Het onderzoek bracht verschillende smokkelmethoden aan het licht, waarbij cocaïne en cannabis vanuit Afrika en het Amerikaanse continent via passagiersvluchten naar België werden gesmokkeld.
Start van het onderzoek
Het Parket Halle-Vilvoorde opende het onderzoek in februari 2025, nadat op Brussels Airport achtergelaten sporttassen met ongeveer 30 kilogram cocaïne werden aangetroffen. De betrokken vlucht was afkomstig uit Cancun (Mexico).
Het onderzoek leidde de speurders naar een persoon die zich verdacht gedroeg in de bagagehal. De man had wel een ticket geboekt maar nooit een vlucht genomen. Via het ticket kon hij zich toegang verschaffen tot de bagagezaal. Deze verdachte maakt deel uit van de personen die op 30 september werden gearresteerd.
Goedkope vliegtickets voor ‘uithalers’
Verder onderzoek van de FGP Halle-Vilvoorde, onder leiding van de onderzoekrechter, bracht een netwerk van verdachten in beeld. De criminele organisatie liet telkens een lid meereizen op de vlucht waarop de verdovende middelen werden vervoerd. Deze koeriers reisden met bagage met drugs vanuit Afrika of het Amerikaanse continent naar Brussels Airport. De koeriers verlieten de luchthaven zonder de betrokken reiskoffers op te halen, om zelf niet het risico te lopen om met de verdovende middelen door de controles te moeten gaan.
Hiervoor werden andere personen ingeschakeld. Deze zogenaamde "uithalers" boekten op het laatste moment goedkope vliegtuigtickets, evenwel zonder de intentie daadwerkelijk te reizen. Met deze tickets kregen zij toegang tot de bagagehal, waar zij de koffers met verdovende middelen van de bagageband haalden. Deze personen werden vooral gerekruteerd via sociale media.
De uithalers brachten de koffers vervolgens naar afgesproken locaties in de omgeving van de luchthaven, waar deze opnieuw werden overgedragen aan koeriers van de criminele organisatie.
Eerste arrestatie in het onderzoek
In april 2025 – twee maanden na de start van het onderzoek - kon een verdachte door de Douane gecontroleerd worden bij het verlaten van de bagagehal. In een reiskoffer afkomstig uit Canada werd ongeveer 30 kilogram cannabis aangetroffen. De verdachte werd gearresteerd en door de onderzoeksrechter onder aanhoudingsmandaat geplaatst.
Enkele weken later werd een andere verdachte onderschept met twee reiskoffers, die samen ongeveer 55 kilogram cocaïne bevatten. Later zou blijken dat ook de eerder gearresteerde verdachte betrokken zou zijn bij deze smokkeloperatie.
Internationale vertakkingen
Naarmate het onderzoek vorderde, werden duidelijke verbanden vastgesteld met Frankrijk en Nederland. Verschillende leden van de criminele organisatie reisden frequent tussen de drie landen.
Om die reden werd een nauwe samenwerking opgezet met de Franse en Nederlandse autoriteiten. Europol en Eurojust ondersteunden de internationale coördinatie van het onderzoek. Zo konden ook buitenlandse leden van het netwerk worden geïdentificeerd.
Nieuwe smokkelmethode met luchthavenmedewerkers
Nadat meerdere uithalingen werden onderschept en verschillende verdachten werden gearresteerd, wijzigde de organisatie haar werkwijze.
Er werden luchthavenmedewerkers ingeschakeld om de drugs uit de bagage te halen nog voordat de koffers op de bagageband terechtkwamen. Vervolgens werd de lege koffer alsnog op de bagageband geplaatst. De passagier verliet daarop de luchthaven met een lege koffer, terwijl de drugs buiten het gecontroleerde bagagecircuit naar buiten werden gesmokkeld. Op die manier kon de criminele organisatie de controles van de veiligheidsdiensten omzeilen.
Intensieve samenwerking met Douane en Luchtvaartpolitie cruciaal voor het onderzoek
Verschillende leden van de criminele organisatie maakten gebruik van valse of frauduleus verkregen identiteitsdocumenten. Hierdoor reisden sommige verdachten onder verschillende identiteiten, wat de identificatie van de betrokken personen aanzienlijk bemoeilijkte.
Analyses van de douanediensten leverden cruciale informatie op voor het onderzoek. Verschillende leden van de organisatie konden zo aan elkaar worden gelinkt en meerdere smokkeloperaties konden in kaart worden gebracht.
De samenwerking tussen de verschillende veiligheidsdiensten op de luchthaven, nl. de Federale Gerechtelijke Politie, de Douane en de Luchtvaartpolitie, vormde dan ook een belangrijke pijler binnen het onderzoek.
Gecoördineerde actiedag met hulp van Europol leidt tot zware klap voor organisatie
Na maandenlang intensief speurwerk kwam het op 30 september 2026 tot een grootschalige internationale actie in België, Frankrijk en Nederland. Deze werd ondersteund door Europol.
Tijdens de actiedag werden:
27 huiszoekingen uitgevoerd, waarvan 21 in België en 6 in Frankrijk;
21 verdachten gearresteerd, waarvan 19 in België en 2 in Frankrijk;
Bij de huiszoekingen werden onder meer volgende goederen in beslag genomen:
meer dan 57 000 euro cash en crypto wallets;
8 voertuigen;
1 luxehorloge en juwelen;
1 geldtelmachine;
2 handvuurwapens en 1 alarmpistool;
diverse bewijselementen die verder onderzocht worden.
In Nederland werden eerder ook al 2 verdachten gearresteerd.
Onderzoek loopt verder
Voor de in Frankrijk en Nederland gearresteerde verdachten zullen uitleveringsprocedures worden opgestart. De in België gearresteerde verdachten worden voorgeleid bij de onderzoeksrechter, die zal beslissen over hun verdere aanhouding.
Het onderzoek wordt nu verdergezet met als doel alle betrokkenen binnen het internationale netwerk te identificeren en vervolgen en hun vermogen te laten verbeurdverklaren.
"De laatste tijd krijgen we veel telefoontjes van burgers die het slachtoffer zijn geworden van vishing-oplichting", zegt commissaris Christophe Axen, adjunct-directeur van de Regional Computer Crime Unit (RCCU) van de Federale Gerechtelijke Politie van Luik.
Bij deze techniek, die is ontstaan uit de samentrekking van 'voice' en 'phishing', doen criminelen zich voor als medewerkers van een bank of een IT-beveiligingsdienst. Het doel? Gevoelige informatie bemachtigen en vervolgens banktransacties uitvoeren.
168 000 euro verdwenen
Onlangs is een inwoner van Virton hiervan het slachtoffer geworden. Terwijl hij op een pakje wachtte, ontving hij een e-mail die eruitzag als een bericht van het bezorgbedrijf, waarin hem werd voorgesteld om een nieuwe bezorgafspraak te maken. Daartoe werd de inwoner van Virton verzocht om extra kosten te betalen door zijn bankkaartgegevens door te geven.
Later werd de man gebeld door iemand die zich voordeed als een medewerker van de fraudedienst van zijn bank. Hij vertelde hem dat hij het slachtoffer was geworden van oplichting en dat hij zijn rekeningen moest blokkeren. Omdat hij ervan overtuigd was dat hij met een legitieme gesprekspartner communiceerde, terwijl het in feite om 'vishing' ging, gaf hij zijn klantnummer door.
Een paar dagen later kreeg hij een zeer onaangename verrassing te zien: er waren in 48 uur tijd maar liefst 42 transacties uitgevoerd op zijn rekeningen. In totaal werd 168 000 euro verduisterd.
Naast het indrukwekkende bedrag is het bijzondere aan deze zaak dat er rekeningen van dezelfde bank als die van het slachtoffer zijn gebruikt om het geld door te sluizen. "Doorgaans maken de oplichters het geld rechtstreeks over naar rekeningen in het buitenland om vervolging te bemoeilijken. Maar in dit geval zouden ze blijkbaar gebruik hebben gemaakt van geldezels, mensen die hun rekening tijdelijk ter beschikking stelden om frauduleuze transacties uit te voeren en de sporen uit te wissen", legt Christophe Axen uit.
Enkele tips die nuttig zijn om te herhalen
Onze cyberexpert geeft enkele belangrijke tips om je tegen dit fenomeen te beschermen:
Geef je pincodes of wachtwoorden nooit door;
Klik niet op verdachte links die je via e-mail of sms ontvangt;
Als iemand beweert namens je bank te bellen, hang dan op en neem zelf contact op met je bank via het officiële nummer;
Bevestig nooit een banktransactie die je niet vrijwillig hebt geïnitieerd en waarvan je het doel niet volledig begrijpt;
Ben je het slachtoffer geworden van oplichting? Neem onmiddellijk contact op met CardStop/FraudStop (078 170 170) en doe aangifte bij de Lokale Politie. Bewaar alle voor het onderzoek relevante elementen en stel een chronologisch overzicht van de feiten op om het begrip van het misdrijf te vergemakkelijken.
Sinds mei 2026 werd hij door het FAST-team van de Federale Politie zowel op de lijst van Belgium's Most Wanted als EU Most Wanted geplaatst. Gezien de ernst van de feiten en hun maatschappelijke impact werd hij als prioriteit beschouwd voor de Belgische en Europese opsporingsdiensten.
Gedurende meerdere maanden werd een intensief internationaal onderzoek gevoerd onder leiding van het Parket van Brussel. Door de inspanningen van de betrokken onderzoekers en de nauwe samenwerking binnen het ENFAST-netwerk kon zijn verblijfplaats uiteindelijk worden gelokaliseerd. Verschillende landen hebben actief bijgedragen aan het onderzoek, waarin aanzienlijke operationele middelen en manuren werden geïnvesteerd.
Deze arrestatie onderstreept dat de aanpak van het ernstige geweld dat verschillende Brusselse wijken treft een prioriteit blijft voor politie en justitie. Zij geeft een duidelijk signaal dat de daders van zware geweldsfeiten, ook wanneer zij zich in het buitenland bevinden, opgespoord en voor justitie gebracht zullen worden.
Dankzij haar veelzijdige ervaring, vooral op het gebied van jongeren en zedendelicten, bleek zij de geknipte persoon om de cel verder uit te bouwen.
Voor ze bij de politie aan de slag ging, had commissaris De Boeck-Desmedt al een carrière van tien jaar in het bedrijfsleven achter de rug. Ze was actief in de toeristische sector en stapte daarna over naar het bankwezen.
