USAF

The U.S. Air Force will not add eight-bladed NP2000 propellers to any more of its aging C-130H Hercules transport planes, curtailing a previous upgrade plan as it continues to transition more fully to the newer C-130J variant. The NP2000s, which give H models a boost in thrust and fuel efficiency, and help reduce maintenance demands while increasing reliability, are among several upgrades that have been helping to keep the older Hercules aircraft going.

The Pentagon recently released a budget reprogramming document, dated September 29, 2025, detailing the movement of various funds into a general-purpose modernization account. This included nearly $24 million that had been set aside for upgrading C-130Hs with NP2000 propellers. Congress must approve any such reallocation of money from one part of the defense budget to another.

“Funds are available for transfer to the Defense Modernization Account, Defense-Wide, from a congressional increase for the C-130H NP2000 Eight Bladed Propeller due to the completion of the modification effort for the fleet,” the document states. “Efficiencies in quantity were achieved due to additional C-130J procurement, which reduced the number of C-130H NP2000 Eight Bladed Propeller modifications required as remaining unmodified C-130Hs will be divested.”

The Air Force “completed [NP2000] installations on 90 C-130H aircraft in June 2025,” according to the service’s most recent budget request for the 2025 Fiscal Year, but it is unclear if that represents the total number of aircraft upgraded to date. However, it would seem that this figure is at least close to the total, given that the Air Force expects to only have 92 C-130Hs left in inventory at all by the end of Fiscal Year 2026. This includes examples assigned to Air National Guard units. As of 2021, the service planned to upgrade the propellers on around 140 H models. The Air Force first began flying H variants of the C-130 in the mid-1970s.

The Air Force also has 10 LC-130Hs, which are specially configured for operations in and around the polar regions, and have received NP2000 propellers. A portion of the U.S. Navy’s fleet of C-130T transport and KC-130T tankers, which are derived from the H model, also now sport the new propellers.

The NP2000 has long been standard on the Navy’s E-2C and E-2D Hawkeye airborne early warning and control aircraft and C-2 Greyhound carrier on-board delivery (COD) planes, as well.

Work to replace the four-bladed propellers on the Air Force’s C-130Hs with NP2000s, coupled with new electronic control systems, dates back to the mid-2010s. The propellers can give H model Hercules aircraft up to 20 percent extra thrust, reducing the distance needed for takeoff by around 984 feet (300 meters), depending on various factors, according to Collins Aerospace, the current contractor behind the upgrade package. The increase in thrust also translates to a bump in fuel economy.

In addition, the NP2000s vibrate less than the four-bladed propellers originally found on the C-130H, contributing to reduced maintenance requirements. They also have the benefit of being quieter and more reliable.

The Air Force had further combined with NP2000s with additional upgrades to the Rolls-Royce (formerly Allison) T56 series turboprop engines that power the C-130H, offering further performance and maintenance benefits, as you can read more about here.

As the budget reprogramming document notes, the Air Force’s priority now is on acquiring more C-130Js. New Rolls-Royce AE 2100-series turboprops and six-bladed propellers are among the improvements found on the J models compared to earlier variants.

By 2029, the Air Force expects the C-130H fleet to have dropped in size to just 61 aircraft, according to its Fiscal Year 2026 budget request. When the service expects to retire the very last of its H variants, including the remaining specialized LC-130Hs, is unclear. Work is now moving forward to at least supplement the latter fleet with new LC-130Js.

If nothing else, the NP2000 upgrade program for the Air Force’s C-130H fleet has come to an end.

Contact the author: [email protected]

The U.S. Air Force is reportedly examining the possibility of fielding stealthy flying-wing aircraft that could serve as ‘arsenal planes’ loaded with air-to-air missiles. The broader concept is one that we have discussed in the past, including in relation to a version of the B-21 Raider stealth bomber. According to an article from Air & Space Forces Magazine, the Air Force is also considering other potential flying-wing platforms to fill this air-to-air role.

A senior Air Force official told Air & Space Forces Magazine that this kind of arsenal plane was being studied as part of the Air Force’s plans for how to deal with a high-intensity conflict fought with China in the Indo-Pacific region. The stealthy flying-wing aircraft would be armed with “dozens” of air-to-air missiles, the article states.

According to a former top Air Force official speaking to Air & Space Forces Magazine, “there wasn’t a compelling argument” for an air-to-air version of the B-21 in the past, even though it had been discussed. But the prospect of an air war with China and its rapidly evolving air combat capabilities seems to have changed that stance.

Currently, the study is still at an early stage, but it’s intriguing, to say the least, that the Air Force is looking at the possibility of engaging other manufacturers and employing different platforms than the B-21, which is now deep in flight test.

The same official told the publication that an arsenal plane of this kind would be one way of providing a supplement to or even taking the place of some of the Air Force’s new Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones it intends to press into service in the coming years. “There are other ways of achieving ‘affordable mass’ than darkening the skies with CCAs,” the official said.   

The basic operational scenario would involve the arsenal plane providing additional air-to-air ‘magazine depth’ for crewed fighters, such as the F-22, F-35, and the future F-47. The fighters would be responsible for detecting and designating targets, which would then be engaged by long-range missiles launched from the arsenal plane, operating at a standoff distance, a concept that we have been discussing for years. CCAs could also be added to the mix. It’s worth noting that a lack of larger numbers of air-to-air missiles in their jets is a top complaint of F-35 and F-22 crews. Smaller missiles optimized for internal carriage and with shorter ranges are in the works to help mitigate this issue.

There is no mention of whether the arsenal plane would be crewed or not, but the idea of an uncrewed or optionally crewed version of the B-21 has been part of that program from the outset. Furthermore, work has already been done on a possible complementary drone for the B-21, as you can read about here. While this was originally pitched as a bomber drone, such a design could equally lend itself to becoming an air-to-air arsenal plane.

It’s interesting, too, that the idea of an air-to-air role for the B-21 has come up in the past.

Back in 2019, Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Pleus, at that time the Director of Air and Cyber Operations for Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), discussed the possibility of a B-21 “that also has air-to-air capabilities” and can “work with the family of systems to defend itself, utilizing stealth…”

Even before those remarks, TWZ had explored how the new stealth bomber could serve in multiple roles, including in an air-to-air capacity, while Air Force officials had repeatedly alluded to its multi-function capabilities.

“Many of the B-21’s weapons, which will include everything from JDAMs, to Massive Ordnance Penetrators, to ultra long-range air-to-air missiles, will benefit from the Raider’s high perch,” TWZ wrote as long ago as 2017. “Even potentially lasers in the future will have more range due to this performance attribute.”

In December of last year, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin confirmed the service had not ruled out expanding the roles and missions of the B-21 as part of a reassessment of plans for its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative, which led to the F-47.

The latest Air Force thinking also includes the option of using an airframe other than the B-21 to achieve the same air-to-air task. This is apparently based on concerns about Northrop Grumman’s capacity to build the baseline bomber in addition to a potential air-to-air-tasked spinoff. At the same time, a full-specification B-21 version would be a very expensive asset, and likely its level of sophistication would not be required for an arsenal plane role. A stripped-down model, with no sensors and less communications capabilities, as well as possibly no pilots and slightly degraded stealth could drop that price considerably while leveraging the B-21’s basic airframe.

The Air Force’s publicly stated plan has long been to buy at least 100 Raiders. However, as we have talked about in the past, there is the potential that the B-21 force could ultimately become significantly bigger. In the meantime, Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) has looked into the options for increasing B-21 production output, including the possibility of opening up another production facility.

Current estimates suggest that Northrop Grumman will be building 10 B-21s per year by the early 2030s. Even with funds to increase that output, it’s far from certain that there will be additional capacity for production of an air-to-air version as well.

Clearly, developing a new stealthy flying-wing arsenal plane from scratch would be a significant endeavor, although likely less costly than producing a high-end bomber for arsenal plane use. At the same time, a specialized design for the role could draw upon technologies developed not only for the B-21 but also for other advanced flying-wing programs, including ones in the classified realm.

While a dedicated air-to-air version of the B-21 might not find AFGSC favor, Raiders armed with air-to-air missiles for their own protection is another matter. This is underscored by evidence that PACOM has already included notional B-21s with air-to-air weapons in war games intended to learn about future campaigns fought against China.

Another option would be to expand (or include if it doesn’t have it already) air-to-air capability in the baseline B-21. Raiders with the option of employing air-to-air as well as air-to-ground weapons would ensure versatility, and these aircraft could even carry mixed load-outs if the mission required it. It should be noted, too, that the B-21 has a smaller weapons carriage capability than the current B-2 Spirit and, at least based on photos of the second aircraft, it lacks side bays for smaller weapons — this could change as development continues.

On the other hand, the B-21 is a very costly plane, and any weapons capacity given over to air-to-air munitions necessarily takes away from its primary bomber mission, something that AFGSC is unlikely to appreciate. It will also be tasked extremely heavily for its central strike role during a major conflict. So, if the B-21s were partially tasked with working as arsenal ships for fighters, more airframes would be needed, which could make taking on this role more agreeable to AFGSC.

