top

After a remarkable night of drama in the Champions League on Wednesday, it’s fair to say Thursday night was a more low-key affair in the Europa League as far as qualification for the play-off round was concerned.

Of the 16 teams that occupied positions nine to 24 before a ball was kicked, 14 of them sealed a place in the play-offs when the full-time whistles sounded out across the continent.

The two exceptions to that trend were Porto and Young Boys.

In the case of the Portuguese giants, it was in joyful circumstances as a 3-1 home win against Rangers was enough to fire them up to fifth and secure direct qualification to the last-16 stage.

But it was contrasting emotions for Young Boys

The Swiss side started the night in 23rd place and appeared on course for a place in the play-offs until they suffered a cruel 3-2 defeat in the last minute against Stuttgart.

The loss – which came after Gerardo Seoane’s side fought from 2-0 down – saw them finish the eight-game league phase in 25th place.

Elsewhere, Celtic ensured they would be one of the 16 clubs in the hat for Friday’s draw as they held off a second-half fightback from Utrecht to claim a 4-2 win at Parkhead.

The win moved Celtic up three positions to 21st – and sees them join fellow British side Nottingham Forest in the play-off round.

Two-time European champions Forest recorded an emphatic 4-0 win over Ferencvaros to climb to 13th in the table.

Despite the win, not enough results went in their favour for them to be able to sneak automatic qualification to the knockout round.

The two British clubs will be joined by Genk, Bologna, Stuttgart, Ferencvaros, Viktoria Plzen, FK Crvena Zvezda, Celta Vigo, PAOK, Lille, Fenerbahce, Panathinaikos, Ludogorets, Dinamo Zagreb and Brann.

The draw for the Europa League play-off round takes place in Switzerland on Friday.

The recent declassification of the United States’ Jumpseat spy satellite provides details on what was previously a highly secretive system, one that monitored critical Soviet military assets during some of the tensest years of the Cold War. While still redacted, the declassification provides never-before-seen imagery of a pioneering system that served the U.S. intelligence community for 35 years.

The declassification of certain elements of the Jumpseat program was announced by the director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the Pentagon intelligence branch responsible for U.S. government reconnaissance satellites.

There were eight satellite launches under Jumpseat (also known as AFP-711), between 1971 and 1987, one of them unsuccessful. Developed by the U.S. Air Force as part of the NRO’s Program A, the satellites were carried by Titan IIIB launch vehicles. Based on an original intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) design, these rockets lifted off from Vandenberg Air Force Base (now Vandenberg Space Force Base) in California.

System for Space – Titan III (remastered USAF documentary)

The NRO confirms the mission numbers 7701 to 7708 for the eight Jumpseat launches. Analysts had previously attempted to match the Jumpseat missions to known space launches out of Vandenberg, although so far only the first and last of these have actually been declassified. There is a possibility that some of the launches normally assessed to involve Jumpseat actually carried other payloads.

The NRO confirms our belief that there were 8 JUMPSEAT launches in 1981-87. and gives the dates for JUMPSEAT 1 and 8. Another program, QUASAR, had data relay satellites in the same orbit, and NRO has not released the dates for JS2 to 7 so we aren’t sure which launch is which.

— Jonathan McDowell (@planet4589) January 29, 2026

As a signals-collection satellite, Jumpseat was an important part of the broader signals intelligence (SIGINT) community. In simple terms, SIGINT assets are used to detect and intercept communications and other electronic emissions. Whether radios or radars, those emitters can also be geolocated and categorized, as well as listened in on.

Jumpseat was also active in two subsets of SIGINT. The first was communications intelligence (COMINT), including keeping tabs on day-to-day communications between military personnel, by eavesdropping on electronic signals. Secondly, Jumpseat gathered foreign instrumentation signals intelligence (FISINT), which involves intercepting and analyzing electromagnetic emissions from foreign weapon systems, such as missile telemetry, radar, and tracking signals. Particular military emitters of interest to Jumpseat likely included air defenses and command and control nodes, with the data gathered being used to help build an electronic order of battle of an adversary nation, specifically the Soviet Union.

Jumpseat collections “were initially against other adversarial countries’ weapon systems capabilities,” the document states, without providing more details.

Previously classified imagery of Jumpseat has also been released, with the NRO providing a mix of diagrams, artwork, and photos of models and test specimens.

As far as is known, the Jumpseat satellites were built by Hughes, using a spin-stabilized bus, similar to that used in the TACSAT and the Intelsat-4 communications satellites. Key features of Jumpseat included a large, partially foldable dish antenna for data collection, as well as a smaller dish antenna to send data back to the ground.