In 2008 gooide ze het roer om en ging ze een nieuwe professionele uitdaging aan bij de politie. "Ik ben begonnen als inspecteur bij politiezone Marlow (Ukkel, Watermaal-Bosvoorde en Oudergem), waar ik gedurende twee jaar verschillende taken uitvoerde: interventie, heterdaadpatrouilles, slachtofferbejegening en het helpteam. Je kan het helpteam een beetje vergelijken met het stressteam, maar dan op lokaal niveau. Na twee jaar maakte ik de overstap naar de lokale recherche, waar ik eerst bij de drugssectie werkte en daarna bij de crimesectie."
Een nieuwe mijlpaal volgde toen ze slaagde voor het examen van hoofdinspecteur. Ze verhuisde van PZ Marlow naar PZ Zuid. “Ik startte er bij de jeugdsectie, waar ik referentiepersoon was voor intrafamiliaal geweld en de sectie actief was in dossiers rond pedofilie en pedopornografie waarbij minderjarige slachtoffers betrokken waren. Vervolgens ging ik aan de slag als Officier Lokale Politie.”
Internationale samenwerking als drijfveer
Haar gedrevenheid bracht haar ertoe het examen van commissaris af te leggen. Toen de functie van diensthoofd van de cel Child Abuse vacant werd, aarzelde ze geen moment om zich kandidaat te stellen. "Ik wilde graag actief blijven binnen het gerechtelijke werkveld, omdat ik dat bijzonder interessant vind. Tegelijk was ik niet meteen op zoek naar een klassieke recherchefunctie. Wat mij in deze job vooral aansprak, was het internationale aspect. We hebben veel contact met verschillende landen. Maar bovenal leveren we elke dag een belangrijke bijdrage aan de strijd tegen kindermisbruik en kunnen we echt een verschil maken in het leven van kinderen", vertelt Sandrine.
Balanceren tussen dossiers en samenwerking
"Het operationele werk vormt uiteraard de kern van onze opdracht, maar de rol van de cel gaat veel verder dan onderzoeken alleen", verduidelijkt Sandrine. "We werken nauw samen met nationale en internationale partners, nemen deel aan verschillende expert- en preventienetwerken en volgen nieuwe fenomenen op de voet. Onze contacten met buitenlandse partners en de samenwerking met organisaties zoals Europol en Interpol zorgen ervoor dat we voortdurend kennis kunnen uitwisselen en inspelen op nieuwe ontwikkelingen. Die combinatie maakt het werk bijzonder boeiend, maar brengt ook heel wat verantwoordelijkheden met zich mee."
“Tegelijk blijft het belangrijk om aandacht te hebben voor de mensen achter de dossiers. De collega's beschikken over een enorme expertise en werken zeer zelfstandig. Gezien het grote aantal meldingen en onderzoeken blijft het een uitdaging om de werkdruk beheersbaar te houden en tegelijk hetzelfde hoge kwaliteitsniveau te handhaven.”
Kies ervoor hen te zien. Zet kinderen weer in beeld
Van 12 oktober tot 30 november 2026 organiseert ECLAG (European Child Sexual Abuse Legislation Advocacy Group) een Europese actieweek rond de bescherming van kinderen tegen online seksueel misbruik en uitbuiting. Met de campagne Choose to See Them wil de organisatie beleidsmakers eraan herinneren dat achter elk beeld van seksueel misbruik een echt kind schuilgaat. Tegelijk roept ECLAG op tot een sterker wettelijk kader dat online platformen meer verantwoordelijkheid geeft bij het opsporen van misbruikmateriaal, het aanpakken van online grooming en het beschermen van kinderen in een steeds digitalere samenleving.
In het kader van de campagne ging ECLAG op zoek naar nationale boegbeelden (national champions) die de campagne wilden ondersteunen met een korte video. Ook Sandrine werd gevraagd om haar medewerking te verlenen. "In de video moesten we 'I choose to see them' zeggen en daarnaast nog een korte boodschap inspreken in een nationale taal. Ik heb uiteindelijk drie versies opgenomen: één in het Engels, één in het Nederlands en één in het Frans."
Voor Sandrine was de keuze om deel te nemen snel gemaakt. "De vraag kwam via Child Focus, maar ik heb geen moment geaarzeld om deel te nemen. Achter elk beeld schuilt een echt kind. In vaak complexe juridische en technische discussies dreigt dat soms uit het oog te worden verloren. Net daarom vond ik het belangrijk om die boodschap mee uit te dragen", besluit Sandrine.
De operatie bouwt voort op een initiatief dat in 2024 binnen Benelux-verband werd gelanceerd en inmiddels is uitgegroeid tot een Europees samenwerkingsverband.
General aviation omvat alle burgerluchtvaartactiviteiten die niet behoren tot de reguliere lijnvluchten, chartervervoer of de militaire luchtvaart. Het gaat meer specifiek om privé-, sport-, les- en zakenvluchten.
Ook dit vliegverkeer kan worden misbruikt voor criminele doeleinden, bijvoorbeeld voor het smokkelen van drugs en andere illegale goederen of het verplaatsen van crimineel geld. Vooral kleinere luchthavens kunnen door hun beperkte schaal en infrastructuur aantrekkelijk zijn voor criminele activiteiten. Silent Skies wil de risico’s binnen deze sector beter in kaart brengen en er gericht tegen optreden.
Verdachte vluchten geselecteerd op basis van risicoanalyse
Voor deze derde editie van Silent Skies lag de focus op vluchten afkomstig uit onder meer Zuid-Amerika, West-Afrika, Noordwest-Afrika en Canada. Op basis van gezamenlijke risicoanalyses werden verdachte vluchten geselecteerd voor verdere controle.
Tijdens de vijfdaagse actie werden 47 vluchten als ‘verdacht’ bestempeld. Daarop voerden politie- en douanediensten in de deelnemende landen controles uit. Bij de controle van een privévlucht op Brussels Airport werd meer dan 100.000 euro in verschillende valuta aangetroffen en in beslag genomen. De Federale Gerechtelijke Politie en het parket van Halle-Vilvoorde hebben een onderzoek naar witwassen geopend.
Aan de operatie Silent Skies 3 namen de Benelux-landen, Duitsland, Spanje, Portugal, Ierland en het Verenigd Koninkrijk deel, en verder ook Europol, Frontex, het Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre Narcotics (MAOC-N), de World Customs Organisation en de Europese Commissie.
De samenwerking werd gecoördineerd vanuit een operationeel centrum bij de Nationale Politie van Nederland in Maastricht. Daar wisselden politie-, douane- en veiligheidsexperts in realtime informatie uit over verdachte vliegbewegingen en ondersteunden zij gezamenlijke controles en onderzoeken.
Van Benelux-project naar Europese samenwerking
Operatie Silent Skies werd in 2024 op initiatief van de Federale Politie gelanceerd tijdens het Belgische voorzitterschap van de Benelux Unie. Het project had als doel de weerbaarheid van de general aviation-sector tegen grensoverschrijdende criminaliteit te versterken. Daarbij werd ingezet op nieuwe vormen van informatie-uitwisseling, risicoanalyse en operationele samenwerking.
Sindsdien is Silent Skies uitgegroeid tot een internationale en multidisciplinaire samenwerking. Door informatie en expertise van verschillende diensten en landen samen te brengen, kunnen risico’s sneller worden geïdentificeerd en kunnen controles en onderzoeken beter op elkaar worden afgestemd.
Criminele netwerken stoppen niet aan de landsgrenzen. Internationale samenwerking en snelle informatie-uitwisseling zijn daarom essentieel om misbruik van de general aviation-sector tegen te gaan.
De controles kaderen in de bestuurlijke aanpak en moeten voorkomen dat bedrijven gebruikt worden voor criminele doeleinden.
De Scheepvaartpolitie Antwerpen organiseerde een actie naar aanleiding van vermoedelijke wanpraktijken in de bedrijfsvoering van een aantal ondernemingen op haar grondgebied. Het hoofddoel van de controle was nagaan of de betrokken handelszaken zich aan de verschillende regelgevingen houden en zich niet bezighouden met illegale activiteiten die de lokale economie ondermijnen en oneigenlijk gebruikt kunnen worden door criminele organisaties. Het multidisciplinaire team bestond bij deze controle uit de Scheepvaartpolitie Antwerpen, FOD VVVL, FAVV, RVA, TSW, VSI, RSZ, douane en ARIEC Antwerpen.
Verschillende inbreuken
Vijf handelszaken werden gecontroleerd, waaronder een restaurant, een groothandel en bedrijven in de transportsector. In totaal werden 6 processen-verbaal opgemaakt voor inbreuken op de voedselveiligheid, inbreuken op de economische wetgeving en welzijn op het werk. Daarnaast hebben de sociale inspectiediensten onderzoeken opgestart over de aanmelding van werknemers en werden er inbreuken op de milieuwetgeving vastgesteld.
De Scheepvaartpolitie Antwerpen wil samen met haar partners voorkomen dat ondernemingen in het havengebied worden gebruikt voor criminele inmenging. Het handhaven kadert mee in het opvolgbeleid en de strijd tegen drugs in de Haven van Antwerpen. De Scheepvaartpolitie Antwerpen zal mee blijven investeren in de bestuurlijke handhaving om oneigenlijk gebruik en misbruik van vennootschappen in de strijd tegen de criminele organisatie tegen te gaan.
Multidisciplinaire controles zijn controles die worden georganiseerd met verschillende partners en die uit flexibel samengestelde teams bestaan. De doelstelling van de actie bepaalt welke diensten (Vlaamse en federale inspectie- en controlediensten, gemeentelijke diensten etc.) deelnemen. Bij een bestuurlijke actie ligt de coördinatie bij het lokale bestuur en haar politie. De bestuurlijke aanpak zet in op het voorkomen en bestrijden van lokale inmenging vanuit de georganiseerde criminaliteit door gebruik te maken van de lokale bevoegdheden en in nauwe samenwerking met strafrechtelijke, socio-economische en fiscale partners.
With 27 MH-139A Grey Wolf helicopters delivered so far, the latest award brings the total number of aircraft under contract to 42.
Boeing Defense has been awarded a contract for four more MH-139A Grey Wolf helicopters, marking the aircraft’s entry into full-rate production, the company announced on Sept. 29, 2026. The award, whose value was not disclosed, comes a month after the U.S. Air Force announced the Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the helicopter.
