s a “bigger shift“ into “making Grindr not just where the gays are, but where the culture is.”

A few months prior, Grindr announced an expansion of its new Right Now feature – first implemented in Australia and the greater Washington D.C. area in 2024.

The intent-based option enables users seeking an immediate connection to upload text and photos to a real-time feed, separate from the main grid.

In a statement, AJ Balance, the Chief Product Officer at Grindr, provided insight into the new feature, stating that it “empowers users to find exactly what they want, when they want it – without the guesswork.“

We appear to have gotten our first look at a curious Chinese ship, which some have dubbed a ‘drone carrier,’ actually in use, supporting at-sea testing of the AR-500CJ uncrewed helicopter. The vessel is one of a number of unusual designs with open flight decks that have emerged in China in recent years as China’s drone ambitions have increasingly extended into the naval domain.

China’s state-run television station CCTV-7, which focuses on news related to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), broadcast clips of the AR-500CJ being tested at sea back on October 30. The AR-500CJ, a version of the Aviation Industry Corporation of China’s (AVIC) larger AR-500 family optimized for shipboard operations, first flew in 2022.

The CCTV-7 segment does not appear to name the ship the AR-500CJ is seen operating from, nor does it offer a full view of the vessel. However, the size and configuration of the flight deck, especially a trapezoidal section on the starboard side toward the stern, as well as its markings, match up directly with the design of a ship that was launched at the Jiangsu Dayang Marine shipyard back in 2022. Naval News was first to report in detail on that vessel, which is approximately 328 feet (100 meters) long and some 82 feet (25 meters) across, and has a small island on the starboard side toward the bow, last year.

It had been suggested that the ship seen in the CCTV-7 footage might be a mysterious Chinese vessel with a large open flight deck and three superstructures that TWZ was first to report on last year. That ship bears the logo of the state-run China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) and may be named the Zhong Chuan Zi Hao, and could also be a first-of-its-kind ostensibly civilian research ship, as you can read more about here. However, the CSSC ‘carrier’ has a much larger and differently shaped flight deck that also has very distinct markings on it.

As mentioned, a number of unusual open-decked vessels have emerged in China in recent years. Jiangsu Dayang Marine, also known as the New Dayang shipyard, has become particularly notable in this regard. The yard has also produced at least two catamaran drone ‘motherships,’ which TWZ was also first to report on in detail, as well as various specialized barges. These all largely appear to be intended for use in training and/or testing, and to be particularly focused on replicating drone and/or electronic warfare threats. The first known imagery of one of the catamaran motherships in use also notably came from a CCTV-7 segment in 2022.

As TWZ has noted in the past, the maritime platforms that Jiangsu Dayang Marine has produced could potentially have roles in an actual operational context, including when paired with larger crewed warships. At the same time, the relatively small size and general configuration of the ‘mini drone carrier’ would limit its suitability for any kind of sustained employment in support of real-world operations.

An image from the ground of the reported Chinese experimental drone platform. If accurate, it illustrates the relatively modest proportions of the design. Via “斯文的土匪—”/Wb (H/t Temstar/SDF). pic.twitter.com/LAFHRqaGfK

— Alex Luck (@AlexLuck9) May 18, 2024

Even without a secondary operational role, dedicated naval drone test and training platforms still offer value to the PLA, which has been steadily working to expand the scale and scope of its shipboard uncrewed aviation capabilities. AR-500CJ, which AVIC has said could be used as a surveillance asset or an aerial signal relay node, among other roles, is part of this evolving ecosystem. Another drone helicopter intended for shipboard operations, based on the larger AR-2000 design from China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation (CATIC), was among a host of new uncrewed aircraft designs showcased at a huge military parade in Beijing in September.

Chinese naval drone developments extend well beyond vertical takeoff and landing capable designs. Work on a navalized version of the stealthy flying-wing GJ-11 Sharp Sword uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV) has become a particular centerpiece of these efforts. Imagery just recently emerged that offered the first clear look at one of those drones with its arrestor hook deployed. The naval GJ-11, also sometimes referred to as the GJ-21, is expected to fly from at least some of China’s growing fleet of aircraft carriers and big-deck amphibious assault ships.