What is interesting is that the main reflector of the JUMPSAT SIGINT antenna seems to have deployable parts…

Comparing the model vs the EMC chamber vs the shaker setup, the EMC chamber pic clearly has the reflector in a “deployed” state, vs folded for the shaker pic… https://t.co/k0oEiVZ0BE pic.twitter.com/36oo35yu3u

— DutchSpace (@DutchSpace) January 29, 2026

“The historical significance of Jumpseat cannot be understated,” said Dr. James Outzen, NRO director of the Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance, in a statement from the office. “Its orbit provided the United States a new vantage point for the collection of unique and critical signals intelligence from space.”

Jumpseat came as a follow-on to earlier electronic surveillance satellites, including Grab, Poppy, and Parcae.

These had begun to be fielded as the deepening Cold War heralded the possibility of a future weapons threat from space. This is something that was hammered home by the Soviet Union’s successful launch of the Sputnik 1 satellite, which would soon be followed by the first generation of ICBMs based on the same rocket technology.

“Following the end of World War II, threats of globally spreading communism and nuclear weapons proliferation fueled Americans’ anxiety of the unknown,” the NRO explains. “Across the world, the United States suspected that more American adversaries were building out extensive, topline defense arsenals including long-range missiles and atomic weapons.”

“Jumpseat’s core mission focus was to monitor adversarial offensive and defensive weapon system development,” the NRO states. “From its further orbital position, it aimed to collect data that might offer unique insight into existing and emerging threats.”

Jumpseat operated in a transponder mode, sending downlinked data to the NRO for initial processing. Once processed, the data was provided to the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, and other national security elements.

While the NRO’s first electronic surveillance satellites — like Grab, Poppy, and Parcae — operated in low-earth orbit, Program A was tasked with developing a satellite for signals collection from a highly elliptical orbit. This was known as Project Earpop.

Jumpseat emerged from Earpop as “the United States’ first-generation, highly elliptical orbit (HEO) signals-collection satellite.” HEO refers to an elongated, egg-shaped trajectory, which is especially relevant for a spy satellite. In this way, the satellite has significant ‘dwell time’ at two points of its orbit, as it ascends and descends to its apogee.

In Jumpseat’s case, HEO kept the satellite for longer periods at high altitude over the northern polar regions: ideal for keeping watch on the Soviet Union. HEO above the northern polar regions is sometimes known as a Molniya orbit, after a series of Soviet satellites that operated here.

HEO, in this instance, should not be confused with a high-Earth orbit (HEO), one that takes a spacecraft beyond the geostationary orbital belt, which is defined as being around 22,236 miles above sea level.

Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the key missions of Jumpseat was to monitor Soviet ballistic missile warning radars in the far north of the country. That would certainly make sense based on orbits, although there were plenty of other military emitters of great interest to the United States and its allies in this region.

FMI visualisation of HEO satellites monitoring the Arctic

The Jumpseat declassification memorandum notes that the satellites “performed admirably” and were only removed from the NRO’s SIGINT architecture as late as 2006.

The NRO says that the partial declassification of Jumpseat now is justified since these “will not cause harm to our current and future satellite systems.” The office also notes that it wants to bring attention to the program for its pioneering role in HEO signals-collection satellites.

As to what kinds of capabilities have taken over from Jumpseat, most aspects of these remain as secretive as their predecessor once was.

There are various unverified reports that a series of satellites known as Trumpet have taken over from Jumpseat. There are, meanwhile, many other large, classified payloads that the NRO has launched into space and which could perform similar functions

Meanwhile, this area of intelligence collection is increasingly being farmed out to commercial enterprises.

As the NRO states, “overhead collection of signals is no longer a government-only endeavor as several unclassified commercial ventures have launched signal collection systems whose capabilities are comparable if not superior to Jumpseat.”

As we have discussed in the past, the commercial space sector has opened up the possibility of constellations featuring potentially hundreds of intelligence-gathering satellites, and it will herald another revolution in both tactical and strategic space-based sensing. Starlink-like constellations, but used for sensing — which the United States is already pursuing — would be able to provide persistent surveillance of the entire globe at any given time. This would allow for continuous surveillance of any spot on the planet, not just snapshots in time taken during orbital flyovers by individual satellites. It is by no means clear what types of electronic intelligence collection can be done by such a constellation due to the small individual antenna sizes on each satellite, but if those limitations can be overcome, it could change how and when the U.S. monitors the electronic emissions of its adversaries.