In Sept. 29 statement and a subsequent statement on Oct. 1, Boeing said it has so far delivered 27 MH-139As, which include 20 low-rate initial production (LRIP) airframes. The latest award brings the total number of Grey Wolves under contract to 42.
This was the program of record established after the Air Force reduced in 2024 its planned procurement from 80 aircraft to 42. The service subsequently increased its program objective to 56 aircraft in its FY2026 budget.
Strengthening the pack!
Thank you, @USAirForce, for advancing our partnership to provide four additional MH-139A Grey Wolf helicopters. With full-rate production and Initial Operational Capability, #TeamBoeing is proud to deliver mission-ready capability.
The MH-139A is primarily meant to replace the UH-1N Huey in the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) security and convoy support roles. According to Air and Space Forces Magazine, the Air Force had also planned to use them for aircrew survival training and contingency response in the Washington D.C. area, where the 1st Helicopter Squadron (1st HS) still flies UH-1N Huey.
Boeing’s vice president and general manager for the Vertical Lift Program, Kathleen Jolivette, said the full rate production milestone “validates key readiness levels for Grey Wolf and supports the service’s fielding plans to secure vital national assets across the country’s strategic missile fields.”
“Adding these aircraft to the production queue brings additional momentum to ongoing fielding and modernization efforts,” Jolivette added.
A U.S. Air Force MH-139A Grey Wolf helicopter, from the 908th Flying Training Wing, flies over Downtown Montgomery, July 17, 2025. | Source: U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Kamiyah Burks
Grey Wolf contracts and deliveries
Boeing announced its first award for the Grey Wolf, worth $2.4 billion, on Sept. 24, 2018, covering 84 helicopters. The first aircraft was delivered in December 2019 at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, to begin developmental testing prior to Initial Operational Testing and Evaluation (IOT&E) at Malmstrom AFB.
The company announced on Aug. 29, 2022 that it had delivered four Grey Wolf test aircraft to the Air Force. This followed Boeing receiving a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) supplemental type certificate, as the program was progressing towards Milestone C.
In April 2024, Boeing was awarded a $178 million contract for seven more MH-139A helicopters, which included the first set of aircraft meant for Minot AFB, North Dakota.
An MH-139A Grey Wolf flying over fields. | Source: Boeing
In October 2025, Boeing also received a $173 million contract for eight additional helicopters, raising the total number under contract to 34. At the time, Boeing had delivered 18 aircraft, of which 12 were part of a 2023 $285 million Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract.
Budget allocations
After a setback in 2024 over cost overruns that triggered a Congressional review under the Nunn-McCurdy Act, the program picked up pace. The Trump administration’s July 2025 ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ included $210.3 million for an extra six MH-139As.
Then in the FY 2026 budget request, the Air Force raised its need for 56 Grey Wolves. To that end, the Air Force asked $253 million for the MH-139A in 2027 to cover four airframes.
However, lawmakers in the draft National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorized $128 million and four more helicopters, for a total of $380 million for eight helicopters.
The MH-139A participated in its first Nuclear Convoy Course (NCC). A weeklong exercise in Wyoming to ensure the safe and secure transport of nuclear weapons and materials.
The need for the Grey Wolf became even more acute with the new LGM-35A Sentinel ICBM program, with the Huey having been in service for around 40 years. The Grey Wolf’s improved speed, range, payload and modern avionics are better suited for the extensive support infrastructure needed for the Sentinel as the service transitions from the current Minuteman III ICBM.
In its latest release, Boeing said it “continues to work closely with the U.S. Air Force to deliver adaptable, mission-ready and reliable capabilities for decades to come.”
Public infrastructure for charging an EV in America is a mess. Executives have all been vocal and up front about it. So much so that seven of the world’s largest automakers formed a joint venture called Ionna to tackle the issue and stand up a nationwide charging network. Toyota joined the party a year later to bring the count to eight. But this isn’t just about selling EVs, it’s an entirely new form of business diversification.
During an interview on The Drivecast Ionna CEO Seth Cutler said, “This is a for-profit business.” That business is EV charging.
Listen to the entire conversation starting at the moment Cutler discuses Ionna needing to turn a profit below.
“We know the company has to get to financial independence and profitability over time,” Cutler said. Currently Ionna exists off an undisclosed amount of money invested into the joint venture by BMW, Mercedes, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, and Stellantis along with Toyota joining a year later.
At some point the faucet will be turned off, and Cutler, who has spent most of his career in the EV charging and energy vertical, knows it.
Cutler said, “Infrastructure has to be for-profit or it’ll never survive, and if it never survives, EVs will never survive.”
The approach to profitability and scale has been multi-pronged including various partnerships with Circle K, Wawa, Sheetz, and Casey’s.
Beyond partnerships, Cutler said, “Very early on, we said let’s make some bets and plant some seeds for future trees. We’ve bought land at several dozen sites; we’ve built our own amenities where you’ve got buildings that we operate with vending machines, bathrooms, and other technology inside, like Amazon Just Walk Out; we’ve taken a piece of land, have a ground lease, and can come back later to add to it, add a building, or find a co-tenant. These things are all sitting there underground as seeds, but we’ve not focused time on that because it’s easy for an organization to get distracted and not have everybody working on driver quality and charging quality at scale. But we know that in 2027, 2028, or beyond, we’ll start to invest resources in terms of other ways to monetize or provide value to drivers with these things that we’ve developed that are different in the marketplace. But it is definitively not a focus right now.”
Ionna isn’t alone in trying to build out a nationwide network of EV fast chargers to rival Tesla’s Supercharger network. Rivian Founder and CEO RJ Scaringe is making similar bets, though his focus is a bit more spread out than Cutler’s. Despite launching the R2 and being keenly aware everyone has ants in their pants for the R3X, a large focus is being put on building the Rivian Adventure Network (RAN). As of the summer the Rivian Adventure Network was a hair smaller than Ionna’s network today, and about 4% of Tesla’s Supercharger network.
For now, Cutler was up front about the path forward, “My goal is to triple the size of the network this year from where we started at 80 at the beginning of the year. That scale isn’t baked into a lot of what people are seeing because we’re moving so fast right now,” he said.
What happens when you mix sky-high fuel prices with a rollback of EV incentives? A boom in hybrid sales, as it turns out. A year after Congress officially ended America’s electric vehicle subsidies, we’ve seen an unsurprising decline in EV sales. But as the stagnant and unfavorable geopolitical climate continues to put pressure on global fuel prices, Many (though clearly not all) buyers are turning to hybrids for their new-car purchases, and companies like Toyota are reaping the benefits. But with hybrid sales exploding, why the heck is no one buying the Prius?
Let me give you some context. At this point last year, automakers with deep EV portfolios were doing everything they could to blow out their inventory while they could still send customers home with some cash in their pockets. Toyota would have been pushing its U.S.-built plug-in hybrid models hard, while the Prius languished despite a strong start to 2025. Toyota sold only 2,011 of them last September. This year, without that same EV pressure, that number fell again—to just 1,897.
Toyota moved more than 25,000 Camry Hybrids and more than 28,000 RAV4 Hybrids in the same period. In fact, the only hybrids in the Toyota lineup that sold worse than the Prius last month were the Corolla Cross (1,821), Tacoma (1,705), the Highlander (1,088), and the Crown (406). Toyota sold more BZ EVs in September than regular Prius hybrids; you have to throw in the plug-in variant just to sneak past the EV. Consequently, in a year when hybrids are taking market share left and right, the industry’s best-known model is headed in the opposite direction. Year to date, Prius sales are down 51%, to just 16,731.
Are Toyota buyers spoiled for choice, or is America just over the Prius?
Plenty of support backs the former argument. Toyota sells multiple hybrids in its own showroom that compete with the Prius, including the Corolla and Corolla Cross; even the Camry and RAV4 overlap in price. Like the Prius, the hybrid Corollas move in modest numbers, especially compared with their gas-powered sibling. Toyota has sold nearly 200,000 ICE Corollas so far in 2025, to just over 34,000 hybrids. Not even close.
But even if there’s a case for cannibalization, there’s still one more factor to consider: the Prius is actually kind of cool now. I’d certainly rather drive this than any Corolla short of a GR. Clearly, many Toyota buyers feel differently. Bummer.
The SR-71 spy plane, the most advanced member of the Blackbird family that included the A-12 and YF-12, was designed by a team of Lockheed personnel led by Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, then vice president of Lockheed’s Advanced Development Company Projects, commonly known as the “Skunk Works” and now a part of Lockheed Martin. The Blackbird completed its first flight on Dec. 22, 1964.
The SR-71 was designed to cruise at “Mach 3+,” just over three times the speed of sound or more than 2,200 miles per hour and at altitudes up to 85,000 feet.
Frags (from the Vietnam War-era term of “fragging,” or “frags” for short, to indicate a practical joke) were part of SR-71 Blackbird crew members (or Habus)’ traditions.
Oscar’s Balls—flown over 70,000 feet in a U-2
Former Blackbird pilot Richard H. Graham recalls a very special frag that took place at Kadena Air Base (AB), Okinawa, Japan, home of Sr-71 Det. 1.
‘Habus once fragged the 9th SRW/Det 2, our sister U-2 detachment located at Osan, Korea. Det 2 crews and personnel were known as the “Blackcats” and wore a U-2 patch depicting a black cat. They also had a Det 2 mascot, a black male cat called, Oscar. For Oscar to be the true Det mascot they flew him on a U-2 mission in one of the empty mission bays. After the flight he became crazed and was never the same again. They decided to have Oscar castrated to see if that would calm him down. At the Det’s request, the vet saved Oscar’s testicles, where they were proudly displayed in a glass jar in Operations for all to see. The inscription on the out-side of the jar read, “Oscar’s Balls—flown over 70,000 feet in a U-2.”’
Colonel Tom Alison describes what happened next.
‘The frag of Det 2 concerning “Oscar’s Balls” occurred in early December, 1978, and JT [JT Vida was Alison’s RSO] and I were the crew involved. It was the only time we ever had to divert/land away on a GIANT SCALE mission and occurred on a night sortie over the DMZ when we had a generator failure. We only had two land aways in over 120 operational sorties and six years (speaks highly of the jet). We diverted into Osan AB, Korea, at night, and the folks at Det 2 were extremely helpful in getting us settled.