As it seems, for the first time clear images of a GJ-21 in flight are posted and this one – based on the still installed pitots – has its tail hook down. pic.twitter.com/5h1nVZHzIe

— @Rupprecht_A (@RupprechtDeino) November 1, 2025

On a broader level, China continues to reinforce its position as a global leader in uncrewed aviation developments in the military and commercial domains, and there is often considerable overlap between the two. Just this year, TWZ was the first to report on the emergence of several previously unseen advanced drone designs, a number of which are also notably large. As we have reported in the past, flying-wing uncrewed aircraft designs also continue to be a particular area of focus for the Chinese aviation industry.

With all this in mind, China’s use of bespoke ships with open flight decks to support drone testing and training, as well as other purposes, only looks likely to grow.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Russian forces have spread rapidly through Pokrovsk, the city in Ukraine’s east where the warring sides have concentrated their manpower and tactical ingenuity during the past week, in what may be a final culmination of a 21-month battle.

Geolocated footage placed Russian troops in central, northern and northeastern Pokrovsk, said the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a Washington-based think tank.

Russia sees control of Pokrovsk and neighbouring Myrnohrad as essential to capturing the remaining unoccupied parts of the Donetsk region.

It set its sights on the city almost two years ago, after capturing Avdiivka, 39km (24 miles) to the east.

Ukraine sees the defence of the city as a means of eroding Russian manpower and buying time for the “fortress belt” of Kostiantynivka, Druzhkivka, Kramatorsk, and Sloviansk, the largest remaining and most heavily defended cities of Donetsk.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has demanded their surrender as part of a land swap and ceasefire he discussed with United States President Donald Trump last August. Ukraine has refused.

A recent US intelligence assessment said Putin was more determined than ever to prevail on the battlefield in Ukraine, NBC reported.

Russia seems to have outmanoeuvred Ukraine by striking its drone operators before they had time to deploy, and cutting off resupply routes at critical points.

“Operational and tactical aircraft, backed by drones, significantly disrupted the Ukrainian army’s logistics in Pokrovsk,” said Russia’s Ministry of Defence on Friday. It said it had destroyed two out of three bridges across the Vovcha River, used by Ukrainian logistics to reach the city.

“Unfortunately, everything is sad in the Pokrovsk direction,” wrote a Ukrainian drone unit calling itself Peaky Blinders on the messaging app Telegram. “The intensity of movements is so great that drone operators simply do not have time to lift the [drone] overboard.”

On October 29, Ukrainian commanders reported only 200 Russian soldiers in Pokrovsk.

Peaky Blinders said Russia was sending as many as 300 into the city a day, “in groups of three people with the expectation that two will be destroyed”.

By neutralising Ukraine’s drone operators and using fibre optic drones immune to jamming, Russia reportedly acquired a numerical drone advantage in the city’s vicinity.

Ukrainian commanders said Russia also took advantage of wet weather, which disadvantaged the use of light, first-person-view drones.

Ukrainian military observer Konstantyn Mashovets said the Russian command had developed these new infiltration tactics to exploit Ukrainian vulnerabilities – a lack of manpower and gaps among their units.

“The Russian command ‘tried different options’ for some time,” said Mashovets.

“Russian technical innovations, such as first-person-view drones with increased ranges, thermobaric warheads, and ‘sleeper’ or ‘waiter’ drones along [ground lines of communication], allowed Russian forces to … restrict Ukrainian troop movements, evacuations, and logistics,” the ISW said.

As recently as Saturday, Ukrainian commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskii framed the battle as one of counterattack rather than defence.

“A comprehensive operation to destroy and push out enemy forces from Pokrovsk is ongoing,” he wrote on his Telegram channel. “There is no encirclement or blockade of the cities.”

Yet there was clearly alarm. Ukraine sent its intelligence chief, Kyrylo Budanov, to the Pokrovsk area with military intelligence (GUR) forces to keep supply lines open.

Two Ukrainian military sources told the Reuters news agency that the GUR had successfully landed at least 10 operators in a Blackhawk helicopter near Pokrovsk on Friday.

On Saturday, Russia’s Defence Ministry claimed “an operation to deploy a GUR special operations group by a helicopter in 1km (0.6 miles) northwest of [Pokrovsk] was thwarted. All 11 militants who disembarked from the helicopter have been neutralised.”

It was unclear whether the two reports referred to the same group.

Deep air strikes

Russia kept up a separate campaign to destroy Ukraine’s electricity and gas infrastructure, launching 1,448 drones and 74 missiles into the rear of the country from October 30 to November 5.