Watch SpaceX deploy Starlink satellites into space

Regardless, having more satellites available and having ways to rapidly deploy new systems into orbit are increasingly urgent priorities, considering the stated level of threat posed to them by Russia and, increasingly, China.

Whatever is out there, or is set to be out there in the future, it will be indebted to the trailblazing work done by the secretive Jumpseat program.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Court gives Israeli government until March to justify ban on foreign media from Gaza

Israel’s Supreme Court has postponed a decision on whether to allow foreign journalists independent access to Gaza, in the latest delay of a legal battle that has stretched over a year.

The court granted the government until March 31 to respond to the petition filed by the Foreign Press Association, despite state attorneys failing to provide detailed justifications beyond citing security risks.

The decision extends a policy that has barred foreign correspondents from entering Gaza to report on conditions there, unless reporters are prepared to embed with the Israeli army.

At the hearing on Wednesday, justices appeared frustrated with the government’s explanations for maintaining the blanket ban on independent press access, which has remained in place since Israel launched its genocidal war against the Palestinian people of Gaza following the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023.

A ceasefire took effect in October 2025, though Israel has continued carrying out attacks, which have killed more than 400 people.

Justice Ruth Ronen rejected the state’s arguments, insisting that “it is not enough to cite ‘security risks’ without providing details” and noting there had been “a very significant change on the ground” since the ceasefire.

The FPA’s legal team was barred from attending or accessing the material presented to the judges.

The FPA, which represents 370 journalists from 130 media outlets, said it was “deeply disappointed that the Israeli Supreme Court has once again postponed ruling on our petition for free, independent press access to Gaza.”

“All the more concerning is that the court appears to have been swayed by the state’s classified security arguments,” the FPA added, calling the closed-door process one that “offers no opportunity for us to rebut these arguments and clears the way for the continued arbitrary and open-ended closure of Gaza to foreign journalists.”

This marks the ninth extension granted to the government since the petition was filed in September 2024.

Just days earlier, on January 25, Israel extended its shutdown of Al Jazeera’s operations for another 90 days, citing national security threats the network denies.

US plan for Gaza demilitarisation

The postponement comes as mediators continue to press for progress in the US-backed plan to end Israel’s war on Gaza.

At the UN Security Council, the United States said it had unveiled plans for an “internationally funded buyback” programme to disarm Hamas as part of Gaza’s demilitarisation, which is a key element in the second phase of the US-backed plan.

US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz told the Security Council on Wednesday that “international, independent monitors will supervise a process of demilitarisation of Gaza to include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning”, supported by the buyback scheme.

Hamas still controls just under half of the territory in Gaza beyond the Yellow Line, where Israeli forces remain present.

The second phase of the US plan will also require the Israeli army to withdraw, though Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said demilitarisation would have to come before any further progress on the ceasefire.

Two Hamas officials told the Reuters news agency this ‌week that neither the United States nor the mediators presented the Palestinian group with any detailed or concrete disarmament proposal.

The B-21 Raider stealth bomber is one of the Air Force’s most ambitious weapons programs, designed to carry out deep-penetrating nuclear and conventional strikes over heavily defended skies and other missions its predecessor, the B-2, was never envisioned as doing. As the head of the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), one of Gen. Stephen L. Davis’s main tasks is guiding the development of the Raider, of which 100 are currently slated for procurement and that number could grow substantially larger in the coming years.

In his first interview since taking command on Nov. 4, 2025, from Gen. Thomas Bussiere, Davis offered The War Zone exclusive insights about the B-21 and what it can bring to the table in a future high-end fight. As the leader of AFGSC, Davis also oversees B-1B Lancer, B-2A Spirit, and B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers and all U.S. Air Force intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). During his Monday morning conversation with us, Davis talked about a host of other topics beyond just the Raider, including the future of the E-4C “Doomsday Plane,” the way forward for the troubled Sentinel ICBM program, and challenges posed by China and Russia.

You can read the first part of our interview here.

Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Q: What capabilities will the B-21 have by the time it achieves initial operating capability (IOC), and what will come later?

A: Right now, I’m focused on delivering the initial capability. And unfortunately, I can’t talk too much about the capabilities of the bomber. They are significant, and they are impressive. From the command’s perspective, we’re concentrating on getting everything in place up at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota to bed down that capability. Really, it’s the acquisition community that’s still delivering that plane, and I’m certainly interested in that, but I’m probably more focused on the bed down and getting those things right.

Q: Can you provide an update on the Raider’s Initial Operating Capability (IOC)?