Spying the jar with “Oscar’s Balls”
‘The recovery team arrived the next morning, and the fairly routine generator replacement was accomplished, and everything looked good for an early morning departure the next day, which was a Saturday. JT and I had decided that, if at all possible, a frag was in order and had talked about what would be appropriate. The Det 2 Commander at the time was Lt. Col. Doyle Krumery. He had a large beautiful desk in his office that he was very proud of. With the help of a couple of crew chiefs, we entered the Det offices later that night and very carefully moved the prized desk into a shower stall in the PSD area. Not a scratch… we were very proud of ourselves!
‘On the way out of the Det we spied the jar with “Oscar’s Balls” prominently displayed in the operations area. It was perfect. JT put the jar in a helmet bag and stowed it in the rear cockpit early the next morning. Since it was a Saturday and no Det 2 flying was scheduled, all the U-2 people slept in and no one had gotten to the Det to discover the jar with Oscar’s balls was missing. All the way through engine start, taxi, and takeoff we expected to hear a radio call to come back immediately until the missing items were found. As it turned out, the desk in the shower caused so much of an uproar that Oscar was overlooked. I think our maintenance people even got loaded on the tanker and headed back to Kadena before the “the real frag” was discovered.
“Oscar’s Balls—flown Mach 3+ in an SR-71”
‘On our way back to Kadena, which was a “hot” flight, we decided how we were going to put the finishing touches on our frag. When we arrived back at Det 1, we got together with Chuck Weithoff the SAS/autopilot technical representative, and a good friend. He fried two chicken hearts until they were just two little black, hard things, and then we took a needle and some dark thread and wove a short strand between the fried chicken hearts.
‘It was rather easy to get another jar that was the same as the one that held the precious cargo. After filling the jar with water (I don’t know what was in the jar with “Oscar’s Balls”—we never had the courage to actually open the jar) we added the chicken hearts. It was amazing how they looked exactly like the original except they were burned black! Since the U-2 guys were so proud that they had taken “Oscar” flying in the “Dragon Lady,” we put a label on the jar that read, “Oscar’s Balls—flown Mach 3+ in an SR-71.”
U-2 pilots vow they would get even
‘We then, appearing as contrite as we could, had the jar returned to Det 2 with our profound apologies because, we said, the jar had been stored in an aircraft bay that had gotten hot on the trip back to Kadena and “Oscar’s Balls” had been fried! JT and I returned to Beale before the reaction traveled back to Det 1; however, knowing Doyle Krumery’s explosive nature, it wasn’t hard to imagine the conversation between him and the Det 1 commander, Lt. Col. Bob Cunningham.’
Alison concludes;
‘Later, the real “Oscar’s Balls” were returned to Det 2. However, the U-2 pilots vowed they would get even. Sometime later, when one of them was at Kadena they took from the Det 1 office a jar containing a Habu snake. They thought they had purloined a Det 1 prize. We had to tell them, that we had numerous jars with Habus in them and they could keep it if they wanted!’
CLICK HERE to buy Richard H. Graham’s book SR-71 Revealed The Inside Story
This model is available in multiple sizes from AirModels – CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS.
An Italian Air Force F-35B was spotted carrying the GPU-9/A 25mm gun pod, providing the first known visual confirmation of the pod being used by an F-35 operator outside the United States.
An Italian Air Force F-35B Lightning II was spotted for the first time with the GPU-9/A 25mm gun pod, confirming Italy as the first export operator of the system. Aviation photographer Diego Mor captured a photo of the aircraft as it prepared to land at Decimomannu Air Base on Sept. 30, 2026, and kindly shared it with us.
Decimomannu is located in Sardinia, near the ranges used by the Italian Air Force for weapons training. While this might point out to live-fire activities, it is unclear if these were actually conducted and, in that case, if they were part of the operational training of the pilots or an Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) campaign.
The acquisition of the gun pod by Italy was already expected, although a visual confirmation of the delivery was still missing. In 2024, we reported here at The Aviationist that the GPU-9/A’s 25mm rounds were included in a multi-year program for the acquisition of new weapons for the Italian Navy’s F-35Bs.
The Italian Navy is currently replacing its AV-8B+ Harriers with 20 F-35Bs, joining forces when needed with 20 other F-35Bs being delivered to the Italian Air Force. It is unclear, however, if the Navy is already employing the gun pod on its own F-35s.
The GPU-9/A 25 mm gun pod, previously known also as the GAU-22A Gun Pod. | Source: Lockheed Martin
Italy is one of the three countries operating the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 outside of the U.S., with the others being the UK and Japan. While the UK has confirmed that it has no plans to acquire or integrate the 25 mm gun pod on its F-35Bs, there is no information regarding the Japanese aircraft.
The GPU-9/A gun pod
Contrary to the F-35A variant, the F-35B and F-35C don’t have the internal GAU-22/A 25mm cannon, and are thus forced to employ an externally mounted gun pod. The gun pod, technically known as the Gun Pod Unit (GPU) – 9/A has always been quite controversial, as both the F-35B and F-35C have to rely on this external device that, despite the “stealthy” shape is believed to induce a Radar Cross Section (RCS) degradation. It is worth noting that the variant used by the F-35C, although apparently similar, is designated as GAU-8/A.
Another controversy is related to the ammo carried in the pod, 220 rounds, which is less than the ammo carried by the aircraft replaced by the F-35 (300 rounds on the Harrier, 412 on the Hornet and 578 on the Super Hornet). It should be noted that the F-35A carries even less ammo, just 180 rounds.
The pod has its share of trouble, with some notable incidents, like the Class C mishap when a PGU-32/U Semi-Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer (SAPHEI-T) 25mm round exploded after leaving the gun pod during a night CAS (Close Air Support) mission over the Yuma Range Complex.
A U.S. Marine Corps F-35B with the centerline gun pod clearly visible under the fuselage. | Source: U.S. Marine Corps photo by 1st Lt. Zachary Bodner
In July 2021, an USMC F-35B, which was deployed on the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean, was forced to divert and land at Kadena Air Base because of unspecified issues with the gun pod, with the aircraft taxing to a remote area and with firefighters on standby as maintainers troubleshoot the problem.
The GAU-22 is reported to be more than 40 pounds lighter and requires 20 percent less overall space than the earlier GAU-12 5-barrel 25mm gun. The new GAU-22 weapon has a reported rate of fire of “up to 3,300 rounds per minute.”
One final point regarding the pod and its potential use by the Italian Air Force: it is not yet clear whether the F-35’s gun will be employed in both the air-to-ground and air-to-air roles, although the service may also be interested in exploring its use for counter-UAS missions.
At present, Italian F-35s, both the A and B variants, can only carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile) for air-to-air engagements. Italian F-35s have already supported both domestic and NATO QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) missions, and while they are expected to receive the AIM-9X Sidewinder in the future, using an advanced and relatively expensive air-to-air missile against a low-cost drone, such as those recently engaged by Italian Eurofighter Typhoons in the Baltic region, would not be a cost-effective solution in the long term. While using an F-35 to engage a Russian drone with the gun pod would still be a sub-optimal solution, it would nevertheless be preferable to expending an expensive air-to-air missile.
This means the Italian Air Force could be interested in using the gun pod not only against ground targets in a traditional CAS (Close Air Support) role, but also for counter-UAS missions, hence the need to test it in the Sardinian ranges.
Thanks again to Diego Mor for the photo he sent us. Make sure to follow him on Instagram for more!
Ten years (and about a half-dozen daily drivers) ago, I purchased a brand-new Ford Fiesta ST. Back then, when you bought one of Ford’s fun cars, the company threw in a complimentary day of driver “education” at what we colloquially call Utah Motorsports Park. If you bought a either the Focus or Fiesta ST, that program took the form of ST Octane Academy.
The Academy was a day-long school that mixed time on track with classroom sessions and a massive autocross/gymkhana course. It was in that sea of cones that we were expected to apply all of the knowledge we’d gained throughout the day for a best-of-three timed runoff—with trophies and all. As one of the few in the room with any prior autocross experience, I was salivating at the prospect of climbing to the top of our small classroom podium. You can’t win a track day, after all, but you certainly can win an autocross.
There was a catch, however: this wasn’t a traditional autocross, and these weren’t entirely stock cars. While both of Ford’s hot hatches came with an old-fashioned hand brake, these had custom-fabricated “drift” brakes instead. Functionally, they’re not really all that different. They both engage the rear brakes with the yank of a handle; the major difference is that a drift brake lacks the latching detents you find in a regular hand brake. When you let go, it simply springs back to the “off” position.
That renders it useless for holding your car stationary on a hill while you visit a restaurant, but it’s super helpful if you’re trying to break a car’s rear end loose on command. And that’s precisely what our instructors (and, at this point, scorers) wanted us to do just a few seconds into the course, where they’d placed a 180-degree turn so tight that we simply had no choice but to attempt a j-turn.
If you’ve ever autocrossed with people who take it seriously (which is most of them), you already know that getting sideways is often frowned upon. Sure, some cars drive loose, but a good course is designed so that it can be negotiated without resorting to the sort of trickery expected of us here.
Ford
Since I considered myself one of those autocrossers who took it seriously back then, I felt a bit personally offended that such showboaty tomfoolery was going to count against my time. In my mind, “sideways” was synonymous with “slow,” and this “drift brake” was nothing but an equalizer designed to keep people like me from dominating the newbies.
Suffice it to say that I’ve mellowed quite a bit over the past decade. My inner old man may still be yelling at clouds over the fact that the EcoBoost Mustang lost its stick-shift with the S650 redesign, but I don’t view the RTR’s drift brake with the same ire I might have ten years ago. In fact, I consider myself a full-blown convert; that turbocharged RTR Mustang is actually a fun little package.
As it turns out, I actually just miss the entire notion of a hand brake. It’s one of those things whose utility is made more obvious by its absence, and where a dual-clutch gearbox can do a respectable impression of a manual in some cases, a button-activated parking brake, while perfectly adequate for use as an actual parking brake, is even more useless than a pedal-activated parking brake when it comes to traction management.
Even in the dwindling population of cars still available with a manual transmission, the old-fashioned, pull-handle parking brake is virtually extinct. Almost every one of them has been replaced by an electronic button or switch. In a way it’s strange and funny that Ford and RTR had to come together to engineer a hand brake back into the Mustang; it hasn’t even been gone long enough for anybody to really miss it.