In the meantime, there is apparently no shortage of long-range air-to-air missile programs that could yield suitable armament for an arsenal plane of this kind.

There are various very long-range air-to-air missile programs known to have been in the works in the United States, with more in the classified realm. The best known is the joint Air Force/Navy AIM-260, which will offer much greater range than the current AIM-120 AMRAAM, as well as other new and improved capabilities, but will put these in a missile with similar dimensions to the AIM-120. A Raider-sized aircraft could carry a huge number of AIM-260s.

At the same time, a platform the size of the B-21, or closer to its size, would also be capable of carrying outsized weapons beyond the scope of carriage by CCAs, or even crewed fighters, such as multi-stage air-to-air weapons. As for large, very long-range air-to-air missiles, one option very well-suited to the role would be the AIM-174, the air launched derivative of the surface-launched SM-6 missile. These are currently carried by U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets. Longer-ranged than any other air-to-air missile the U.S. military has ever fielded, it is also tailor-made for the Indo-Pacific theater, as you can see in the video below. Firing it at the direction of forward-operating fighters would very much fit the role of this new flying wing aircraft, which would be able to carry far more than fighters could.

Alternatively, instead of buying large flying wings each carrying dozens of missiles, the Air Force could acquire uncrewed combat air vehicles, or UCAVs, offering a longer range and better survivability than CCAs, as well as a far greater payload. The result would be a more survivable drone carrying a fighter-sized load of missiles. The apparent absence of UCAVs of any kind from Air Force plans is something we have discussed in detail before and have since followed up on.

If this option were to be pursued, it would go some way to address the limitations of a larger flying-wing platform carrying dozens of missiles at once. Simply put, those missiles can only be in one place at any given time. Buying more plentiful UCAVs would mean that they can be in many places at once, and losing a drone of this kind would be preferable to the Air Force losing many millions in the cost of a more exquisite flying wing platform and its missiles.

For its part, China is busily developing flying-wing drones, including stealthy UCAVs. Some of these drones are also notably large. Indeed, the latest of these may well even match this latest U.S. Air Force arsenal plane concept, at least by design, although we do not know its exact planned mission or stores configuration. Namely, this is a flying-wing drone with a ‘cranked kite’ planform, a bit smaller than a B-21, but likely with kinetic capabilities. Potentially, it could also be used in an air-to-air combat support role.

Other interesting parallels can be found between the new U.S. Air Force concept and naval programs for ‘arsenal ships.’ These vessels are intended to similarly increase magazine depth, lobbing air defense, land-attack, and anti-ship missiles in support of more conventional surface combatants. Some of these arsenal ships are also expected to operate uncrewed, while others will go to sea with a much-reduced crew complement.

Should the Air Force find funds for an air-to-air arsenal plane of whatever kind, the effect that would have on the CCA and other initiatives is unclear.

The statement that an unnamed senior Air Force official gave to Air & Space Forces Magazine suggests that a stealthy flying-wing aircraft armed with large numbers of air-to-air missiles could, to a degree, threaten CCA plans, although it could also be a very useful complement.

The CCA program, at least to begin with, is based around drones that can carry air-to-air missiles, meaning these drones can work closely with crewed aircraft, significantly extending their reach while enhancing lethality and survivability.

As it stands, the primary mission of the first increment of CCAs will be acting as flying ‘missile trucks’ supporting crewed combat jets, a fact reflected by the FQ (Fighter Drone) designations, for the General Atomics YFQ-42A and the Anduril YFQ-44A.

While CCAs would be expected to operate much closer to the enemy than an arsenal plane, they would not be able to carry anywhere near as many missiles — initially, just two AMRAAMs.

There are meanwhile efforts to extend the reach and flexibility of crewed fighters (and other platforms), including the LongShot drone, which is being developed specifically as an air-to-air ‘missile truck.’ The drone will carry the missiles forward to enhance the tactical lethality and especially the survivability of the launch platform. While it is planned to be cost-effective, the LongShot is not reusable, and each one will also carry just two missiles. At the same time, the LongShot could be an option to increase the reach of an arsenal plane, too.

Indeed, all of these smaller drones will have only a relatively limited weapons-carrying capacity. In this context, a larger stealthy flying-wing with capacious internal capacity becomes very compelling in terms of bringing the largest number of air-to-air missiles to bear against a numerically superior adversary, like China. Furthermore, depending on the degree of standoff range at which the arsenal plane could operate, it wouldn’t necessarily need the same degree of low observability as the B-21.

Also interesting is the timing of the new arsenal plane revelations, in terms of the F-47, which was always intended to be a spearhead of the Air Force’s future air superiority efforts, especially in the Indo-Pacific region.

While Boeing has started production of the first F-47 for the Air Force, with a first flight planned for 2028, there are questions about the final number of aircraft to be built and what they will cost, as well as its overall size (and capacity for weapons carriage).

The Air Force has said it plans to buy at least 185 F-47s, but potentially that figure might change going forward. There has also been discussion about the potential for multiple versions to be built in incremental developmental cycles. Meanwhile, with predictions that the F-47 might cost three times as much as the average F-35, this factor will very likely also play into acquisition plans.

Whatever the number of F-47s procured, the Air Force seems to consider that these, plus much larger quantities of F-35s and CCAs, might still not be enough to wrest air superiority from China over the vast distances of the Pacific, especially in any kind of prolonged campaign.

While it would come at a significant cost, a stealthy flying-wing aircraft packed with air-to-air missiles might just be one way of doing that.

Contact the author: [email protected]

The U.S. Air Force is working to combine an aerial target designed to simulate ballistic threats and a liquid-fuel rocket motor into a new, lower-cost hypersonic missile dubbed Angry Tortoise. The first test launch of the experimental design is expected to come by the end of the year. The project reflects growing interest across the U.S. military in pursuing new avenues to field hypersonic weapons, and to do so affordably, after years of persistent struggles in this realm.

Angry Tortoise broke cover at the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2025 Air, Space, and Cyber Conference earlier this week, at which TWZ was in attendance. Aerospace firm Usra Major has confirmed to us that a contract it received from the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) in May, valued at close to $28.6 million, is for this particular effort. Neither the project’s name nor its explicit focus was disclosed at the time, though the expected end result was described as a “tactical flight demonstrator.”

The Angry Tortoise project “works by leveraging partnerships with commercial companies to integrate their existing technologies into Department of War (DoW) weapon systems, enabling rapid delivery of new capabilities,” according to an information card AFRL had available at the conference this week. “The integrated advancements made through the Angry Tortoise project will provide the warfighter with the ability to deliver quick, precise strikes on both stationary and moving targets, giving military commanders more options to counter threats. The project’s focus on public-private partnerships is crucial to accelerating the delivery of these new capabilities by combining commercial innovation with AFRL’s technical expertise and resources.”

The key element of the current Angry Tortoise design is the 4,000-pound-thrust-class Draper rocket motor, a closed-cycle hydrogen peroxide-kerosene design. Despite being liquid-fueled, Draper can be stored for extended periods of time at room temperature. Most commonly used liquid rocket fuels are volatile and corrosive, which limits how long rocket motors that use them can be left ready-to-fire. This also typically makes them more hazardous to handle after being fueled. This has long made more stable solid-fuel rocket motors attractive for military applications, especially when it comes to tactical weapons, despite the performance advantages liquid-fueled types offer.

Usra Major describes Draper as a “tactical” derivative of an earlier design called Hadley, which uses a more traditional fuel mixture with liquid oxygen as its oxidizer. Hadley is notably the rocket motor that powers Stratolauch’s Talon-A hypersonic test vehicle. Usra Major developed both Hadley and Draper in cooperation with AFRL. The origins of Angry Tortoise lie in these developments.

“It started off as, they had an application [for the rocket motor work] for space access applications,” John Remen, the strategic engagement lead for AFRL’s Aerospace Systems Directorate, told TWZ correspondent Hope Hodge Seck in an interview on the floor of this week’s conference. “We were challenged to look at, hey, we want to change this paradigm in hypersonics and affordable mass, to be able to put more mass on target at low cost, effectively, and so forth. What ideas do you guys have that can do this?”

“And we were, like, hey, you know, this is right in the right thrust class,” he continued. “This is the right size, it’s additively manufactured, low-cost. And so, hey, let’s brainstorm. What could we do in terms of a quick demonstration to show some kind of a tactical missile application?”

Angry Tortoise combines Draper with the front half of an existing rocket called the Economical Target-2 (ET-2), produced by Teledyne Brown, according to an earlier story from Avaition Week. Standard ET-2s, which the U.S. military currently uses to simulate ballistic missiles as part of test and evaluation activities, use solid-fuel rocket motors.

“So, what we’re doing is basically taking the back half of it [off], and had to use a new outer shell and everything, because we now have liquid propellant tanks on the inside, the thrust take-out for the engine, and so forth,” AFRL’s Remen explained.