Ukraine said it intercepted 86 percent of the drones but just less than half the missiles, such that 208 drones and 41 missiles found their targets.

With US help, Ukraine has responded with strikes on Russian refineries and oil export terminals.

Ukraine appeared on Sunday to strike both a Russian oil terminal and, for the first time, two foreign civilian tankers taking on oil there.

Video appeared to show the tankers at Tuapse terminal on the Black Sea on fire, and the governor of Russia’s Krasnodar region confirmed the hit.

“As a result of the drone attack on the port of Tuapse on the night of November 2, two foreign civilian ships were damaged,” he said.

Russia’s Defence Ministry said it intercepted another 238 Ukrainian long-range drones overnight.

On Tuesday, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence said it struck the Lukoil refinery in Kstovo in Russia’s Nizhny Novgorod region, east of Moscow.

Russian regional authorities also said Ukraine attempted to damage a petrochemical plant in Bashkortostan, 1,500km (930 miles) east of Ukraine.

Russia’s Defence Ministry said it shot down 204 Ukrainian long-range drones overnight.

According to the head of Ukraine’s State Security Service, SBU, Kyiv’s forces have struck 160 oil and energy facilities in Russia this year.

Vasyl Maliuk said a special SBU operation had destroyed a hypersonic ballistic Oreshnik missile on Russian soil.

“One of the three Oreshniks was successfully destroyed on their (Russian) territory at Kapustin Yar,” Maliuk briefed President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday.

Russia unveiled the Oreshnik with a strike on the city of Dnipro a year ago. It says it will deploy the missile in Belarus by December.

Ukraine has been lobbying the US government for Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of 2,500km (1,550 miles). So far, Trump has refused, on the basis that “we need them too.”

The Pentagon cleared Ukraine to receive Tomahawk missiles, after determining this would not deprive the US military of the stockpile it needs, CNN reported last week, quoting unnamed US and European officials.

The political decision now rests with Trump on whether to send those missiles or not. The report did not specify how many Ukraine could have.

We now have the first known commercial satellite imagery of the two Chinese sixth-generation stealth fighter designs that emerged nearly a year ago. The aircraft, which are commonly referred to now as the J-36 and the J-XDS, have been spotted in separate images not at their home airfields where they were built, but at a secretive airbase with a massive runway situated near the Lop Nur nuclear test site in northwestern China.

The J-36, readily identifiable by its large modified delta planform and ‘splinter’ camouflage paint scheme, is seen outside the main hangar at the facility’s central apron in an archived satellite image taken on August 27, which The War Zone obtained from Planet Labs. The J-XDS is seen in another Planet Labs image of the airfield taken on September 13. Previously, the J-36 and J-XDS have only been definitively spotted flying in and out of the main airfields associated with their respective manufacturers, Chengdu and Shenyang. Readers can find TWZ‘s very in-depth initial analysis on the J-36 and the J-XDS here.

This particular base near Lop Nur, which has been linked to work on reusable space planes, is also now undergoing a major expansion. It notably already has a runway over 16,400 feet long, or more than 3 miles in total length, making it one of the longest anywhere in the world.

The August 27 satellite image offers new details about the J-36’s size, showing it to have a wingspan of approximately 65 feet and an overall length of some 62 feet. It has already been clear that the three-engined J-36, two distinctly different prototypes of which have now emerged, is a very large tactical aircraft. For comparison, members of the extended Soviet-designed Flanker fighter family, like China’s J-16s, have wingspans of around 48 feet. Flankers are already well known for their large size relative to other fourth-generation fighter designs. As another point of comparison, the variable geometry F-111’s fully extended wingspan was 63 feet.

The September 13 image shows the J-XDS to have a wingspan of around 50 feet and be slightly shorter than the J-36. It’s worth noting that the shadow and image resolution make this estimate more challenging, and readers are advised to take it as such. It has been previously established that the twin-engined J-XDS, also sometimes referred to as the J-50, with its “lambda” wing planform, is smaller and slimmer than the J-36. That being said, it is still firmly in the heavy fighter class.

As mentioned, the remote base near Lop Nur is in the process of being expanded in a major way, overall. The work only started in earnest in the past six months or so, and significant progress has already been made. This includes the enlargement of the main apron, with a single new hangar also having been built at the northeastern end. Three smaller hangars, all joined together and that look to be typical of ones for fighter-sized aircraft, have been constructed at the opposite end, as well.