But miss it, I do. Like the manual gearbox, it’s yet another tool we no longer have access to. It was just another sacrifice in the name of saving space—and saving somebody else money. And so I’m glad Ford and RTR took the time (and resources) to keep some part of that functionality alive. It’s nice to see that somebody still thinks “It’s just fun” is a good enough reason to do something.
Oh, and that autocross? I finished third. Yep, still bitter, just less.
Unique colors, paint jobs, and even wraps are cool. After all, it’s the unique individuals who spring up for these that keep our roads looking less bland than they already are. But how much are you willing to pay for that visual pizazz? What about 20% of the vehicle’s purchase price?
A Ford F-150 Lariat SuperCrew starts around $60,000, so checking the box for the new $12,545 two-tone paint job offered on 2027 models means you’ll spend roughly 20% of your truck’s cost on a single option. Of course, that percentage will vary depending on which trim and options you ultimately buy, but regardless, that just seems silly and, not to mention, a poor financial decision. I can’t imagine anyone will salvage any resale value from it down the road.
Ford
Speaking of poor financial decisions, you can dig yourself into an even bigger hole by opting to roll the price of that paint job into the lease or finance monthly payment. Yes, you can actually do that. Depending on your personal history and financing terms, that could mean anywhere from $200 to $320 per month on top of the car’s monthly payment. Or, y’know, you can just pay it out of pocket.
For the record, I’m a big supporter of people doing whatever they want with their money as long as it makes them happy. If you want to pay almost $13,000 (or more) for a paint job, wheels, or engine mods, by all means, do it. What I’m emphasizing here is the ridiculously high cost of that standalone option and, to a certain extent, the fact that an automaker and its credit division are salivating at the revenue they can make off this thing, fully knowing it’ll put consumers in a tough place down the road.
Today Amazon started running some great discounts on tools (hand and power), full mechanic sets, and specialty tools along with special sale pricing on car accessories like OBD scanners and dashcams ahead of Prime Big Deal Days (aka Amazon Big Deal Days). Most of the flagship mass-appeal sales will be happening on October 6, but the car-stuff category niche has live discounts now.
I’ve been covering consumer products here at The Drive for over a year now, and I’ve figured out it takes a lot more than just endlessly scrolling through Amazon hoping to hit something good to find the real deals. Here’s what we were able to dig up by aggressively trawling sale aggregator sites, Amazon’s own product lists, studying pricing history, and of course, deploying AI agents to help us parse and comparison-shop at 100 mph.
Full disclosure, pricing may change from the time we found it to when you click the link.
Top 5 Early October Prime Day Deals for Car People
DJI Mini 2 Fly More Combo: $499 (17% off) … word to the wise, though—I think this price will drop even more during the October 6–7 Prime Day event. I don’t know that for a fact, but that’s what the consumerist crystal ball’s telling me.
Early in the morning of Aug. 2, 1990, aircraft of the Iraqi Air Force (IrAF) bombed Kuwaiti air bases, and then the Iraqi Republican Guards stormed into the country. Although encountering some problems, the Iraqi forces occupied Kuwait in a matter of a few days.
However, when President Saddam Hussein of Iraq unleashed his military upon Kuwait, little did he know what kind of reaction he would provoke from the Western superpowers, and what kind of devastation his country would suffer in return.
Alarmed by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the USA and Saudi Arabia scrambled to react. Negotiations quickly revealed the obvious: despite all the investment of the proceeding decades, the desert kingdom was unable to protect itself. Therefore, the decision was taken to rush several carrier battle groups, dozens of combat aircraft, and entire units of the US Army and the US Marine Corps to the scene. As US allies from Europe and abroad followed in fashion, the biggest military build-up in the last two decades of the 20th Century came into being. Meanwhile, along the borders between Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, each side observed the other closely, and anxiously, took counsel of its fears and prepared for what Saddam eventually declared ‘The Mother of All Battles’ (Umm al-Ma’arik).
The first to respond
Advertise
The Americans were the first to respond and on Aug.7 General Powell, Chairman of the JCS, ordered the ready brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division, Maritime Prepositioning Squadrons (MPS) from Guam and Diego Garcia, the CVBG with USS Dwight D Eisenhower (CVN-69) and the battleship USS Wisconsin (BB-64) — that carried BGM-109 Tomahawk land-attack missiles — 12 squadrons of combat aircraft, and three equipped with E-3 Sentry AWACS and tankers to the Arabian Peninsula and surrounding waters. The code-name of this operation, formally introduced on Aug. 8, 1990, became Desert Shield; this was initiated with the landing of Colonel Ron Rokosz’s 2nd Brigade of the 82nd ‘All-American’ Airborne Division at Dhahran AB.
For political and diplomatic reasons, CENTCOM would not have headquarters in its area of responsibility, but at MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida. This made it difficult for its commanders to establish relations with the local forces but this was neither immediately necessary nor possible: until early 1990 its primary focus was on thwarting ‘a Soviet invasion of Iran.’
As explained by E.R. Hooton & Tom Cooper in their book Desert Storm Volume 1: the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait and Operation Desert Shield 1990-1991, in addition to receiving satellite imagery, CENTCOM also benefitted from a wide variety of platforms to probe behind the enemy lines. The first USAF aircraft used were SAC’s Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint, which began Burning Wind SIGINT missions infantry on Aug. 9 and within two days were providing 24-hour coverage.
Joint Surveillance Target Acquisition System
On Aug. 29, SAC’s Lockheed U-2 very high altitude photo-reconnaissance aircraft and Lockheed TR-1 tactical reconnaissance with side-looking radar began operations as imagery was clearly the vital, and on Sep. 8 the first medium-altitude photographic reconnaissance missions were flown by McDonnell-Douglas RF-4Cs. By Dec. 2 Gen. Charles Horner’s (Commander of US and allied air operations for Operation Desert Shield (and later Desert Storm) reconnaissance arm had flown 469 tactical, 421 strategic and 2,800 ELINT sorties, while AWACS— which both supported the shield and monitored IrAF activity had flown 253 sorties.
This model is available from AirModels – CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS.
One reconnaissance system which was late to the table was the Joint Surveillance Target Acquisition System (J-STARS) — an airborne battlefield surveillance radar system with a range of 150 kilometres, installed into a modified Boeing 707, re-designated as the E-8A. Schwarzkopf requested its deployment as early as of Aug. 10 but in early September the Joint Chiefs rejected the request arguing, ‘Desert Shield is not suitable in time or place for introduction J-STARS’. Only at the last minute did the Pentagon change its mind: the two available aircraft arrived on Jan. 12, 1991, together with six ground stations and four support vehicles that provided 44 remote terminals.
F-117A flying close to Iraqi Airways Boeing 747
Conventional reconnaissance aircraft seem to have been not the only ones deployed by the US-led Coalition to monitor developments inside Iraq and Kuwait. Late during the evening of Dec. 16 1990, the crew of an Iraqi Airways Boeing 747 led by Captain Remzi (former fighter pilot with a long career of flying Sukhoi Su-7BMKs and Su-20s during the war with Iran) reported sighting an F-117A fighter close to the left wingtip of their aircraft – and that while underway over Najaf.
As far as is known, this was the first-ever encounter between an Iraqi pilot and the shadowy stealth fighter of the US Air Force. Although it remains unknown to this day what exactly the latter was doing only 200 kilometres southwest of Baghdad at that point in time, we can assume the F-117A served the purpose pf testing IrAF’s air defences. However, the F-117A sighted by Remzi startled the commanders of the IrAF, forcing them into the conclusion that they lacked the means to effectively combat the most advanced US combat aircraft.
Desert Storm Volume 1: the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait and Operation Desert Shield 1990-1991 is published by Helion & Company and is available to order here.
Good morning, and welcome to The Downshift, which is a lap of today’s top stories from around the auto industry and car culture, curated by The Drive‘s editorial team. Each story gets summarized into a sentence or two accompanied by a link to the source for those seeking more information. Senior Editor Adam Ismail is still out on assignment and I’ll be your driver today.
Here’s what firing on Thursday, October 1, 2026 as fall gets underway:
Stellantis opened orders for the 2027 Ram Rumble Bee with the 5.7-liter Hemi V8 and all 2026 models were spoken for in 90 minutes while production through March 2027 was sold within 24 hours. “The speed at which the Rumble Bee sold out speaks volumes about the passion our customers have for performance trucks,” said Matt VanDyke, CEO of Ram. Notably, Ram hasn’t released production volumes and it’s unclear how many Rumble Bees are being made instead of Big Horns or Long Horns, though the margins on a Rumble Bee are likely far greater than those of a Big Horn. Kind of makes you wonder what the heck Ford and Chevy are doing leaving the entire segment to Ram. [Stellantis]
Speaking of muscle cars, we drove the 2026 Ford Mustang RTR and the old-school handbrake is the star of the show. Don’t sneer at its turbo-four powertrain because this Mustang is far more fun than you think. [The Drive]
As BMW trims its lineup to save costs the automaker’s considering a new SUV that would be larger, and presumably more expensive, than the X7 as a range topper to take on the upcoming Audi Q9. [Motor1]
General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis expect to lose marketshare to the Asian competition as third-quarter sales results filter out, according to analysts, thanks to the Iran war, fuel prices, and buyers seeking fuel-efficient models. [Reuters]
Stellantis CEO Antonio Filosa said the automaker’s tackling its quality woes and has established nearly 50 war rooms staffed by engineers focused on quality. “We are fixing them very, very, very quickly. We have a target to get, in 2028, first quartile in quality with all the segments and markets where we compete, and we will get there,” Filosa said. [Automotive News]
The 2027 Honda Passport is now arriving at dealers and costs $42,790 including a $1,595 destination charge. [Motor1]
Longtime BMW tuner AC Schnitzer was set to close after 39 years, but a Dutch company, AM Group, has stepped in and saved the legendary German tuner. [BMWblog]
The Aston Martin DBX GT debuted with a focus on long-distance luxury as a grand tourer. The plusher version of the automaker’s SUV features a twin-turbo V8 under its hood and is said to be “aimed at customers who prefer assured elegance over sporting aggression and demand a higher degree of luxury.” [Autocar]
A Porsche 944 has been transformed into a shooting brake and dubbed the GT-K44. Each one will cost over $132,000 at current exchange rates. [Top Gear]
Got a tip or feedback for The Downshift? Reach out to tips@thedrive.com
Perhaps Ford has some spare time, money, and personnel despite its Formula 1 involvement, because it has now decided to launch a full factory racing effort in the World Rally Championship starting in 2028. High five, Ford.