AFRL and Ursa Major are now aiming to launch Angry Tortoise for the first time at the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico in December. The Draper rocket motor has already been hot-fired more than 300 times in ground-based testing.

The expectation is that the missile will be able to reach speeds of up to around Mach 4 or Mach 5, with Mach 5 typically considered to be the boundary between high-supersonic and hypersonic speed. Angry Tortoise is only expected to reach around Mach 2 during its first test flight due in part to the physical limitations of WSMR. Though WSMR is a sprawling range complex, hypersonic systems can fly so far so fast that they often ‘out-range’ even larger facilities on land.

“In 2026, we’re going to fly that system long-range in the Pacific,” Dan Jablonsky, Ursa Major’s CEO, said at the opening to a separate panel at the Air, Space, and Cyber Conference.

In terms of the Angry Tortoise project’s immediate goals, it is important to stress that it is presently a science and technology demonstration effort. At the same time, there is a clear eye toward seeing if this is a viable pathway to an operational weapon, and one that could be readily produced at scale at a reasonable price point.

AFRL is hoping to prove out “the performance, the capability, range capabilities, and so forth, just the fact that we can do a low-cost, quick manufacturer [design]. Like I said, it’s additively manufactured, so that speeds up the processes and so forth. You can actually just add a bunch of more machines on the line to put out more systems,” AFRL’s Remen said. For the “space application, might need 20 a year or 30 a year. But the DoD says, hey, no, I need 300 a year. Okay. How can I get that spun up?”

“It’s all TBD of okay, yeah, it was successful, what are we going to do with it from a military standpoint?” he continued. “Our job is to define and help them, help [Air Force] leadership, understand, here’s the art of the possible.”

Remen said that multiple unspecified commands had expressed interest in Angry Tortoise and the capabilities that could be gained from the project. He also noted that the design could well further evolve and that future iterations might be significantly different, including using solid-fuel rocket motors. As an AFRL project, one would imagine the service is eyeing this as a starting place for an air-launched weapon, but it might be adaptable to ground and/or sea-launched modes, as well.

In terms then of unit price, “it’s really going to go to what are you trying to do, and … what do you consider as a reasonable cost?” he added. “You know, we have a warfighting mission, so I’ve got to win the war. Sometimes it doesn’t necessarily matter how much it costs, because I’ve got to win the war, because losing the war is far more costly than it is to win the war.”

“At approx. 60% additively manufactured, Draper costs significantly less than other hypersonic propulsion alternatives,” Ursa Major also told TWZ in response to queries for more information.

At the same time, Angry Tortoise reflects a frustration with the current state of U.S. hyperosonic weapons development and their costs. “The project’s moniker jokingly references the Air Force’s struggle to keep up with international competitors in the affordable hypersonic missile field,” Aviation Week reported, citing Nils Sedano, a technical advisor in the Space Access Branch of AFRL’s Rocket Propulsion Division.

“I mean, you got your hypersonic missiles, like your HAWCs and so forth, 10s of millions of dollars and such [each],” AFRL’s Remen said. “We’re trying to be a lot lower cost in that, but it also may not be as capable.”

HAWC is the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept, a project the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency conducted in cooperation with AFRL, which has fed into the Air Force’s current Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) program. HACM, an air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile, is expected to fly in the upcoming fiscal year after suffering delays.

In its latest budget proposal for the 2026 Fiscal Year, the Air Force confirmed plans to reboot work on the AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), which the service had previously moved to shelve following years of checkered test results. The stated plan had been to refocus resources on HACM. ARRW is in a different category of hypersonic weapon from HACM, and is designed to launch an unpowered hypersonic boost-glide vehicle, as you can learn more about here.

U.S. Army and U.S. Navy hypersonic weapons plans have suffered their own significant setbacks in recent years.

The Navy revealed earlier this year that it had halted work entirely on its Hypersonic Air-Launched Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (HALO) program, another air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile effort, in late 2024. The service blamed “budgetary constraints” and said it would “revalidate the requirements, with an emphasis on affordability.”

The Army also now has its own program, called Blackbeard, geared explicitly toward accelerating the development, and hopefully fielding, of a lower-cost hypersonic missile.

All of this comes as China, in particular, is at least investing heavily in expanding its arsenal of multiple categories of hypersonic weapons. A number of new designs broke cover ahead of a huge military parade in Beijing on September 3, as you can read more about in TWZ past reporting here.

Russia’s Zircon sea-launched hypersonic air-breathing cruise missile has also now been demonstrated in combat in Ukraine. Russian forces have also used Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missiles, which reach hypersonic speeds in the terminal phase of flight, in strikes on Ukrainian targets.

“As Secretary [of the Air Force Troy] Meink emphasized on Monday, we have to innovate faster,” Ursa Major’s CEO Jablonsky said at the panel this week. “The only way we’re going to be able to maintain our advantage is to innovate, and we have to innovate faster than our adversaries. As we think about the current threat environment, our own arsenal, our own strategic capabilities, we must face the reality that our adversaries are moving faster than we are.”

Ursa Major and AFRL are now presenting Angry Tortoise as one way to try to help change that paradigm.

Contact the author: [email protected]

A Colorado company displayed at the Air & Space Force Association’s annual conference this week a model of a new very heavy lift cargo jet it is designing. Though still in its aspirational phase, Radia’s WindRunner concept comes at a time when the future of heavy lift cargo capabilities is in question, including within the U.S. military as it looks to eventually replace its fleet of aging C-5M Galaxy and C-17A Globemaster III transports. Globally, the ability to move very large, outsized loads over long distances by air also has something of an expiration date, without any clear replacement for existing aircraft waiting in the wings. So, while by all accounts Radia’s dream may be a big long shot, it’s certainly worth examining.

The four-engined WindRunner, far bigger in size than either of the two U.S. Air Force airlifters, was originally designed to carry 300-foot-long wind turbine blades. In other words, it originated with the goal of offering a transport solution to commercial customers. However, Radia claims that when it’s built, it could be an attractive airframe for moving tanks, helicopters, collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs) and other large war materiel to austere locations, as well as rocket boosters and other outsized loads.

“As interest grew and development progressed, WindRunner’s unprecedented volume similarly appealed to the defense, aerospace and commercial cargo sectors,” company spokesperson Grace O’Connor told The War Zone.

The C-17A, which first entered service in 1995, has a maximum payload capacity of some 82 tons, according to the official Air Force fact sheet.

The much larger C-5, which has been around since the 1970s, and is now in its enhanced C-5M configuration, can carry up to 140 tons. What’s arguably more important than just the raw weight it can lift, the C-5 can carry far larger items than the C-17.

Capable of being refueled in flight to extend their range, neither this aircraft nor the C-17 is currently in production.

By comparison, Radia states that the 356-foot-long WindRunner, first conceived of in 2016, will be able to deliver 72.6 tons of cargo. However, payload weight only tells a small part of the story, the company suggests.

“Current defense cargo aircraft run out of room before they run out of lift capability,” O’Connor posited. “In other words, military operations cube out on missions before they gross out, making volume the limiting factor. The massive dimensions of today’s military aircraft, modern satellites, missile systems, and mobile hospitals make it challenging to transport mission-ready.“

Instead, many weapons systems have to be disassembled to fit aboard a Galaxy or Globemaster.

Radia claims that WindRunner, with some 270,000 cubic feet of cargo space, delivers seven times the volume of a C-5 and 12 times the volume of a C-17. Among other cargo, Radia says WindRunner can carry six ready-to-fly Chinook C-47 helicopters. The placement of the cockpit in a bulge above the cargo hold offers more vertical space to roll items into its very long hold.

The WindRunner is also claimed to be able to take off and land on 6,000 feet of runway, which is pretty short for such a large plane. One limiting factor, however, may be range. While the C-17 can fly about 2,400 miles with a heavy load without refueling and the C-5 can fly over double that distance with cargo packed in its belly. The WindRunner has a loaded range of just 1,200 miles, according to Radia. So, aerial refueling capability would be a prerequisite for U.S. military service. Still, this may be a worthwhile trade for the ability to easily move very large cargoes while keeping the cheapest aircraft acquisition price possible and tankers already service the C-5M and C-17A fleets heavily for long-distance missions. It may also be possible to extend the giant aircraft’s 261-foot wingspan to increase its range, among other concepts commonly employed to increase an aircraft’s range, such as auxiliary fuel tanks. Radia told us aerial refueling capability would be added for military contracts, but not for the initial tranche of commercial jets

As a scale-model mockup of the WaveRunner was on display on the conference showroom located at the sprawling Gaylord Conference Center at National Harbor, a top Air Force general was in a small meeting room two stories above, talking about the future of the service’s heavy lift.

The U.S. Air Force is still in the early stages of figuring out what it needs for a Next Generation Airlift (NGAL) platform that will replace the C-5s and C-17s. However, the flying branch said it will emphasize greater speed and operational flexibility, as well as the ability to better defend against growing threats when on the ground and in the air.