In addition, a host of other new buildings are seen under construction to the immediate southeast, pointing to plans to expand the scope and scale of work being done at the facility. The series of satellite images below gives a sense of the sheer magnitude of work that has been done just since May of this year.

There had already been a pronounced expansion of the infrastructure at the base in the early 2020s, including the construction of the large main hangar and associated apron. As noted, at that time, the facility seemed largely tied to Chinese military space development efforts. TWZ‘s first report on the airfield came in 2020 after a reusable space plane appeared to have landed there. Last year, we reported on it again after satellite imagery emerged showing a still-mysterious object sitting at one end of the runway.

It seems clear now that the facility has taken on a larger and still growing role in China’s broader advanced aerospace development ecosystem. Comparisons have already been drawn in the past to the U.S. military’s top-secret flight test center at Groom Lake in Nevada, better known as Area 51.

The airfield near Lop Nur is even more remote than China’s existing sprawling test airbase near Malan in Xinjiang province, which also seems to be almost exclusively focused, in terms of aerospace development tasks, on uncrewed aircraft. It also appears to host aircraft detachments for more general training and testing.

The construction of new hangars and other infrastructure at the base in question can only further help with the concealment of assets and other activity there from prying eyes, including in space. That being said, the site is regularly imaged, including by commercial satellites, which clearly did not deter the Chinese from parking the J-36 and J-XDS outside in broad daylight.

Regardless, the appearance of the J-36 and J-XDS at the remote base around the same time is also telling of the facility’s new mission to support the development of advanced air combat technologies. It is further indicative of the state of China’s rapidly evolving sixth-generation fighter programs that they have operated out of this place, possibly alongside each other.

All of this reflects a broader ramping up in China of the development and testing of next-generation tactical air combat platforms, as well as key supporting aircraft. This includes a host of advanced drones intended to perform a variety of missions. Some of these designs are very large, while others are smaller and more in the vein of ‘loyal wingman,’ or what is now often called a Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA). For example, the satellite image below, from Planet Labs’ archive of shots taken of Malan, shows what is likely a fighter-sized CCA-type uncrewed aircraft.

These Chinese military aviation trends extend into the naval domain, as well. This past weekend, images emerged online that offer the first look at a navalized version of the GJ-11 Sharp Sword stealthy flying-wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV), intended for operations from aircraft carriers and big deck amphibious assault ships, with its arrestor hook deployed. This drone is sometimes also referred to as the GJ-21.

Even with major construction still underway, the secretive and remote base near Lop Nur is already becoming busier, and has now given us the first commercial satellite imagery showing the J-36 and J-XDS. The facility expansion is likely to see it support future advanced tactical aircraft developments, playing a bigger part in these endeavors going forward.

Contact the author: [email protected]

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.

At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.

Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.

First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”

Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.

Trump and his lawyers say his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.

That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.

Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.

The third doctrine arose with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and is called the “major questions” doctrine.

He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.

Congress makes the laws, not federal regulators, they said in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022.

And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”

Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.

No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.

In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.

“IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.

For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.

Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.

The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.

In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.

“This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”

His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.

“Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”

He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.

Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.

The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.

But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.

Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.

Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”

The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.

The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.

When it comes to Proposition 50, Marcia Owens is a bit fuzzy on the details.

She knows, vaguely, it has something to do with how California draws the boundaries for its 52 congressional districts, a convoluted and arcane process that’s not exactly top of the mind for your average person. But Owens is abundantly clear when it comes to her intent in Tuesday’s special election.

“I’m voting to take power out of Trump’s hands and put it back in the hands of the people,” said Owens, 48, a vocational nurse in Riverside. “He’s making a lot of illogical decisions that are really wreaking havoc on our country. He’s not putting our interests first, making sure that an individual has food on the table, they can pay their rent, pay electric bills, pay for healthcare.”

Peter Arensburger, a fellow Democrat who also lives in Riverside, was blunter still.

President Trump, said the 55-year-old college professor, “is trying to rule as a dictator” and Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to stop him.

So, Arensburger said, California voters will do it for them.

Or at least try.

“It’s a false equivalency,” he said, “to say that we need to do everything on an even keel in California, but Texas” — which redrew its political map to boost Republicans — “can do whatever they want.”