Ford has been involved in WRC in one way, shape, or form for decades, and it has the cars and hardware to show for it. From the famous Michelin-liveried Escort, the Sierra, and of course, the Colin McRae and Carlos Sainz Focuses, only Subaru and Audi evoke more dirt-loving memories.
The Blue Oval is once again looking to its long-time partner, M-Sport, to launch its factory effort, which will technically begin in 2028 but will really peak in 2029 when its all-new Ford race car hits the road.
“As we celebrate 125 years of Ford Racing, our 50-year legacy in the WRC stands out as one of our proudest because of its direct connection to the fun and exciting cars that came from that,” said Mark Rushbrook, Global Director of Ford Racing. “We can’t wait to compete again in rally racing in 2028 and beyond.”
Ford
It’s too soon to know who will be driving for Ford come 2028 or 2029, let alone what its car will look like, but Ford promises that its WRC racer will “help shape Ford’s new European portfolio of rally-bred passenger vehicles to help turn everyday commutes into drives worth looking forward to.”
Ford is currently involved in a myriad of racing disciplines, from F1 as Red Bull’s engine partner to NASCAR, the Dakar Rally, GT3 with the Mustang, and will take on Le Mans in the Hypercar class in 2027.
Oh, and remember when a Ford engineer had an F1 turbocharger confiscated at the Detroit airport? Here’s that scoop.
A RAAF Super Hornet was spotted with an inert AIM-260 missile during the Gray Flag 2026 test event, few weeks after Australia announced the procurement of the new weapon.
A Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18F Super Hornet was spotted carrying an inert AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM) during the Gray Flag 2026 large-force test event at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu. The photo was captured on Sept. 11, 2026, although it was only released on Sept. 30.
The sighting comes few weeks after Australia announced that it would become the first country to operate the AIM-260 JATM outside the United States. In August 2026, the Australian government said it is investing almost $736 million to acquire the new missile via foreign military sales (FMS).
The AIM-260 will be first integrated onto Australia’s F/A-18F Super Hornet, followed by the F‑35A Lightning II and EA-18G Growler. The government said “The acquisition of the AIM-260 JATM will provide Air Force platforms with a credible deterrent against airborne targets, complementing existing air-to-air missile capabilities and other surface-based missile capabilities across the Australian Defence Force (ADF).”
AIM-260 on Australian Super Hornet
The photo captured at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu shows the F/A-18F Super Hornet, assigned to No. 1 Squadron, flying with a mixed loadout of inert air-to-air weapons. Similarly to the first sighting on a U.S. Navy Super Hornet, the AIM-260 can be seen installed on the weapon station 7, also known as “cheek station,” on the exterior of the air intake.
A Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18F Super Hornet assigned to No. 1 Squadron takes flight at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu during Gray Flag 2026, Sept. 11, 2026. | Source: U.S. Navy photo by Dana Rene White
The loadout also includes a CATM-9X (the inert training variant of the AIM-9X) on the right wingtip, as well as a CATM-120 (the inert training variant of the AIM-120 AMRAAM) on the weapon station 2, the left wing’s outermost pylon. The payload is completed by three external fuel tanks, a Tactical Combat Training System (TCTS) pod on the left wingtip and the AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR targeting pod on the other cheek station.
Details about the test mission are not available, although there are no reports of live firing activity with the new weapon. The test mission might have involved the captive carry of the JATM in a representative operational scenario.
Gray Flag 2026
Gray Flag, held annually at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, is the naval aviation test community’s premier large-force test event. This year’s edition, which ended on Sept. 25, was the largest to date, according to the Navy, with more than 750 sorties flown.
Gray Flag 2026 was hosted by the Naval Test Wing Pacific and Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 9, which led test execution with Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division. The latter manages the Gray Flag program and operates the Point Mugu Sea Range, a 36,000-square-mile instrumented range.
Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 Hornets sit on the flight line at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, Sept. 30, 2026. | Source: U.S. Navy photo by Katie Archibald
“Our range, combined with other test and training ranges around us, gives us the space and instrumentation to test new systems the way the joint force will use them,” said Rear Adm. Keith Hash, NAWCWD commander. “We want to find the problems here, fix them here and make sure what we send to the fleet works when the warfighter needs it.”
The service said the two-week event drew more than 3,000 participants from more than 150 organizations, and crews logged more than 2,000 flight hours covering hundreds of multi-domain test objectives for the fleet and joint force. U.S. Navy and Air Force test teams were joined by the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Air Force.
“We leave much more informed with respect to future capabilities that enable Australia to shape our requirements for future projects and future platform upgrades that increase our lethality and survivability,” said RAAF Wing Commander Trent Baldry, commanding officer of No. 1 Squadron.
AIM-260 JATM
The existence of the AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile was first revealed in 2019 by the Air Force, who is jointly developing the missile with the Navy. However, it was also revealed that the program had been ongoing for more than two years in 2019, meaning the program might have started in 2017 or earlier.
VX-31 F/A-18F carrying what appears to be an AIM-260 missile at Eglin AFB on May 13, 2026. | Source: Jonathan Tweedy
The AIM-260 is intended to serve as the primary long-range air-to-air weapon of both the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy in the coming years, becoming the successor to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The latter will continue to be developed, complementing the AIM-260.
The new missile will be compatible with the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile) dimensions, but with greater range, and is planned to be carried in the F-22 weapons bay and on the F/A-18 at first, with the F-35 to follow. The AIM-260 is also expected to be integrated on the U.S. Air Force’s upcoming unmanned Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA).
The missile is being developed and produced by Lockheed Martin. When the weapon was first unveiled, reports mentioned that AIM-260 production would overtake AIM-120 production by 2026, however, with the program’s details being highly classified and the recent boosts in the AMRAAM’s production, it is unclear if this goal still stands.
Initially, it was said the AIM-260 was also meant to counter the threat posed by the Chinese PL-15 and PL-17 missiles. The military in fact said the goal was to avoid foreign threats being able to outrange the AIM-120.
The project is an advanced state, with official saying in 2019 that flight tests would start in 2021 and Initial Operational Capability was expected in 2022, although the current timeline is unknown. Documents later showed that flight testing of the AIM-260 began as early as 2020.
The 2026 Ford Mustang RTR is a lot of things. It’s turbocharged, loaded with performance-package goodies, and tuned to let you have as much fun as possible before its electronic babysitters kick in. But despite its badge and all that implies, the Mustang RTR is not actually a drift car. But it could be.
First, let’s go over the recipe Ford cooked up. At a brief glance at the spec sheet, you might mistake the RTR for just a visual punch-up package, but don’t let the 315-horsepower output fool you. There’s actually quite a bit going on here. Compared to a stock EcoBoost, the RTR ships with a Torsen limited-slip differential (3.55:1), Brembo brakes, an active exhaust, a unique spoiler, a custom suspension, and wider wheels. It even has a unique calibration for the optional MagneRide suspension and, to top it all off, nearly 20% more maximum steering angle.
This all comes at a price—well, two prices, really. There’s a literal increase of $6,520; there’s also the metaphorical weight penalty of about 200 pounds over a base EcoBoost. Part of that comes from the added mass of the Dark Horse’s rear subframe, which the RTR uses; it also lifts the front and rear sway bars and adjustable strut top mounts from the Dark Horse’s Handling Pack. All in, that makes the RTR nearly as hefty as a zero-option Mustang GT, which comes with the 5.0-liter Coyote V8.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a fun Mustang built around something other than a V8. We’ve seen turbocharged SVOs, the V6-powered “Mayhem,” and most recently, the EcoBoost High Performance Package. Each time, the formula has been pretty much the same: Offer the performance advantages of a high-spec GT without having to spring for the eight-cylinder upgrade. Not only do you spend less up front, but if you plan to take it to the track, your consumable prices (fuel, tires, etc.) will be lower too. Win-win.
Gittin It
Vaughn Gittin Jr. and his merry band of miscreants didn’t build “RTR” just to go a little faster around a race track. It doesn’t stand for “Ready to Race,” after all; it stands for “Ready to Rock.” That doesn’t mean you couldn’t build the RTR into a race car; that’s entirely within its brief. But really, the RTR is the latest in an intermittent line of cars built for a singular, but catch-all purpose: hooning.
Remember the Focus RS, with its over-the-top all-wheel-drive system and “drift mode” toggle? This is like that, only it’s a rear-wheel-drive pony car, not a ‘roided-out hot hatchback. The Mustang is longer and far more graceful in rotation than the Focus ever was, making it a more natural platform for something that wants to go sideways.
From the description, the RTR sounds like it might be a bit of a handful, but on the road, that couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, if you set off in the RTR without activating Sport mode, the only tell you’re driving anything other than a base EcoBoost Mustang is the abundance of “Hyper Lime” accents.
It helps, of course, that all the test vehicles had Ford’s MagneRide adaptive dampers (a $1,750 standalone option), but even with the firmness Sport mode adds, the RTR’s ride isn’t punishing. If anything, that’s the Mustang chassis’s sweet spot. The one thing that does get a bit rougher as you dial up the aggression is the exhaust note. It doesn’t sound bad; it just doesn’t really sound like much of anything.
A Different Approach
The RTR may weigh about as much as a Mustang GT, but it wears its surplus weight more gracefully than its V8-powered sibling. The Coyote’s extra mass sits up front, where you least want it. That big engine wants to lead you around; the smaller EcoBoost isn’t quite so insistent. Combined with the RTR’s bonus steering angle, this little thing really enjoys rotating—which, again, sounds a bit sketchy in a car like this, but that’s where the last unique element comes in: the drive mode calibration.
These days, most even remotely sporty or youthful cars have a drive mode that eases off stability and traction control, letting the driver get closer to the limit of grip when the car starts to rotate. Proper performance cars, like the Mustang, tend to have more than one. Here, for example, you’ve got both Sport and Track modes. Typically, Track mode (or its equivalent) is rather lenient, but the stability control will still attempt to intervene before you can get the car completely crossed up.
And at some point during the RTR’s development, somebody dared to ask the obvious question: “Does it have to intervene?” After all, Track mode gives most drivers enough rope to hang themselves already, so what harm would it do to teach the car’s calibration to allow more rear-end tomfoolery? Apparently, nobody came up with a good enough reason not to, and the RTR’s software advantage was born. Couple that with a physical “drift brake,” and you’ve got the makings of a fun, funky little car.