The commander of AMC, Air Force Gen. John Lamontagne, told reporters, including from The War Zone, that the service currently seeks one aircraft to replace both the Galaxy and Globemaster. Given various budgetary and functional considerations, it is unlikely that a future NGAL would have the same cargo capacity as the Galaxy. You can read more about the tough choices the Air Force faces over its NGAL program in our story here.

Among the NGAL options is an aircraft with a blended wing body, or BWB, configuration. The design could provide increased lifting abilities with large amounts of internal volume, among other advantages. In 2023, the Air Force selected aviation startup JetZero to design and build a full-size demonstrator.

There likely won’t be a replacement aircraft that can match the size of the Galaxy, meaning the Air Force will have to look externally to move its largest cargo. However, there are limited options right now. There are a small number of commercially chartable An-124 Condors, which have roughly similar roll-on, roll-off heavy lift capabilities as the C-5, available today. The existing Soviet-designed Condors won’t last forever. It’s possible that Ukraine could put the Condor back into production in modernized form, but this would be a very large undertaking and it won’t solve the U.S. military’s issue of losing its organic ability to move outsized loads if the single aircraft that will replace the C-17 and C-5 won’t be capable of meeting the latter’s ability to swallow massive cargoes, which seem very unlikely.

It’s worth noting that the world’s largest operational cargo hauling aircraft at the time, the An-225 Mriya, which is an outgrowth of the An-124, was destroyed by Russia at the beginning of its all-out invasion of Ukraine. It served for decades as the heaviest-lifting charter aircraft available, supporting everything from wars to disaster relief operations to moving rail cars and aircraft.

With all this in mind, Radia’s giant cargo hauler could offer the U.S. military a new option to move big loads, if it actually becomes a real aircraft. While this may be more of a niche capability, even if it was offered just on a contracting basis, it would likely be an attractive option for some missions. A militarized version of this aircraft is a far bigger reach, but a small fleet could help fill the gap left by a ‘compromise’ C-5 and C-17 replacement design. The Pentagon has certainly been intrigued with far more exotic heavy lift concepts than this.

Radia claims it is shooting for the first flight of its WindRunner by 2030.

“Radia has raised over $150 million to date and is in discussions to raise additional billions through government support, commercial partnerships, and private capital to complete WindRunner development and production,” O’Connor said when asked how much it will cost to turn the clean sheet design into reality. “Radia has completed concept development and wind tunnel testing and is now preparing for system integration and manufacturing. WindRunner uses largely proven, off-the-shelf systems that are currently certified and flying today. We’ve focused on digital design and analysis, and we are now progressing toward building the full-scale aircraft for certification.”

Radia “has received Letters of Intent (LOIs) from major global customers across wind energy, defense, aerospace, and cargo sectors,” O’Connor added. However, an LOI is not a contract for delivery.

At this point, it is not publicly known where Radia intends to build these jets, if it actually gets the opportunity to do so.

“We are getting closer to publicly announcing our final assembly line location and production capacity,” O’Connor explained.

Radia may not ultimately produce any jets that wear USAF insignias — or any jet at all. However, there appears to be a heavy airlift gap that may form in the coming decades and it may take a mixture of assets, commercial and military, to fill it.

Contact the author: [email protected]

A business jet converted into a tanker is among the options the U.S. Air Force has been considering as part of plans for a future aerial refueling ‘system of systems.’ The service is also still looking at stealthy designs and other options to meet its tanker needs going forward as the anti-air threat picture continues to expand and evolve.

“We are working on the Next Generation Air Refueling System, NGAS, as it’s effectively known. Put the finishing touches on that last year. And that was a really wide look at how we would do air refueling in the future,” Air Force Gen. John Lamontagne, head of Air Mobility Command (AMC), told TWZ and other outlets earlier this week. “When I say a wide look, looking at conventional tankers [as] we know it today, you know something like a [KC-]135 or KC-46 as is; something with a bunch of mission systems added to it, with a defense systems [sic], connectivity, intelligence and more; a business jet; a blended wing body; or a signature-managed [stealthy] tanker.”

“So, a pretty wide look at the effectiveness of those,” he added. “We still are looking at a pretty wide look.”

Lamontagne was speaking at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2025 Air, Space, and Cyber Conference, at which TWZ was in attendance.

To provide some quick context, the Air Force currently has some 370 KC-135s and 96 KC-46s in its inventory. The service finished retiring its fleet of KC-10s last year. Under its existing contract with Boeing, the service expects to eventually receive 188 KC-46s, and it now has plans to acquire 75 more. What will eventually replace the last of the aging KC-135s, as well as fill the gap left by the departure of the KC-10s, remains to be seen. This is where NGAS, which continues to be described as a future family of capabilities, comes in.

Both the KC-135 and the KC-46 evolved parallel to or are based on full-size jet-powered transcontinental airliner designs, as was the now-retired KC-10. The KC-135 and KC-46 are also configured to refuel receivers primarily using the boom method, though they can also dispense gas via probe-and-drogue. The boom method is the Air Force’s preferred option when it comes to topping up the tanks on fixed-wing aircraft in mid-air.

A tanker converted from a business jet could offer a comparable cruising speed and service ceiling, but with lower operating and maintenance demands. It would also be able to take off and land from shorter runways and have more limited logistical needs, offering increased flexibility. The Air Force does currently envision future high-end operations centering on dispersed and distributed concepts of operations (CONOPS), collectively referred to as Agile Combat Employment (ACE), primarily to complicate enemy targeting cycles and reduce vulnerability. The U.S. Marine Corps has also been completely restructuring its forces around similar CONOPS in recent years.

At the same time, those comparative benefits come at the cost of maximum range and on-station time, and especially to the core of its entire reason for being — the total fuel available to offload to receivers. This could be offset to a degree by being able to fly from airstrips closer to operating areas. If the business jet-based tanker is itself able to refuel in mid-air, it could be utilized as one part of a multi-tier hub-and-spoke concept. Regardless, these aircraft will never be able to compete with offload capacity of the KC-135 or KC-46.

It’s also worth noting here that not every mission necessarily requires a full airliner-sized tanker. Business jet-based types could be used primarily to support more routine activities, especially in peacetime, like training and testing, and moving small numbers of fighters from point a to point b, freeing up larger tankers for more demanding operations. Simply not having to fly bigger tankers as often would also help reduce the wear and tear on those fleets.

Lower acquisition costs could also help the Air Force buy more business jet-based tankers. Depending on how they are configured, they could also be used as light transports when not needed for aerial refueling missions.

The idea of turning business jets into tankers is not new. At the Singapore Airshow in 2010, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) presented a concept for a boom-equipped tanker based on the Gulfstream G550, with a particular eye toward supporting training needs. An IAI brochure available at the show also reportedly depicted a hub-and-spoke refueling concept of operations, with the modified G550 acting as ‘spoke’ between a larger traditional tanker and tactical jets operating closer to the front lines.

The G550 is now out of production, but Gulfstream continues to produce other models that might serve as a starting point for new tankers. There are other options on the market, too. The Air Force and other branches of the U.S. military already operate multiple Gulfstream types, as well as members of the Bombardier Challenger family. This includes highly modified types in service to perform specialized missions, like the EA-37B Compass Call electronic warfare jet and the E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN). Smaller airliners, including current-generation variants of the Boeing 737, could offer additional options for conversion into aerial refueling platforms.

There may be other, more novel avenues, as well. As part of a design challenge in 2023, the Air Force itself produced a graphic showing a business jet as one option for carrying a potential platform-agnostic boom-equipped refueling system, which could also be small enough to be fit on a tactical jet like the F-15. The service has been exploring concepts in this general vein for years now, which could also feed into a future NGAS family of systems.

As Lamontagne noted at the Air, Space, and Cyber Conference earlier this week, the Air Force is still taking “a pretty wide look” at potential NGAS options. The need for any future tanker to be able to survive in more contested environments remains top of mind for the service. The possibility of acquiring a fleet of stealthy tankers, something TWZ has long highlighted the growing need for, remains very much on the table. Tankers, as well as other critical supporting assets, would be top targets in any future major conflict, such as a potential high-end fight against China in the Pacific. On top of this, the Air Force has been publicly warning that the threat ecosystem is only set to continue expanding in the coming years, and that it predicts there to be anti-air missiles with ranges of up to 1,000 miles by 2050.

“Really, at the end of the day, we are trying to upscale and change the equation on our survivability,” Lamontagne said at the roundtable. “We’ve got to be able to go into much higher threat environments. … and so how do we do that with both the force that we have and, potentially, a new platform?”

The cost of a future stealthy tanker remains a significant factor in work on NGAS.

“The Secretary of the Air Force approved another request out to industry that was sent out just a few weeks ago with a return from industry in just a couple of weeks, and that is really to help us better understand some cost estimates,” the AMC commander added. “When we did the first analysis of alternatives on NGAS last winter, I would say those cost estimates were really rough on what a signature-managed platform might look like.”