Proposition 50, which aims to deliver Democrats at least five more House seats in the 2026 midterm election, is either righteous payback or a grubby power grab.

A reasoned attempt to even things out in response to Texas’ attempt to nab five more congressional seats. Or a ruthless gambit to drive the California GOP to near-extinction.

It all depends on your perspective.

Above all, Proposition 50 has become a political ink-blot test; what many California voters see depends on, politically, where they stand.

Mary Ann Rounsavall thinks the measure is “horrible,” because that’s how the Fontana retiree feels about its chief proponent, Gavin Newsom.

“He’s a jerk,” the 75-year-old Republican fairly spat, as if the act of forming the governor’s name left a bad taste in her mouth. “No one believes anything he says.”

Timothy, a fellow Republican who withheld his last name to avoid online trolls, echoed the sentiment.

“It’s just Gavin Newsom playing political games,” said the 39-year-old warehouse manager, who commutes from West Covina to his job at a plumbing supplier in Ontario. “They always talk about Trump. ‘Trump, Trump, Trump.’ Get off of Trump. I’ve been hearing this crap ever since he started running.”

Riverside and San Bernardino counties form the heart of the Inland Empire. The next-door neighbors are politically purple: more Republican than the state as a whole, but not as conservative as California’s more rural reaches. That means neither party has an upper hand, a parity reflected in dozens of interviews with voters across the sprawling region.

On a recent smoggy morning, the hulking San Bernardino Mountains veiled by a gray-brown haze, Eric Lawson paused to offer his thoughts.

The 66-year-old independent has no use for politicians of any stripe. “They’re all crooks,” he said. “All of them.”

Lawson called Proposition 50 a waste of time and money.

Gerrymandering — the dark art of drawing political lines to benefit one party over another — is, as he pointed out, hardly new. (In fact, the term is rooted in the name of Elbridge Gerry, one of the nation’s founders.)

What has Lawson particularly steamed is the cost of “this stupid election,” which is pushing $300 million.

“We talk and talk and talk and we print money for all this talk,” said Lawson, who lives in Ontario and consults in the auto industry. “But that money doesn’t go where it’s supposed to go.”

Although sentiments were evenly split in those several dozen conversations, all indications suggest that Proposition 50 is headed toward passage Tuesday, possibly by a wide margin. After raising a tidal wave of cash, Newsom last week told small donors that’s enough, thanks. The opposition has all but given up and resigned itself to defeat.

It comes down to math. Proposition 50 has become a test of party muscle and a talisman of partisan faith and California has a lot more Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents than Republicans and GOP-leaning independents.

Andrea Fisher, who opposes the initiative, is well aware of that fact. “I’m a conservative,” she said, “in a state that’s not very conservative.”

She has come to accept that reality, but fears things will get worse if Democrats have their way and slash California’s already-scanty Republican ranks on Capitol Hill. Among those targeted for ouster is Ken Calvert, a 16-term GOP incumbent who represents a good slice of Riverside County.

“I feel like it’s going to eliminate my voice,” said Fisher, 48, a food server at her daughter’s school in Riverside. “If I’m 40% of the vote” — roughly the percentage Trump received statewide in 2024 — “then we in that population should have fair representation. We’re still their constituents.” (In Riverside County, Trump edged Kamala Harris 49% to 48%.)

Amber Pelland says Proposition 50 will hurt voters by putting redistricting back into the hands of politicians.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Amber Pelland, 46, who works in the nonprofit field in Corona, feels by “sticking it to Trump” — a tagline in one of the TV ads supporting Proposition 50 — voters will be sticking it to themselves. Passage would erase the political map drawn by an independent commission, which voters empowered in 2010 for the express purpose of wrestling redistricting away from self-dealing lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento.

“I don’t care if you hate the person or don’t hate the person,” said Pelland, a Republican who backs the president. “It’s just going to hurt voters by taking the power away from the people.”

Even some backers of Proposition 50 flinched at the notion of sidelining the redistricting commission and undoing its painstaking, nonpartisan work. What helps make it palatable, they said, is the requirement — written into the ballot measure — that congressional redistricting will revert to the commission after the 2030 census, when California’s next set of congressional maps is due to be drafted.