A: As for IOC, we are thinking of it in an OPSEC framework. We are not building prototypes, and the infrastructure to support the B-21 is on time. The program remains a benchmark of acquisition and has validated the value of the digital engineering that went into it from the beginning; I can tell you that the penetrating global strike platform we are building and will get with the Raider is amazing.

Q:  Will the B-21 still be optionally manned?

A: That’s a future capability for the aircraft. Right now, we’re planning for the manned implementation of that aircraft and getting the crews ready to be at Ellsworth when the plane arrives.

Q: What roles will the B-21 be capable of executing beyond the standard deep strike mission set of the B-2? Will they be able to defend themselves kinetically from air threats as well as ground threats?

A:  I really don’t want to talk about those specific attributes of the B-21 because some of those are classified. What I can say is that it will continue to build on the capabilities of the B-2. As you know, in the environment and the places where it might operate, those people are improving their defenses, and likewise, we have to improve the capabilities so we can deliver for the president and the nation a penetrating bomber. Clearly, with a nuclear mission, there are places that we’re going to have to go to deliver nuclear weapons, if ever called upon by the president of the United States, and that’s something that I have to provide to the Department of War and to the president.

Q: We have heard so much about the Long-Range Strike family of systems, but so far, we only know of two members of that family, the B-21 and the Long-Range Stand-Off Weapon (LRSO). What other types of systems make up this family and when will we be able to meet them in the future? 

A: Well, once again, you hit me on all the classified aspects of the program. I would say any platform operating today is in a family of systems that’s connected to other things within the Department of the Air Force, and the Department of War, and that’ll continue to be the case of the B-21. And, as a matter of fact, we’re going to extend those, and it will be more connected than the B-2 in order to do its penetrating global strike mission. I think one thing you could add to family systems is the F-47 6th-generation fighter. You know, it’s going to be paired with the F-47 under certain circumstances. So we certainly consider that new 6th-generation stealth fighter as part of the family of systems that might be employed with the B-21.

Q: Any update on that program?

A: Nothing other than I believe it still remains on track. I was recently out of St. Louis, and they got a chance to take a look at the work that they were doing out there. As you know, Air Force Gen. Dale White has just been announced as the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, leading the F-47 and the B-21 programs, so that will create some integration there as well. I know Dale. He’s a very talented acquirer, so I think that bodes well for both those programs.

Q: How will unmanned systems, specifically aerial drones, be paired with the future bomber force? What capabilities are you looking at in this regard? 

A: In terms of what we might incorporate into both the B-21 and the B-52 in future environments, we’re going to take every bit of information we get on board that aircraft to improve situational awareness. So I’m agnostic on where that comes from, whether that’s overhead capabilities, whether that’s remotely piloted capabilities, or UASs. Our plan is to integrate as much information as we can of that platform.

Q: Will B-21s be able to control collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs) or longer-range drones? What about the B-52J?

A: In terms of CCAs, I think where the Air Force is right now is that they’re building those to be incorporated into the F-47 primarily in fighter aircraft. That’s the first step. It’s certainly possible in the future that they might become part of that family of systems. When you think about long-range strike, when we’re doing [continental U.S.] CONUS-based missions, it really would limit the ability to use some of those platforms as they don’t quite have the extended flight envelopes that the B-21 and the B-52 have.

Q: And with the B-52, as far as working with CCAs, is that still to be determined?

A: I would say yes. I would think that the B-21 would be the more logical partner for that. But once again, we have to deliver that capability that the Air Force does and integrate with fighters. That’s the first step. Assuming that goes well. I think we’ll look at the next steps.

Q: What will it take to pierce China’s A2AD [anti-access/area denial] umbrella? What capabilities do you need to do the job, from a [ground moving GMTI/AMTI target indicator/air moving target indicator] space layer to drones to accompany B-21s? What is your vision?

A: We have a requirement to be able to do that day-to-day for the president. We have to be able to penetrate adversary air defenses and deliver capabilities as directed. And we’ll continue to do that, taking all the information we can get and integrating it into the B-21. Obviously, one of the great things about the B-21 is that it’s going to be much more capable. It will have more sensors. It will have more inputs to it that will make it even stronger and more capable as a penetrating bomber.

Q: What role will your bombers play in taking down the Chinese Navy?

A: That’s an operational plan. I really can’t talk much about it, other than to say that long-range strike contributes to every important mission set that we have in the Department of War. Obviously, one of the attributes of the modern force is the variety of weapons they can carry, and the number and types of targets they can attack. I think in any major confrontation that the U.S. would find itself in, you’re going to find your bomber forces are bringing those skill sets to bear.