“Is it an F-35 level of exquisite stealth with a KC-135-size platform, or something in between? Tough to cost,” he continued. “So we got some really rough costs associated with that first analysis of alternatives. This is really, at its simplest, an attempt to refine those costs, go back out to industry, and figure out what’s in the realm of the possible at the right level of signature management, if we go down that road.”

Regardless, “we still know that … our current tanker force is not going to serve us well in a high threat environment,” Lamontagne stressed. “So, we’re either going to need a really long stick, right, weapons that can go a long way and keep the tanker out of the WEZ [weapons engagement zone], or we’re going to be able to need to go in there and not just survive, but thrive.”

The timeline for fielding any NGAS capabilities, especially new tankers, whether they are converted business jets, stealthy designs, or something else, is also unclear. The Air Force’s stated goal in the past has been to begin fielding next-generation aerial refueling platforms no later than 2040, and hopefully well before then.

It’s also important to point out here that U.S. military officials have been warning for years now already about strains on the Air Force’s existing tanker fleets and raising concerns about its capacity to meet even existing demands. This has been compounded in part by persistent technical issues and quality control problems with the KC-46. The Air Force, as well as the U.S. Navy, has been making increasing use of private contractors in recent years to bolster their ability to meet non-combat-related aerial refueling needs.

At least as of this week, “just about every option is on the table” to help meet the Air Force’s still evolving requirements for NGAS, according to Lamontagne.

Contact the author: [email protected]

The U.S. Air Force is currently looking toward a single next-generation airlifter to supplant both the C-17A Globemaster III and the C-5M Galaxy, starting in the mid-2040s. The service is still in the early stages of formulating its requirements for a Next Generation Airlift (NGAL) platform, but has already put emphasis on greater speed and operational flexibility, as well as the ability to better defend against growing threats when on the ground and in the air.

Air Force Gen. John Lamontagne, head of Air Mobility Command (AMC), discussed the current state of NGAL with TWZ and others at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2025 Air, Space, and Cyber Conference yesterday. As of the start of Fiscal Year 2025, the Air Force had 222 C-17As and 52 C-5Ms in its inventory.

The C-17A, which first entered service in 1995, has a top speed of around 520 miles per hour and a maximum payload capacity of some 82 tons, according to the official Air Force fact sheet. The much larger C-5Ms, which started their careers in the 1980s as C-5Bs and Cs, can carry up to 135 tons of cargo and/or personnel at up to around the same speed. Both types do typically cruise a slower speeds. They can also be refueled in flight to extend their range. Neither the C-17 nor the C-5 are currently in production.

As it stands now, NGAL is “basically a two-for-one to replace both the C-17 and the C-5,” Lamontagne said. “Driving that towards the mid-2040 timeline.”

“When I say two-for-one, we’re probably going to procure one aircraft,” he further clarified later on in the roundtable. “We won’t get a C-5 replacement and a C-17 replacement. There’ll be one airplane that does strategic airlift.”

When it comes to what the Air Force wants in that aircraft, the service has been working through what it calls a capabilities-based assessment (CBA) for NGAL.

“That capabilities-based assessment takes a look at what kind of defense systems do we need? What kind of tactical agility do we need? What kind of servicing do we need?” Lamontagne explained. “So we’ll see what that looks like.”

“As far as what we want in the next[-generation airlift] platform, we want agility, we want speed, we want to be able to operate in a higher threat environment,” he added. This includes “countermeasures that are effective against those threats that are coming from increasingly longer ranges.”

The Air Force has previously warned of the likelihood of a threat environment that includes anti-air missiles with ranges up to 1,000 miles by 2050. China, America’s current chief global competitor, has been particularly active in developing and fielding new air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles with ever greater reach. Russia has also been pursuing new capabilities in this regard.

Lamontagne also highlighted the growing threats American airlifters face on the ground, which are magnified by the time it can take to load and unload payloads, as well as refuel. Last year, AMC notably put out a call for options for future defensive systems that could be integrated directly into its cargo planes, along with its aerial refueling tanker fleets, to help shield them from ever-expanding drone threats, as you can read more about here.

“We’re obviously at a lot of risk on the ground, sitting on the ground somewhere,” the head of AMC explained. “So, [we] don’t want to sit on the ground for three hours. If we could refuel in a lot faster timeline than that, not that it takes three hours to refuel a C-17, but, you know, three minutes would be better than 30 minutes.”

“Right now, we know what we need to do and where we need to go,” he added, referring to the development of new defensive capabilities for aircraft across the command more generally. “We’ve got to develop the defensive systems, continue to develop them, and we’re doing a lot of tests and experimentation on that now, so that we can spiral it [out].”

Lamontagne also noted that the kinds of capabilities, in general terms, the Air Force wants for NGAL don’t necessarily “mix really, really well, and, so, what you prioritize and what you cherish will help define where we go” in terms of a future design.

The potential for NGAL to be a ‘system of systems’ rather than a single platform has been raised in the past. There are immediate questions about how a single aircraft would be able to supplant both the C-17 and the C-5, which are very different aircraft in form and function.

For instance, the C-17, despite its size, offers significant short and rough field performance, allowing it to deliver heavy payloads even in the absence of improved runways. The aircraft was designed to be able to bring in combat-ready forces, including tanks and other heavy armor, to landing zones at or at least near the front lines, as well as drop paratroopers into those same areas.

The C-5 can load cargo and personnel from the nose and tail ends, and do so simultaneously. In addition to just being able to carry larger payload volumes overall compared to the C-17, the Galaxy also offers a unique capability within the U.S. military for moving outsized and unusual payloads by air, including satellites and other space-related items.

Lamontagne acknowledged that NGAL could still potentially include multiple different designs, but also highlighted concerns about whether the Air Force “can afford, grandkids, kids, all of them.” The ability of the Air Force to pay for multiple new fleets of next-generation aircraft amid a slew of other modernization priorities, especially in the nuclear deterrence realm, has been repeatedly called into question in recent years, including by the service’s own top leadership.

NGAL is also currently limited to meeting next-generation strategic airlift requirements. Lamontagne said yesterday that the Air Force has at least two other lines of effort, NGAL-Little and Next Generation Intra-theater Airlift (NGIA), geared toward fulfilling future tactical airlift needs. C-130 variants are the service’s current tactical airlift platforms. Strategic airlift is generally described as being intertheater in nature, while tactical airlift is primarily focused on intratheater missions.

Above all else, Lamontagne stressed the importance of the Air Force being able to eventually retire the C-17 and the C-5 on its terms.

“The C-17 and C-5 … served us well for decades, but they’re not going to fly forever, and so we’d like to recapitalize those on our timeline,” he said. “If we look at what happened with the [C-]141 [Starlifter] after the Gulf War, it basically told us when it was done. We’d like to have a plan in place so when the service life starts to erode on the C-17, whether it’s wings, engines, or more, we’ve got a competition already going.”

It is important to remember that NGAL is hardly the first time the Air Force has explored concepts for advanced cargo aircraft, including stealthy designs and ones with vertical takeoff and landing capability. Much of this work over the years has been tied in with plans for next-generation tankers, something the Air Force is again pursuing now through its separate Next Generation Air Refueling System (NGAS) effort. TWZ has been calling attention to the U.S. military’s ever-growing need for more survivable tankers and airlifters for years now.

During yesterday’s roundtable, Lamontagne cited AMC’s role in the deployment of air and ground-based air defense assets to locations across the Middle East on several occasions last year and earlier this year as examples of the critical importance of strategic airlift and the need to modernize those capabilities. Those movements helped bolster the ability of U.S. forces to defend American interests in the region, as well as Israel. They were key to setting the stage for the Operation Midnight Hammer strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran in June. The C-17 fleet has already been under particular strain for some years now due to heavy demand as a result of a succession of major crises.

“Strategic lift is very critical, as you know, and that is the way that we at TRANSCOM usually initiate our most responsive force. We rely heavily on both the C-5 and the C-17, both of which are aging, both are very capable,” Air Force Gen. Randall Reed, head of that command, also told TWZ and others at a separate roundtable yesterday at the Air, Space, and Cyber Conference. “I am grateful to the Air Force for looking at any and all possible ways to invest in weapon system sustainment to make sure that we can continue to fly those for the near and the midterm.”

“It is also important that we start looking at what comes next. The environment is changing. We will need aircraft that have capabilities that we don’t have today, specifically to make sure that we’re connected,” Reed added. “And the Air Force is working real hard to provide that for us.”

Until NGAL is ready, in whatever form it ultimately takes, the C-17, in particular, will continue to be the Air Force’s strategic airlift workhorse. AMC is already in the process of adding new beyond-line-of-sight communications capabilities to those aircraft. As noted, the command has already been exploring new defensive capabilities for all of its fleets, including protecting them with drone wingmen, as well.

“Right now, I don’t think we’ll need to before the 2040s, but we might need to after that,” Gen. Lamontagne said in response to a question about potentially re-engining the C-17 fleet. “If we do a service life extension or something along those lines, we will certainly need to do something along those lines.”