“I’m glad that it’s temporary because I don’t think redistricting should be done in order to give one political party greater power over another,” said Carole, a Riverside Democrat. “I think it’s something that should be decided over a long period and not in a rush.” (She also withheld her last name so her husband, who serves in the community, wouldn’t be hassled for her opinion, she said.)

Texas, Carole suggested, has forced California to act because of its extreme action, redistricting at mid-decade at Trump’s command. “It’s important to think about the country as a whole,” said the 51-year-old academic researcher, “and to respond to what’s being done, especially with the pressure coming from the White House.”

Felise Self-Visnic, a 71-year-old retired schoolteacher, agreed.

She was shopping at a Trader Joe’s in Riverside in an orange ball cap that read “Human-Kind (Be Both).” Back home, in her garage-door window, is a poster that reads “No Kings.”

She described Proposition 50 as a stopgap measure that will return power to the commission once the urgency of today’s political upheaval has passed. But even if that wasn’t the case, the Democrat said, she would still vote in favor.

“Anything,” Self-Visnic said, “to fight fascism, which is where we’re heading.”

Russia has said that it conducted a long-awaited test of its mysterious Burevestnik (also known to NATO as SSC-X-9 Skyfall) cruise missile last week, claiming that it flew for 8,700 miles. The missile, which is nuclear-powered, is said to have remained in the air for around 15 hours. For the time being, we don’t know if those statements are factually accurate, and details about how the missile actually works remain very scarce. However, the claimed test has led to boasts about the missile’s performance from Russian President Vladimir Putin, while his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump, called upon Putin to end the war in Ukraine “instead of testing missiles.”

Russia’s Chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, told Putin yesterday that a successful test of the Burevestnik was carried out on October 21. Gerasimov said that the 15-hour flight “is not the [maximum] limit” for the missile. Regardless, if true, this would appear to be the first long-endurance test of the missile.

In response to Gerasimov’s remarks, Putin commented: “I remember vividly when we announced that we were developing such a weapon, even highly qualified specialists told me that, yes, it was a good and worthy goal, but unrealizable in the near future. This was the opinion of specialists, I repeat, highly qualified. And now the decisive tests have been completed.”

The Russian president was referring to the revelation of the Burevestnik’s existence back in 2018. It was one of six ‘super weapons’ that also included hypersonic weapons and a nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed torpedo.

People are asking what’s the purpose of Burevestnik and why develop a system that is very much useless as a weapon. The answer has always been right there, in the 1 March 2018 address. Russian president has always wanted to say these words. The rest doesn’t matter really. pic.twitter.com/0Q7JUGBqo3

— Pavel Podvig (@russianforces) October 26, 2025

Of all these weapons, the Burevestnik has long been among the most intriguing.

As TWZ described when it was first announced, the basic concept of a nuclear-powered cruise missile is by no means new.

After all, in the 1960s, the U.S. Air Force explored a similar idea with its Supersonic Low Altitude Missile, or SLAM. This weapon employed a nuclear-powered ramjet along with conventional rocket boosters to kickstart the system. Once at the appropriate speed, the engine would blow air over the reactor, which could have enough fuel to operate for weeks or months on end, and then force it out of an exhaust nozzle to produce thrust.

A missile of this kind has extreme endurance, not limited by conventional fuel onboard as all other air-breathing missiles are, can be wildly unpredictable and tough to defend against.

While we don’t know what kind of nuclear propulsion the Burevestnik uses, provided this kind of technology can be made reliable, the implications are significant.

Of the latest test, Gerasimov said: “The technical characteristics of the Burevestnik generally allow it to be used with guaranteed accuracy against highly protected targets at any distance.” He added that: “vertical and horizontal maneuvers were completed,” something that would allow the missile to “bypass anti-missile and air defense systems.”

As we have surmised before, an operational Burevestnik would likely cruise at high subsonic speed on a circuitous route at extremely low altitude, helping it to avoid surface-based early warning systems and missile defense interceptors.

Using a two-way datalink, it should be possible to adapt the Burevestnik’s course in flight to further confuse an opponent or actively counter any attempts to intercept the missile.

The American SLAM concept involved a payload of multiple nuclear warheads that could be dropped on different targets along the way, but again, the warhead of the Russian missile remains mysterious. Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, claimed that the latest test involved a warhead. If true, it would almost certainly involve a mock warhead, without the nuclear material, which would serve to test fuzing and detonation, for example.