Q: What makes the move to put a single pilot onboard the B-21, along with a weapon systems officer (WSO) instead of two pilots, possible, and why is that the right call? 

A: In terms of the crew complement for the B-21, that’s an ongoing discussion within the Department of the Air Force. No final decision has been made. Frankly, we had the same discussion on the B-2 on how it would be manned. And ultimately, they went with two pilots, in part because of the cost of the platform and the number they were producing. Actually, at the time, it was a requirement to have navigator or WSO experience to be a B-2 pilot. We went away from that over time, but that was one of the initial requirements. With B-21 pilots, it’s a different plane, as it has a number of different capabilities. So we think that the right thing to do is look carefully at that crew complement and decide how to best make that the most capable combat platform we can.

Q: Will the B-21 have creature comforts that the B-2 doesn’t have to help the crew out during long missions?

A: I think the B-21 is going to be largely like the B-2 in how it supports the crews. There’s enough room for crew members to go on rest status. There’s a place to go to the bathroom, obviously, and to prepare food. All those things will exist in the B-21.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

IF you prefer the soft sand under your feet on a beach then you’re in luck as there is a new one in the UK.

Birling Gap beach, near Eastbourne, has turned from a pebble beach into a sandy beach overnight.

The extreme weather caused by the winter storms sweeping the UK is thought to be behind the unusual change.

Along with sand being pulled in my the storms, it was believed the rocks on the beach were then pulled out to sea.

The National Trust explained: “The action of strong waves during storms and high tides can reveal sandy patches on the beach, which are usually covered by flint pebbles at other times of the year.

“This year has seen a higher than usual amount of sand appearing.

BOOK IN

Most popular hotels in loveholidays sale with rooftop pools, beaches & £149 deals

SEA YOU

The English seaside village that’s better to visit in winter with seal beaches

Locals have raved about their ‘new’ beach.

Local Mary Sievwright told the BBC the beach was now “beautiful”.

She added: “It would have been great fun when I was a kid because we all had to scramble over pebbles the whole time.

“Whereas 1769660425 you’ve got loads of nice places to put your towel down and sit with your family.”

Another local said; “I’ve never seen sand there – and I have lived here for nearly 29 years!”

However, don’t expect it to be for good as it was “not a regular occurrence”.

A National Trust spokesperson said which the beach was “known for seasonal changes,” this is unlikely to last so people should “enjoy it while they can”.

Beachgoers are currently advised to stay away from the beach after two families were rescued, following access steps were damage to the steps caused by a cliff gall.

The National Trust currently states: “There is no beach access until further notice.”

A number of beaches in the UK face being lost for good due to erosion.

Blackpool is investing £30milllion across their coastline in beach defences in a bid to preserve the sands.

Holderness Coast in East Riding of Yorkshire, is currently reporting some of the highest rates of erosion in Europe, losing up to 12 metres a year.

And here is a secluded beach in the UK you can now only get to by boat.

The battle to pin down places in the top eight could be enthralling, given how tightly packed the standings are.

Let’s start with the easy bit. For Real Madrid and Liverpool, both on 15 points, and Tottenham, on 14, a victory on matchday eight would secure direct entry into the last 16.

Spurs face eliminated Eintracht Frankfurt in Germany, where the north London outfit won last year on the way to a Europa League triumph that secured them Champions League football this season.

Arne Slot’s Liverpool side are at home to Qarabag, who have a slim chance of still making the top eight.

“It’s all down to us again. Let’s make sure we’re in the top eight,” said Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk after last week’s win in Marseille.

“It’s very important as you miss the play-offs, and it helps with the intense programme that we’re having. We’ve put ourselves in a good position.”

Real Madrid are away to their former manager Jose Mourinho’s Benfica.

Mourinho reached three Champions League semi-finals in a row with Real before leaving in 2013, but Benfica – with only two wins in their first seven games – will need to beat Real to have a chance of sneaking into the play-offs.

Behind Spurs come the group of eight teams, starting with holders Paris St-Germain in sixth down to Atalanta in 13th, on 13 points.

Newcastle, Chelsea and Manchester City are all in that group and looking for a priceless win – and even then knowing their fate could come down to goal difference.

Chelsea are also up against a familiar face in their former head coach Antonio Conte, who won Serie A with Napoli last season.

Conte welcomes the Blues to Naples with his side sitting outside the play-off spots on goal difference and needing a positive result.