“Right now, I think the C-17s we have, you know, working with the manufacturer, they’re working on improving, you know, both the efficiency and the performance, so getting a little more fuel efficient with the ones that we have, and a little more time on the wing with the ones that we have,” he added. “Right now, I think we’re in a pretty good place.”

Earlier this year, Boeing said it was in the very early stage of talks with at least one potential customer about restarting production of the C-17, or starting to produce a new derivative of that design. The C-17 line was shuttered in 2015.

“There are no current plans to restart the C-17,” Lamontagne said, but acknowledged it is something that has been discussed. “I think one step at a time, capabilities-based assessment, analysis of alternatives, competition.”

“[I’m] hoping, in the near term, next couple of years, few years, I’d say, [to] have another analysis of alternatives, this time on the next generation airlifter, instead of the next generation air refueling system,” he also said during the roundtable.

Overall, the Air Force is still in the early stages of the NGAL effort, but a path forward to a successor to the C-17 and the C-5 is now starting to take greater shape.

Contact the author: [email protected]

The U.S. Air Force has awarded a contract for the development and production of a new Next Generation Penetrator (NGP) bunker buster bomb. NGP is the planned successor to the 30,000-pound GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which became a household name after its first-ever real-world use against deeply-buried nuclear facilities in Iran during Operation Midnight Hammer earlier this year.

Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) recently announced that it had received the new NGP contract from the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s (AFLCMC) Munitions Directorate at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. ARA will be working on the new bunker buster bomb in close cooperation with Boeing, the current prime contractor for MOP. The stealthy B-2 bomber is currently the only aircraft cleared to employ MOPs operationally, and can only carry two of them on a single sortie. The future B-21 Raider stealth bomber is smaller than the B-2 and is expected to be able to carry a single MOP. Both the B-2 and B-21 could be in line to carry NGPs depending on when that munition is fielded. You can read more about the history of MOP in this past TWZ feature.

Under the 24-month deal, ARA will “serve as the System Design Agent for the development of a prototype air-to-ground Next Generation Penetrator weapon system,” according to a company press release. “ARA will also produce and test sub-scale and full-scale prototype munitions. This effort will evaluate capabilities against hard and deeply buried targets that pose critical challenges to U.S. national security.”

In addition, “leveraging decades of experience in guided and penetrating munitions, ARA will lead design maturation, while Boeing will drive tail kit development and support all-up-round integration.”

A specialized tail unit, designated the KMU-612/B, which contains the GPS-assisted inertial navigation system (INS) guidance package and other systems, is a key component of the current MOP. A BLU-127/B penetrating “warhead” is combined with the KMU-612/B, as well as other components, including advanced fuzes designed to help produce the maximum destructive effect after burrowing deep down to a target, to create a complete GBU-57/B bomb.

Further details about the NGP’s expected capabilities remain limited. A contracting notice that the Munitions Directorate at Eglin put out in February 2024 called for a bomb with a warhead weighing 22,000 pounds or less and that would be “capable of blast / frag[mentation] / and penetration effects.” However, the notice did not specify a desired gross weight or prospective dimensions for the entire munition.

The notice also called for a “terminal accuracy” of “CE90 w/in 2.2m both in GPS aided, degraded, and denied environments.” In layman’s terms, this means the munition needs to hit within 7.2 feet (2.2 meters) of a specified impact point at least 90 percent of the time, which is a very steep demand. GPS-assisted INS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs, on average, can hit within 16.4 feet (five meters) of designated target coordinates under optimal conditions, but this can grow to nearly 100 feet (30 meters) if GPS connectivity is lost, according to the Air Force.

“The USAF will consider novel, demonstrated, or fielded Guidance, Navigation & Control (GNC) technologies with viability for integration into a warhead guidance system design that can achieve repeatable, high accuracy performance in GPS aided, degraded, and/or denied environments,” the February 2024 contracting notice added. It also mentioned the “possible integration of embedded fuze technology,” but did not elaborate.

As TWZ regularly notes in reporting on the MOP, fuzing is a particularly important aspect of deep-penetrating munitions, especially if the exact location and/or layout of the target is not well-established ahead of a strike. Advanced fuzes with features like the ability to ‘count’ floors to determine depth and sense the ‘voids’ formed by underground mission spaces greatly increase the potential for maximum damage from a weapon like MOP or NGP.

Furthermore, “the prototype penetrator warhead design effort should allow integration of technologies acquired and lessons learned under previous penetrator warhead developments to meet performance requirements for the HDBT [Hard and Deeply Buried Target] target set.”

As TWZ previously reported, the Air Force has had an interest in an NGP bunker buster bomb since at least the early 2010s, which is when the MOP began to enter operational service. The service has notably expressed interest in a powered standoff capability, as well as enhanced and potentially scalable terminal effects in the past. An add-on rocket motor could also aid with penetration.

An NGP that can be employed from standoff ranges would offer extended reach, as well as help reduce the vulnerability of the launch platform. Unpowered MOPs have to be released close to the target, a key reason why the highly survivable B-2 is currently the only operational delivery method for those weapons. The Air Force has been separately warning about ever-growing air defense threats that will increasingly challenge even stealthy aircraft, especially in any future high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific.

As noted, the forthcoming B-21 is smaller than the B-2, and is only expected to be able to carry a single MOP rather than two at a time. Broadly speaking, the much larger planned size of the total Raider fleet will help mitigate the smaller payload capacity of those aircraft. At the same time, this could create a new incentive to, if possible, devise an NGP that is smaller and/or lighter while at least retaining similar effectiveness to the existing MOP.

During Operation Midnight Hammer, six B-2s dropped 12 MOPs on Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow, six each on just two impact points, with the successive bombs burrowing deeper and deeper to the actual target. If the same operation had been conducted using MOP-armed B-21s, twice as many bombers would’ve been necessary. As it stands, the exact results of the strike on Fordow remain a point of significant debate.

Air Force officials have already, unsurprisingly, made clear that lessons learned from Operation Midnight Hammer have been factoring into work on upgrades for the GBU-57/B, as well as planning for a follow-on to MOP. That operation also underscored the value that a conventional munition like MOP offers against targets that might otherwise only be reachable using a nuclear weapon.

“We are constantly looking at, whether it be those [MOP replacement options], or an advanced technology, or advanced tactics, to be able to get ahead and make sure, as the threat moves to defend, we have the ability to put the kit together that we can continue to have events like last Saturday night happen if we’re called upon again,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin said at a hearing before members of the Senate Appropriations Committee back on June 26, referring to the strikes on Iran. “It might be something different than the GBU-57, some advancement based on what the enemy might do.”

“This is not a static environment,” Allvin added at that time. “Now that we know that it was successful, I’m pretty sure that people who are potential adversaries might look at that and they may adapt.”

During the hearing in June, Allvin also said the Air Force was working to bolster its stocks of MOPs, which could continue to be an important part of the service’s arsenal even after the future NGP begins entering service.

Much still remains to be learned about the Air Force’s NGP plans, but with the new contract awarded to ARA, the service is set to have its first full-scale prototypes within the next two years.

Contact the author: [email protected]

The U.S. Air Force’s top officer in the Pacific says a key takeaway from China’s huge military parade tomorrow will be that “we are not deterred.” Several new Chinese air combat drones and air and missile defense systems, as well as a host of other advanced capabilities, will be showcased at the event in Beijing, as TWZ has been reporting on already.

Air Force Gen. Kevin Schneider, head of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), offered his own strategic signaling on the forthcoming Chinese parade during a virtual talk hosted today by the Air & Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. Schneider was responding to a direct question from Aviation Week‘s Steve Trimble, who specifically highlighted the new air combat drones, as well as the HQ-29 high-end anti-ballistic missile system, that are among the Chinese systems set to make their official public debut tomorrow.

“Nations like China, and North Korea, and Russia, and others do these kind of events. There’s certainly a big focus on messaging,” Schneider said. “You know, messaging is certainly a factor there, but I think the takeaway for this is we are not deterred.”

“We will continue to stay ahead of the challenges. We will continue to find ways to advance our capabilities and to deal with potential adversary systems as they are developed and fielded,” he continued. “I maintain a high degree of optimism that we have been successful in doing that, and we will continue to be successful in finding ways to mitigate threats by others as they are developed, and advancing our own capabilities, to be able to break down doors, to get into anti-access area/denial areas, and to be able to operate in weapons engagement zones, something that we have done as a nation since day one.”

Earlier in the talk, Schneider had also offered a basic rubric for understanding deterrence, which he said was imparted to him by a former head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM).

“He described deterrence as a bit of a mathematical equation. It was capability times willingness times messaging. And his point was, if any of those factors are zero, then deterrence is zero. It wasn’t an addition problem. It was a multiplication problem.”

“Within that, capability is the outsized factor in deterrence,” he added. “So, finding ways that we can continue to improve our positions, our capabilities, and to be able to adapt ahead of what a potential adversary is doing, is by far the most important of those factors.”