Congratulations to all Russia’s friends on the successful test of the unlimited-range Burevestnik (Storm petrel) cruise missile with a nuclear engine and warhead ⚡️😃

— Dmitry Medvedev (@MedvedevRussiaE) October 26, 2025

Nevertheless, a technically perfected Burevestnik remains a somewhat questionable goal given previous problems with the program. At the same time, there remains the very real issue of safety and environmental hazards. We will dive deeper into both these factors later.

Returning to last week’s test, Gerasimov didn’t say where it took place, but it’s widely assumed to have been in Novaya Zemlya, an archipelago in northern Russia, situated in the Arctic Ocean, and used for many previous weapons tests.

Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) orders issued for October 21 showed a large area around Novaya Zemlya closed off, corresponding to a Russian missile test or live-fire exercise.

Over on the other site, David was covering the lead up to the apparently successful Burevestnik test. Sadly, its almost all ship tracking because this late in the year, you don’t get many satellite images that far north. pic.twitter.com/k04x9u6whp

— Dr. Jeffrey Lewis (@ArmsControlWonk) October 26, 2025

Meanwhile, several Russian vessels that are known to be used in missile tests were noted in positions along the coast of the Arctic archipelago, both on the Barents Sea and Kara Sea sides. Probable support aircraft belonging to Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation, and the Russian Aerospace Forces were also seen at Rogachevo airfield on Novaya Zemlya.

There have also been flights by a U.S. Air Force WC-135 Constant Phoenix “nuke sniffer” aircraft in the region, which some observers suggested could have been related to a Burevestnik. After a flight by this aircraft around the Barents Sea on August 5, the Air Force told TWZ that this was “to conduct routine background collection … to ensure signatory nations are adhering to established United Nations treaties.” The Air Force spokesperson added that the deployment of the WC-135 to the United Kingdom was planned and scheduled months in advance.

Background collection is something that could be conducted in anticipation of a Burevestnik test in the future. This data will be used to compare that from a collection mission following a test. At the same time, the wider region hosts other Russian nuclear assets, which would also be of interest for such flights, which are fairly regular in occurrence.

Finally, the test site at Pankovo, north of Rogachevo, on Yuzhny Island in the Novaya Zemlya archipelago, has seen considerable activity starting this summer. Pankovo hosts what is understood to be the main launch site for the Burevestnik, with two rail-type launchers under a retractable covering.

Update on the Burevestnik launch site. Launchers and covers for the first Burevestnik company are being installed. The presence of lightning rods suggest that assets will be on the pad for long periods of time. pic.twitter.com/UvhryhIJVd

— Decker Eveleth (@dex_eve) April 5, 2025

On 21 October 2025 Russia conducted “the key test” of the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile (also referred to as SSC-X-9 Skyfall). The test is reported to be successful. The missile travelled 14,000 km in a 15-hour flight (Image: Pan’kovo test site). Links follow 1/ pic.twitter.com/OVuCCjPiDO

— Pavel Podvig (@russianforces) October 26, 2025

Provided that last week’s test was conducted from Pankovo, making use of the area signaled by the NOTAM, then the missile must have flown in a racetrack or zigzag pattern around the Arctic archipelago. Less likely would be a longer route flown across the north of Russia.

Whatever the case, Norway, the closest NATO country to the test area, said it hadn’t detected any spikes in radiation at any of its monitoring posts.

“We have not measured anything abnormal at our measuring stations in Norway,” a spokesperson for the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (DSA) told the Barents Observer. However, there is still time for such a reading to be made.

“If there has been a radioactive release in connection with Russia’s testing of the cruise missile, it will take a long time to travel to Norway, and it will take time before it can be registered at our measuring stations,” the DSA spokesperson added.

Previous tests of the Burevestnik have not been without incident.

When he announced the missile in 2018, Putin suggested that tests of the propulsion system had occurred the previous year, but there was no indication of whether this had been in flight or on the ground and under what conditions.

Soon after Putin’s 2018 announcement, the Norwegian-based environmental group Bellona suggested that a radiation spike in the Arctic that same winter was caused by the missile’s open-air-cooled reactor core.

Later in 2018, a U.S. intelligence report described the loss at sea of a Russian nuclear-powered missile during a 2017 test. The report added that Russia was expected to embark on a search and recovery mission to try to lift the missile’s wreckage from the seabed.