Like, Sideways
If the RTR is trying to defy the “drift car” label, its hand brake certainly isn’t helping. If you’ve looked around lately, you’ve probably noticed that legit handbrakes have gone extinct. Even in most cars with a six-speed stick, you get an electronically actuated parking brake. This, meanwhile, is a manual handbrake that doesn’t function as a parking brake; its sole job is to temporarily break rear traction.
Stupid, right? It is, in the best possible way.
From a purely enthusiast standpoint, there’s no downside. The RTR steers quicker and harder, rotates more before the computers intervene, and looks pretty good doing it. What’s not to like (ahem, besides the mandatory 10-speed automatic)? To prove the point, RTR set us up with some track time on Thunderhill’s West circuit to see exactly what their playful little pony could do.
I don’t think I’m that old, but I’m old enough to have shopped for brand-new Mustangs back when a 315-horsepower, 4.6-liter V8 was the top dog; this 2.3-liter 4-pot even has more torque, but it also has more work to do. Down on cylinders, though, this little Mustang may weigh nearly 300 pounds more than that old Mod-motor GT.
By modern standards, I would hesitate to call the RTR Mustang “fast,” but it gets out of its own way well enough. Pushing all that tire out to the corners gives the RTR an aggressive look, to be sure, but it also increases the feedback you feel in the front end. On a modern performance car with electric power steering, every bit of communication counts. Fortunately, part of that hefty curb weight comes from the RTR’s big brakes. Six-piston Brembos grab the 15.4-inch front calipers; four-piston fixed calipers clamp down on 14-inch discs out back. They work splendidly.
Nimble and Predictable
The RTR’s tendency to rotate works both for and against it when it comes to fast lap times. Turn-in is crisp and rewarding, but the RTR tends to get squirmy under hard downhill braking, and despite its nimble character, it’s still a lot of car. Get off the brakes before you have it collected, and that rear end will take you for a ride. Fortunately, this is the sort of car that likes to be driven a bit loose. Still, open lapping isn’t the best place to get sideways. Fortunately, RTR scored us some time on a skidpad to do just that.
I say RTR, but in this case, I really mean Gittin himself. While the RTR Mustang may be his baby, this side of the house is obviously where he feels most at home. And because he wanted me to get the most out of my time in the RTR, he structured my skidpad session as a miniature clinic on getting sideways.
Until you’re in Track mode with the proper toggle enabled, the RTR’s drift brake lies dormant. Once it’s enabled, you can modulate it like a real handbrake, only it springs back to the rest position immediately after you release it. There’s no way to latch it in place. It responds like an analog brake, so you need to use it decisively if you want to break traction.
Zero to Hero
If you’ve ever done handbrake turns in an empty parking lot, you’ll feel right at home with the RTR’s drift brake. The action is natural and predictable. Like a real handbrake, you can use it in concert with the throttle, and, like a real handbrake, you can completely overpower it if you’re using too much right foot.
The skidpad was divided into two stages. The first half was designed to get me comfortable with the basics (J-turns and pirouettes), and the second half was structured to help me learn transitions—the trickiest thing for beginner drifters. Getting loose in one direction is easy. Weaving from one to the other like you know what you’re doing? That’s a lot tougher.
After 30 minutes and about a million hoots, hollers, and grins, I would have been perfectly content to stay right there and keep working on transitions. It’s hard to describe the sensation of using a handbrake in 2026, except to say it simply feels right.
The Early Verdict
Ultimately, that’s how I feel about the RTR itself. It’s not a drift car, and it’s not a track car, but it can be either. And that feels right. This car gives enthusiasts a jumping-off point from which to build pretty much anything. A drift car? Certainly. A track or autocross car? Why not? The bigger wheels and tires don’t make it too well-suited to drag racing, I suppose, but even that is fixable.
The field of fun, sub-$45,000 cars is awfully barren these days. The 2026 Ford Mustang RTR slides in just under that threshold, and offers a lot of fun for the dollar in a segment that lacks high-output, rear-wheel-drive entries. Apart from the Nissan Z and the now-departed Toyota Supra, this price range is largely the domain of high-output hatchbacks and low-output sports cars. As compromises go, the RTR doesn’t seem so bad in this company.
Ford provided The Drive with travel, accommodations, access to Sonoma Raceway, and the use of a vehicle for the purpose of writing this review.
Ships, aircraft, and a submarine from the US and UK were involved in Exercise Atlantic Thunder 2026, a multi-domain sinking exercise (SINKEX) led by US 6th Fleet, in the North Atlantic, Sep. 25, 2026.
According to a US Navy news release, during the SINKEX, participating forces assigned to U.S. Commander, Task Force 65, US Commander, Task Force 67, US Commander, Task Force 68, US Commander, Task Force 69 and US Commander, Task Force 1060 alongside the UK Royal Navy and the US Air Force sank the decommissioned guided-missile frigate ex-USS Klakring. The event developed combined proficiency in tactics, targeting, and live-firing against a surface target at sea.
“Atlantic Thunder demonstrates the unmatched lethality and interoperability of the United States and United Kingdom,” said US Capt. Kelechi Ndukwe, Commander, U.S. Task Force 65. “This sinking exercise not only validated the power behind U.S.-UK offensive weapons but delivers a clear message to adversaries that the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy remain a ready allied force.”
HMS Portland fires a Naval Strike Missile on Sep. 20, 2026, during a sinking exercise.
The exercise strengthens the US-UK alliance, warfighting credibility, and interoperability during long-range maritime sinking operations. During the SINKEX, the guided-missile destroyer USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) successfully demonstrated maximum damage and range capability of an anti-surface variant of the Standard Missile 6 (SM-6). USS Massachusetts (SSN 798) successfully engaged the target with the Mk 48 Advanced Capability Torpedo, resulting in the final hit and ultimately sinking ex-USS Klakring, as the video in this post shows.
US and UK units involved in the exercise
During the exercise, the Royal Navy confirmed its newest ship-busting missiles, the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) and Sea Venom.
“The successful firing of NSM marks a significant milestone for the Royal Navy, demonstrating our ability to deliver credible, modern maritime strike capability,” said Royal Navy Lt. Cmdr. Louise Kirkaldy, HMS Portland’s Principal Warfare.
This model is available from AirModels – CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS.
Prior to the start of the exercise Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock and Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC) Pacific used sensors placed on the target ship to perform battle damage assessments. The data gathered will be used in post-exercise damage assessments to provide critical information to rapidly identify system failures, determine repair needs, and strengthen the Navy’s future real-world response.
US and UK units involved in the exercise included Paul Ignatius, USS Massachusetts, Royal Navy frigate HMS Portland (F 79), US Navy and Royal Air Force P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, a Royal Navy Wildcat helicopter, US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles, and personnel assigned to US Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit (EODMU) 8.
USS Klakring
USS Klakring (FFG-42) was a Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate of the United States Navy named for Rear Admiral Thomas B. Klakring (1904–1975), who was awarded three Navy Crosses as commander of the submarine USS Guardfish during World War II.
The decommissioned guided-missile frigate ex-USS Klakring (FFG 42) is struck during a sinking exercise (SINKEX) as part of Exercise Atlantic Thunder 2026 on Sep. 20, 2026.
Klakring was laid down on 19 February 1982 by the Bath Iron Works Corp. Bath, Maine; launched on Sep. 18, 1982, sponsored by Beverly Bohen, niece of Rear Admiral Klakring, and commissioned on Aug. 20, 1983 at Bath.
The USS Klakring was decommissioned on Mar. 22, 2013.
Hulks
Former US Navy vessels used in SINKEXs, referred to as hulks, are prepared in strict compliance with regulations prescribed and enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency under a general permit the Navy holds pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.
Prior to being transported, each hulk undergoes a rigorous cleaning process for environmental safety. Aligned with UK Ministry of Defense environmental policy, robust monitoring was conducted above and below the sea’s surface with trained personnel using specialized equipment to reduce the overall risk of inadvertent impact to the marine environment and marine mammals during the Atlantic Thunder 2026 SINKEX.
Photo credit: U.S. Navy and Royal Navy
Video: VIDEO: Former U.S. Frigate Sunk in Exercise with U.S., Royal Navies Dzirhan Mahadzir September 30, 2026 1:27 PM
A four-day independent trial by the AFRL’s Munition Open Architecture Test and Evaluation Laboratory assessed 14 weapons-systems domains to verify the compliance of Barracuda-M.
Anduril’s Barracuda-M family of autonomous jet-powered cruise missiles has been certified to be compliant with the U.S. Air Force Weapons Open Systems Architecture (WOSA) standard, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) announced on Sept. 28, 2026. A four-day assessment at the AFRL’s Munition Open Architecture Test and Evaluation Laboratory (MOATEL) verified 14 weapon-systems domains, says the service.
Anduril said the Barracuda has become the “first weapon system in large-scale production to complete MOATEL’s independent WOSA verification process.” Both AFRL and Anduril identified the following capabilities and components that the MOATEL tested: Mission Autonomy, Seeker, Inertial Measurement Unit, Global Positioning System, Air-Data Sensor, Propulsion, Airframe Control, Target State Estimator, Altimeter Aiding Navigation, Clock, Autopilot, Guidance, Navigation and Munitions Data Bus (MDB).
AFRL described the milestone as an advancement of the government’s new weapons development practice to allow rapid fielding and technological innovation. Anduril says it validates its industrial approach to develop scalable, inexpensive yet effective weapons that trade exquisiteness for simplicity.
The @AFResearchLab verified that Anduril’s Barracuda-M family of cruise missiles meets the @usairforce‘s Weapon Open Systems Architecture standard, a framework intended to help weapons remain adaptable as technology, threats and mission needs change.https://t.co/JBFSyaEXB4pic.twitter.com/vE0bBDPVFi
The AFRL release quoted Department of the Air Force (DAF) Technology Executive Officer and AFRL commander Brig. Gen. Douglas Wickert, who said WOSA helps “new technology [rapidly progress] into adaptable warfighting capability.”
“By validating that open systems work at scale, we are fundamentally changing how we transition technology and enabling the rapid integration and fielding of new innovations faster than the threat evolves,” Wickert added.
AFRL project manager and creator of WOSA Jonathan Shaver said “open architecture is only meaningful when it can be independently verified […] instead of accepting vendor self-assessment.” WOSA verification at MOATEL makes “new sciences […] ready for a weapon, showing open architecture can scale beyond prototypes.”