Schneider specifically name-checked the B-21 Raider stealth bomber and the F-47 sixth-generation fighter as examples of how the Air Force is advancing its capabilities. New Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones are another centerpiece of the Air Force’s future plans, including in partnership with future crewed aircraft like the F-47 and B-21.

“By and large, it’s China that occupies the main focus of our attention,” including the “growing size and capability of the People’s Liberation Army [PLA],” Schneider acknowledged. He also highlighted “the aggressive behaviors that go along with that, and that plays out in the West Philippine Sea, against the Philippines, on an almost daily basis, as well as … in and around Taiwan, with the multi-domain pressure activities that take place with regularity.”

The remarks from the current PACAF commander are in line with other comments in recent years from senior Air Force officers about the capabilities of PLA, especially its growing fleet of J-20 stealth fighters.

“It’s [the J-20] not anything to lose a lot of sleep over,” Air Force Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, then head of PACAF, told members of the media, including TWZ, on the sidelines of the Air & Space Force Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference back in 2022. “Certainly, we’re watching them closely and seeing how they felt and how they operate them.”

“Well, I’m like Gen. Wilsbach,” now-retired Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown, then Air Force Chief of Staff, had said while speaking separately at the same event. “[The J-20 is] not something to lose a lot of sleep over, but I’m gonna pay attention to it.”

“I don’t think that it’s a dominating aircraft at this point, compared to what we have [in terms of stealthy F-22 Raptors and F-35 Lightnings],” Wilsbach said at the 2023 Air, Space & Cyber Conference. “They’ve done some good copying… pretty much most of the technology from that airplane [the J-20] was stolen from the U.S.”

Wilsbach was most recently head of Air Combat Command (ACC) and had been expected to retire soon, but is now reportedly among the contenders to succeed Gen. David Allvin as Air Force Chief of Staff.

All this being said, China has been pushing ahead with its own slew of new and advanced airpower developments in recent years. This is underscored by the air combat drones, or mockups thereof, that will be officially shown for the first time at the parade tomorrow.

Two of the new Chinese air combat drones, seen in the picture below, notably reflect the same kind of dichotomy, broadly speaking, in terms of configuration and performance, that has been seen in the pair of designs currently being developed for the U.S. Air Force CCA program.

The GJ-11 Sharp Sword stealthy flying-wing uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV), or further iterations of that design, including ones intended for naval operations from carriers and big deck amphibious ships, will also be on display at the event. The GJ-11 represents a capability set that the Chinese are investing in heavily, but that the U.S. military continues to eschew completely, at least publicly. This is despite the United States being a leader in that arena for decades, as you can read more about in this seminal TWZ feature.

All of this reflects China’s ever-more prominent position in the uncrewed aviation space. This was further punctuated this year by the emergence of what appears to be a very large, high-altitude, long-endurance, stealthy flying wing-type drone, which TWZ was first to report on and that may now be flying.

Crewed military aviation developments have also continued apace in China. This includes the J-36 and J-XDS (also referred to as the J-50) next-generation crew combat jets that broke cover last December, followed shortly thereafter by a new jet-powered airborne early warning and control aircraft based on the Y-20 airlifter. Just last month, another new Chinese stealth tactical jet design, which may or may not be piloted, emerged. A two-seat variant of the J-20, which would be well suited to the airborne drone controller role, and the J-35, a next-generation carrier-based fighter, also look poised to enter service.

As noted earlier, the parade in Beijing tomorrow will serve as a spotlight for a host of other advanced PLA capabilities, including new ballistic and cruise missiles, air and missile defense systems, armored vehicles, and uncrewed maritime platforms. Many of these systems factor directly into the Chinese anti-access and aerial denial ‘bubbles’ that Gen. Schneider mentioned as being among the challenges the Air Force will need to stay ahead of in order to succeed in any future high-end fight in the Pacific. This is also part of the expanding and evolving threat ecosystem facing U.S. airbases and other facilities across the region.

“I think there’s a couple of takeaways for us and things that we continue to take a look at [when it comes to base defense and resilience],” Schneider also said during today’s talk. “One is detection and sensing, our ability to recognize that our attacks are inbound, or even before they’re inbound, how an enemy or a potential enemy is starting to posture their forces. So indication and warning, and those capabilities that give us indication and warnings.”

Then there is “our ability to flush, our ability to get aircraft into the air quickly, to put fuel in aircraft, to put munitions on aircraft,” he continued. “As an outcome of that, [there is] our ability to repair runways, and what it is that we need for rapid airfield damage repair capability, whether it’s pre-staging equipment or new and innovative ways of putting fixes and taking holes and turning them into usable surfaces again.”

The PACAF commander also highlighted the ability to rapidly deploy forces, something the Air Force is focused heavily on as part of its Agile Combat Employment (ACE) concepts of operations, as well as active air and missile defenses provided by other services. Only a brief mention was given to talk of more physical hardening of facilities against attacks, which remains a source of very heated debate within the Air Force and the rest of the U.S. military, as you can read more about here.

Altogether, Gen. Schneider’s comments today are certainly meant to underscore confidence, at least publicly, that the U.S. Air Force and the rest of the U.S. military remain ahead of the PLA on the capability curve. At the same time, despite the continued downplaying by American officials, there are clear signs of growing concern about more and more advanced Chinese military developments.

Contact the author: [email protected]

The U.S. Air Force is hoping to see a second pre-production B-21 Raider stealth bomber take to the skies before the end of the year. The service also says it has conducted four more flight tests of the AGM-181A Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) cruise missile, which will be a key nuclear weapon for the B-21, so far this year.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Andrew Gebara, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, provided updates on the B-21 program and other topics today during a virtual talk hosted by the Air & Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

“So this is an event-based process, based on the test team, the contractor, [and] the program office. I believe it [the first flight of the second B-21] will happen by the end of the year, but we’re not going to ever give them an artificial date that they have to make if it doesn’t bring the test program along to where they need to be,” Gebara said. “We’re going to proceed as we can, efficiently, effectively, and with a sense of urgency, but we’re also going to be event-based.

“That’s really been the secret sauce to the B-21 right now, is no undue pressures. Let them do what they’re doing, and they’ll get us the world’s best aircraft here,” Gebara added.

In July, Air Force Gen. Thomas Bussiere, head of Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), had told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the second B-21 could take to the skies “shortly.” The service had previously told that outlet that its goal was for two B-21s to be flying in 2026.

The first of six pre-production B-21s made its maiden flight in November 2023. As of September 2024, the bomber was said to be flying around two sorties every week from Edwards Air Force Base in California in support of ongoing testing.

The B-21’s manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, has also delivered two non-flying airframes to help with the test campaign. As of January, Northrop Grumman had received two contracts for low-rate initial production of additional B-21s, as well.

“The B-21 [program] is producing, its results-oriented in flight tests, basically on time, [and] basically on budget,” Gen. Gebara added in his remarks today.

U.S. military officials and members of Congress have described the Raider as a model acquisition program for years now. The Air Force’s goal is to begin flying B-21s operationally before the end of the decade.

When asked today about the expected size of the B-21 fleet, Gen. Gebara said that work is still ongoing to reach a firm number. The Air Force’s stated plan now is to acquire at least 100 Raiders, but that figure is widely expected to grow. Congress notably included $4.5 billion in funding to help accelerate B-21 production in a reconciliation funding bill, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law in July. The Pentagon is asking for billions more to support the Raider program in its 2026 Fiscal Year budget request.

“I think the work you’ve seen from the Congress to get us those additional funding [sic] tells me a couple things that are very important. One is, it’s going to go a long ways to be able to help us facilitize and get to the point where we can build this thing at scale,” Gebara said. “I think the other piece to it, though, is it’s an absolute show of confidence by the Congress that we’re on the right track on this program. We’ve done a lot of work to hold changes to the minimum, to allow the program office and the contractor to get after it, and it’s paying dividends.”

The final B-21 fleet “numbers will absolutely be reliant on the work STRATCOM [U.S. Strategic Command] is doing, on what is sufficient,” Gebara added. “But it’s important to remember this is also the backbone of our conventional force. And so we aren’t building out B-21 numbers only for our [nuclear] triad. We’re also building it out for our long-range [conventional] strike capability. And so all that will that will go into it.”

Gebara’s latter points here are directly in line with comments from Air Force Maj. Gen. Jason Armagost at a separate Mitchell Institute virtual talk earlier this month. Armagost, who is commander of the Eighth Air Force, which oversees all of the Air Force’s current bomber fleets, spoke at length about the new operational possibilities that will come from having a substantial number of B-21s, particularly in light of the ‘silver bullet’ nature of the current B-2 force. The Air Force has just 19 B-2s, not all of which are ever available for taskings, conventional or nuclear, at any one time. This inherently imposes limitations, which the B-21 is not expected to be burdened with, despite being a smaller aircraft with less ordnance capacity per bomber, as you can read more about in detail here.