The Russian Ministry of Defense released the video below in 2018, saying that it showed an earlier Burevestnik test launch, as well as examples of the missiles themselves.

More dramatically, in 2019, an explosion occurred aboard a barge in the White Sea, outside Nenoksa, killing five Rosatom scientists. It also led to a radiation spike in the Russian city of Severodvinsk, as you can read more about here. The explosion has been blamed on a reactor from a Burevestnik recovered from the sea, likely the one that was lost in 2017.

While the details of these accidents remain murky, they point to a significant problem in using nuclear propulsion for a missile or any other vehicle flying in the atmosphere.

It should be recalled that, in the case of SLAM, the nuclear ramjet had no shielding to contain dangerous radiation, a requirement driven by the need for the powerplant to be small enough to fit inside the missile. The SLAM’s exhaust plume also contained unspent fissile material that would have contaminated any area, enemy-controlled or not, that it passed over on its way to the target.

While the Burevestnik has already been likened to a ‘tiny flying Chernobyl’ by some observers, it’s important to remember that we still don’t know how it functions.

Nevertheless, provided it does indeed use nuclear propulsion, as claimed, there exists the risk of accidents.

“The testing [of the Burevestnik] carries a risk of accidents and local radioactive emissions,” Norway’s Intelligence Service (NIS) stated in a threat assessment report published last year.

This is especially the case during an unarmed test, when the missile necessarily has to come down to the surface, impacting either land or water. Here, especially, there remain a lot of questions about how the missile is tested.

It’s possible that the missile came down in waters around Novaya Zemlya, in either the Barents Sea or the Kara Sea. According to the Barents Observer and other sources, there are several ships in this area, on both sides of the Matochkin Strait, which might be involved in a recovery operation.

These ships include Rosatom’s special-purpose vessel Rossita, on the eastern coast of the Kola Peninsula. This vessel was noted making port calls in Novaya Zemlya after previous presumed Burevestnik tests. The Rossita is equipped to transport spent nuclear fuel and other hazardous radioactive material.

Perhaps, if Norway subsequently detects a radioactive spike in this area, we might learn more about where the missile ended its flight.

In the meantime, Putin took the opportunity to push claims about the missile’s game-changing nature.

“We need to determine the possible uses and begin preparing the infrastructure for deploying this weapon in our armed forces,” Putin said yesterday. This is especially relevant considering that the New START treaty with the United States, which puts a limit on strategic nuclear warheads and launchers, expires next year. Gerasimov’s announcement of the long-distance test also came one day before Russia began its annual Grom strategic nuclear maneuvers.

When asked for his reaction to the claims of the Burevestnik test, President Donald Trump stated that the U.S. Navy has a nuclear submarine “right off their shores,” meaning that there is no immediate requirement for a missile with the kind of range that the Russian cruise missile should possess.

At the same time, Trump noted that Russia is “not playing games with us. We’re not playing games with them either.” As for Putin’s comments on the missile test, Trump said: “I don’t think it’s an appropriate thing for Putin to be saying,” reminding the Russian leader that the priority was to bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

Trump responded to Putin’s threats and the recent Burevestnik missile test by reminding that the US has a nuclear submarine “right off their coast.”

He said there’s no need to fire missiles 8,000 miles when such assets are already in place, and called on Putin to end a war that… pic.twitter.com/kRIlFdMzQZ

— NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@NOELreports) October 27, 2025

Still, the prospect of the Burevestnik entering service is a concerning one for adversaries of Russia. The missile can be launched preemptively and approach its target from any vector long after launch. For example, it could be launched from the Arctic, stay aloft for many hours, and then attack the United States from the south. Once launched, its flight path is entirely unpredictable, and it could exploit holes in defenses and weaker spots in early warning capabilities. It provides another reason why space-based tracking layers, including those that can spot low-flying aircraft, are currently very much on trend.

It is also worth noting that the latest Burevestnik test comes at a time when the U.S. Golden Dome initiative is taking shape, and the Russian missile reinforces the case for such a system. At the same time, it also underlines the reason why Russia wants weapons like this, so that it can better bypass existing strategic air defense systems.

The latest developments leave no doubt that the Burevestnik is a prestige program for Russia, even if many questions still surround it, and the nature of the latest test.

Contact the author: [email protected]