“Our bomber force right now is optimized for raids and small-scale, a few nights at a time [type operations],” Gen. Gebra said today, something that was highlighted by the Operation Midnight Hammer strikes on nuclear sites in Iran in June. “There’s no guarantee that’ll be the case in the future.”

All this being said, the B-21 will still have a critical nuclear deterrent role, including as a launch platform for the stealthy AGM-181 LRSO cruise missile. The LRSO is also set to be part of the future arsenal for the Air Force’s B-52 bombers, which are being deeply upgraded, overall, as you can learn more about here.

“Our LRSO missile, which will go on our bomber force, has had four successful flight tests in 2025 alone,” Gebera said during today’s talk. “Based on time, based on budget, it’s going very well.”

Flight testing of the LRSO has already been underway for years. However, other details about the highly classified missile, which Raytheon is been developing, remain limited. The Air Force released the first-ever public rendering of the missile, seen below, in June. You can find TWZ‘s previous analysis of that image, which may not necessarily reflect the current design, here.

The B-21 and LRSO are also both part of a larger Long-Range Strike (LRS) family of systems, much of which remains in the classified realm, as TWZ has explored in the past.

By all indications, the B-21 program continues to make steady progress, with a second Raider set to take to the skies sometime in the coming weeks or months.

Contact the author: [email protected]

U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command (AMC) on Monday released the findings of investigations into three mishaps involving the troubled KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tanker that cost the service nearly $23 million. The incidents all involved nozzle binding, a situation in which the tanker’s refueling boom nozzle gets stuck or binds with the receiving aircraft’s receptacle. 

Two of the incidents occurred in 2022 and a third in 2024. A fourth mishap took place July 8, 2025 and is still being investigated, AMC stated. There were no fatalities, injuries, or civilian property damage in any of these mishaps.

The first of these nozzle binding mishaps took place on Oct. 15, 2022. A KC-46A Pegasus assigned to the 305th Air Mobility Wing and operated by the 2nd Air Refueling Squadron, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey and an F-15E Strike Eagle assigned to the 4th Fighter Wing and operated by the 335th Fighting Squadron, Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina, were conducting routine air refueling operations. 

“During the mishap, a nozzle binding accident occurred during a breakaway which resulted in the air-refueling boom (ARB) striking the tail section of the KC-46A,” AMC said in a statement.

The Accident Investigation Board (AIB) found that a “preponderance of the evidence” showed one cause for the mishap. 

“Due to a limitation of the Air Refueling Boom (ARB) control system,” the KC-46 boom operator “inadvertently placed a radial force on the ARB that caused the nozzle to become bound in the receiver’s receptacle,” according to the AIB. “As a result, the bound forces exceeded the structural limitations of the ARB and caused a rapid upward movement of the ARB when released, striking the tail cone” of the Pegasus.

In addition, two other factors “substantially contributed” to this incident.

The Pegasus pilot failed to notify either the plane’s boom operator or the Strike Eagle’s pilot about an “engine power reduction” on the refueler. 

“This action, combined with the known ARB stiffness limitation and the resulting high engine power setting on [the F-15E], resulted in “a rapid forward movement” of that jet relative to the Pegasus.

In addition, “due to a limitation of the automated boom control system, the ARB entered an uncontrollable state during its upward motion toward the aircraft tail, disabling the boom control laws which could have slowed the rate at which the ARB struck the tail cone, substantially contributing to the mishap,” according to Col. Chad Cisewski, who led this AIB.

The estimated damages to the aircraft were $8,307,257.93, according to AMC.

Less than a month later, on Nov. 7 2022, there was another nozzle binding incident while a KC-46A Pegasus assigned to the 305th Air Mobility Wing and operated by the 2nd Air Refueling Squadron was refueling a F-22A Raptor assigned to the 94th Fighter Squadron, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. The flight was in support of a joint-force training exercise from Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.

“During the second air refueling attempt of the sortie, the KC-46A experienced a nozzle binding event during a breakaway with the F-22A, which resulted in damage to the ARB nozzle,” AMC said in its statement. “The bound forces exceeded the structural limitations of the ARB nozzle, damaging the nozzle beyond repair.”

The AIB determined “by a preponderance of the evidence, one cause for this mishap,” the report stated. The boom operator “made manual control inputs to the ARB which caused a radial force to be applied to the ARB nozzle, causing it to become bound inside the receiver’s air refueling receptacle.”

As a result, “the bound forces exceeded the structural limitations of the ARB nozzle, damaging the nozzle beyond repair.”

Two other factors “substantially contributed to the mishap,” according to the AIB. The first was “the failure” of the Raptor’s pilot “to account for the KC-46A Stiff Boom characteristics, causing a rapid forward movement” of the fighter relative to the refueler. The stiff boom probem is a long-standing issue, which you can read more about here.

In addition, the boom operator was “unable to verify that the ARB nozzle was clear of [the Raptor’s] air refueling receptacle prior to making ARB control inputs, substantially contributing to the mishap.”

The mishap caused an estimated $103,295.12 in damages, AMC noted.

A third nozzle binding incident took place Aug. 21, 2024, when a KC-46A Pegasus assigned to the 22nd Air Refueling Wing and operated by the 931st Air Refueling Wing was refueling an F-15E assigned to the 366th Fighter Wing in support Operation Nobel Eagle, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) aerospace warning, control, and defense missions in North America. The aircraft were helping to enforce a temporary flight restriction related to a presidential visit. Then-President Joe Biden was reportedly vacationing in Santa Ynez, California at the time. The tanker and one of the fighters were forced to make emergency landings — the F-15E twice having to abort those recoveries before finally touching down at an alternative location. You can read more about that in our initial report here and listen to the audio below.

During the fourth air refueling attempt of the sortie, “the KC-46A experienced nozzle binding of the boom in the F-15E receptacle,” AMC explained. “Upon release, the boom rapidly flew upward, striking the bottom aft portion of the KC-46A, and violently oscillated left and right.”

The boom striking the aircraft and “ensuing forceful oscillations resulted in critical failure of the boom shaft structure, portions of which detached from the KC-46A in flight,” the command continued. “The KC-46A crew declared an in-flight emergency and returned to Travis AFB. Emergency response personnel met the crew upon arrival.”

The boom fell in an open field about 13 miles northeast of Santa Maria, California, with no injuries or fatalities reported, the AIB explained.

The AIB found, “by a preponderance of the evidence, that the cause of the mishap was the [boom operator’s] control inputs to the air refueling flight control system, resulting in an excessive fly-up rate of the boom, which struck the aircraft empennage and caused a critical failure of the boom shaft structure,” according to the report.

There were four other factors that “substantially contributed to the mishap,” the AIB board president ruled. 

• Excessive closure rate and instability of the Strike Eagle.
• The boom operator’s “attempted contact outside the standard [aerial refueling] envelope for the F-15E.
• The F-15E pilot’s “failure to recognize and initiate immediate breakaway procedures, which further delayed positive separation from the KC-46A,” and
• The boom operator’s “lack of knowledge on boom flight control logic and its effects on the boom flight control surfaces prevented the [boom operator] from recognizing the influence of Flight Control Stick (FCS) inputs and programmed boom limit functions during operations, especially during nozzle binding situations.”

The estimated damages to the aircraft were $14,381,303, according to AMC.

The Air Force did not release details about the July 9, 2025 incident. However, at the time, 2nd Lt. Samantha Bostick, Deputy Chief of Public Affairs for the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell Air Force Base, told us what happened.

“A KC-46A Pegasus from McConnell Air Force Base declared an In-flight Emergency July 8, while operating over the eastern United States, refueling F-22s,” she said. “The crew had to make the decision to land at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C., and has landed safely there. The aircraft will remain there for the time being.”

You can listen below as the crew of the KC-46, callsign FELL 81 and serial number 17-46033, alerts the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility at Virginia Capes (FACSFAC VACAPES) about losing the boom. FACSFAC VACAPES is better known by its callsign, Giant Killer, and helps monitor for threats and otherwise manage the airspace off the east coast of the United States.

In general, KC-46s are no stranger to issues with their booms. The boom and the control system for it have been a source of serious and persistent technical issues for the Pegasus fleet for years now. A fix for the KC-46’s particularly troublesome remote vision system (RVS), which boom operators in the tanker’s main cabin use to perform their work, is now unlikely to be finished before summer 2027, roughly three years behind schedule, according to Defense News.

The nozzle binding issue is clearly a problem in many respects, not just in terms of the dangers posed by booms breaking away or impacting the receiver or the tanker’s airframe, but it also poses a real danger to those on the ground. Beyond that, the reliability of any type during critical missions is always a concern, as such a mishap could curtail a high-priority mission or the risk of it occurring requires extra increasingly precious tankers being assigned to those operations as a contingency. What we don’t know is how common this is in comparison to the KC-135 or the recently retired KC-10. Hopefully, we can get more clarity in this regard now that the findings of these mishaps are published.

We will update you when we find out more.

Contact the author: [email protected]