The four-day verification at MOATEL assessing 14 WOSA domains “demonstrated modularity between Anduril’s internal and external MDB implementations, enabling rapid technology refresh of WOSA-compliant software.” Additionally, “it also verified that Anduril’s software architecture met the WOSA requirements for the domains under test,” AFRL added.
The statement explained that “Barracuda-M’s assessment represents a production-scale example of the verification process AFRL will continue to apply as additional weapons programs move through development and production.”
@anduriltech Unveils Barracuda-M Family of Cruise Missiles
The Barracuda family of AAVs consists of Barracuda-100, Barracuda-250, and Barracuda-500. Each increment offers increasing size, range and payload capacity, but all Barracudas are compatible with a host of payloads and… pic.twitter.com/NW1RvpUI6W
Anduril’s vice president of Advanced Effects Pat Morris said the challenge is to actually prove modularity and open architectures in an independent assessment, rather than to “talk about” it. “AFRL and MOATEL’s verification validates one of the fundamental design decisions behind Barracuda: build the weapon around a simple, modular architecture so that programs can integrate new technology without redesigning the entire system,” he explained.
Open Systems Architecture capability and Anduril
Open systems architecture, which allows hardware and software modularity, has become a new cornerstone of the Department of War’s acquisition doctrine, particularly in the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, where Anduril is the prime contractor for the FQ-44 Fury.
This approach can prevent vendor lock-in, potentially helping to mitigate cost overruns and acquisition delays while supporting mass producibility and scalability to meet protracted conventional wars, as well as allowing third-party component and software modification to meet various mission needs.
Anduril (@anduriltech) announced a production agreement for Surface-Launched Barracuda-500M with U.S. Department of War (@DeptofWar).
“Under the agreement, Anduril will scale production to deliver a minimum of 1,000 all-up rounds per year, with the first tranche of… pic.twitter.com/V4fNSYiK7c
— Counter Unmanned Systems (@CUAS_NEWS) May 13, 2026
Anduril has long touted a different industrial model than the legacy companies. It favors simple designs, engineering decisions and proven components from existing supply chains for its weapons. These can be produced using non-specialized manufacturing equipment and tooling on reconfigurable factory lines, supporting both weapons modifications and flexible production rates.
Barracuda family of weapons
Anduril describes the Barracuda family as a series of Autonomous Air Vehicles (AAV) consisting of three variants: the Barracuda-100, Barracuda-250 and Barracuda-500. The ‘M’ suffix represents the kinetic effect variant of the munition.
The company designates the ground-fired version as the Surface Launched Barracuda (SLB). The U.S. Army contracted 3,000 SLB-500Ms in May 2026 for its Program Acquisition Executive FIRES (PAE FIRES) effort.
Anduril will deliver thousands of air-launched cruise missiles per year under a new 7-year agreement with the @DeptofWar.
This framework establishes a clear pathway to move the pallet-and lug-launched Barracuda-500M from development and prototyping into large-scale production.… https://t.co/H1pa4lW1jEpic.twitter.com/TLyplb9TTt
Anduril puts the air-launched Barracuda-500M’s range at more than 500 nautical miles and claims an approximate speed of 190 to 500 knots. In September 2025, the U.S. Air Force designated the Barracuda-500M as the AGM-189A.
Anduril is also expanding internationally. It has tied up with Brazilian aerospace company Embraer to integrate the Barracuda-500M on the C-390 Millennium for palletized launches.
Additionally, An MoU with Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa S.A. (PGZ) covers the weapon’s localized production in Poland. The agreement concens the surface launched variant of the Barracuda-500M.
Another potential European customer is Latvia. President Edgars Rinkēvičs visited Anduril and posted about his visit on X on September 25.
“It was great to visit Anduril to meet with Palmer Luckey and to witness signing of memoranda of cooperation with MOD of Latvia and Origin Robotics Looking forward to complete acquisition of Barracuda long-range missiles and [Latvian-U.S.] defense industry cooperation,” said Rinkēvičs. The class of Barracuda missile, the number of weapons Latvia aims to buy, the cost and the delivery timeline are not known.
It was great to visit @anduriltech to meet with @PalmerLuckey and to witness signing of memoranda of cooperation with MOD of Latvia and @OriginRobotics. Looking forward to complete acquisition of Baracuda longe range missiles and defense industry cooperation pic.twitter.com/JafnNy5RAe
Belgium is set to deliver its first three F-16AM/BM fighters to Ukraine following a several-year delay, as Kyiv also discusses with Lockheed Martin about adopting the latest variant of the fighter jet.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announced on Sept. 29, 2026, that Belgium will begin the transfer of its elderly F-16AM/BM Fighting Falcons to Ukraine by the end of the year. The first delivery will see three aircraft sent, with the rest of the 30 promised aircraft being delivered as Belgium equips itself with F-35A Lightning IIs bought directly from the United States. The promised delivery follows a long delay, with the aircraft originally pledged in May 2024 to be delivered towards the end of the year and up until 2028.
Unlike the Dutch and Norwegian F-16 deliveries, these transfers were held up by the slow roll out of Belgium’s F-35s, as the country was not willing to part with its combat aircraft until it had at least some replacements in service. To this date, only seven F-35s have been delivered to Belgium, of which three aircraft were delivered on Sept. 24.
Delivery of Belgium’s first four F-35s from the United States. They arrived in Belgium landing at Florennes Air Base in October 2025. | Source: Belgian Ministry of Defence
Making the announcement, President Zelenskyy emphasised the importance of the deliveries of new kit to Ukraine to combat the Russian threat, with the expedited delivery of “F-16 ammunition from Belgium and other countries, including Spain” being instrumental to Ukraine’s air defence.
These deliveries likely included a number of AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and cannon rounds which are instrumental in the Ukrainian Air Force’s (UkrAF) defensive counter air campaign, shooting down large numbers of Russian drones and cruise missiles. The F-16s have also recently been augmented with the supply of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) guided rockets, which allow Ukrainian fighters to shoot down Russian drones at a far cheaper cost than the use of a normal missile.
There is an important agreement with Belgium on the transfer of three F-16 fighter jets by the end of this year. We will work to receive these aircraft through an accelerated procedure. We have already received urgent deliveries of F-16 ammunition from Belgium and other…
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) September 29, 2026
On this point, during a meeting with Lockheed Martin representatives to discuss Ukraine’s future fighter capabilities, the Commander of the Ukrainian Air Force, Lieutenant General Anatolii Kryvonozhko, announced that F-16 pilots have shot down “over 3,150 enemy aerial targets which include 666 cruise missiles and an estimated 2,500 drones of various types.”
The F-16 is a potent counter cruise missile and drone platform, having the speed to chase them down and destroy them before they impact civilian areas. The F-16 has also been an effective close air support platform, conducting “650 airstrikes” against the ground forces of the Russian Federation.
The principle air-to-ground munitions employed by Ukrainian F-16s appear to be the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB). A single jet can carry up to eight of the 250 lb munitions without having to renounce to drop tanks and air-to-air munitions.
Ukraine also employs several variants of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). This weapon comes in a number of different weight classes, with 500 lb and 1000 lb variants seen in use in Ukraine, and can be equipped with a glide kit or a rocket kit to extend the range, however they have not yet been photographed on Ukrainian F-16s.
Ukrainian F-16 pilots have shot down over 3,150 enemy aerial targets, including 666 cruise missiles and about 2,500 drones of various types, and have also carried out more than 650 airstrikes against enemy ground targets. This was reported by the Commander of the Ukrainian Air… pic.twitter.com/A9136JeJkF
The F-16s and their Ukrainian pilots have proven themselves to be extremely effective since their introduction with the aircraft, now forming the bedrock of the current and future Ukrainian fighter force. However, the models delivered were all original A and B variant F-16s that were built in the 1970s and 1980s, making them similar in age to their former ex-Soviet fleet of aircraft.
These fighters did receive a midlife update to extend their service lives and to give them more advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities. However, they are reaching the end of their useful service lives due to airframe fatigue and they are facing increasing maintenance demands after intensive use in the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Belgian Air Component F-16AM fighter jet at RAF Waddington for Exercise COBRA WARRIOR in 2023. This fleet is transiting over to the F-35 as the air force modernises itself. | Source: Crown copyright 2023/Sgt Nicholas Howe RAF
It was reported by the Wall Street Journal that maintenance of these aircraft is fast becoming an issue with an unnamed source stating that “more than half of Ukraine’s F-16s are currently in maintenance limbo” and that “Kyiv will exhaust the rest by the end of the year.” This is a worrying development if confirmed, as the F-16 is essential for Ukraine’s continued defence of its skies.
Reportedly, this is due to delays at Sabena Aerospace Engineering, a Belgian company that is responsible for the long term maintenance of the F-16s used by Ukraine. Retired U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery stated that the aircraft need to undergo regular phase inspections every 300 hours, which should take weeks. However, in Belgium it’s “taking as long as 40 weeks,” delaying maintenance and leaving aircraft unable to fly.
More than half of Ukraine’s F-16 fighter jets are currently not operational due to maintenance delays in Belgium – WSJ
A significant number of the fighter jets remain grounded due to a lack of spare parts and the need for more frequent repairs following intensive use.
Details on this issue are scarce, but they paint a worrying picture for the UkrAF which has already undergone years of degradation due to the war. It is hoped that the integration of further aircraft into the force would alleviate some of these maintenance issues, allowing for a large pool of spare aircraft, and the possible maintenance of the jets in Ukraine itself.
The importance of the F-16 to Ukraine’s current and future air force needs is likely what led to the meeting between Ukrainian representatives and Lockheed Martin to explore the possibility of supplying Ukraine with the far more advanced F-16 Block 70/72, which uses capabilities derived from the F-22 and F-35 programmes. The introduction of newer jets could ease the maintenance burden as these aircraft would be fresh and infinitely more capable than their forefathers.
Belgian Air Component F-16BM fighter jet at RAF Fairford for the Royal International Air Tattoo in 2024. This two seater was joined by F-16s from across the world to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the jet. | Source: James Gray
Conor McGuire, Lockheed’s F-16 capability development lead, praised the work of Ukrainian pilots and ground crews and expressed his intention to help improve the aircraft Ukraine already operates. Whether this could be through further upgrades to the F-16AM/BM fleet or in the provision of further maintenance infrastructure is currently speculation.
Ukraine’s Ex-Soviet Force
Ukraine started the war with a mixed fleet of ex-Soviet aircraft which were already ageing out at the start of the conflict.
Its mainstay air-to-air fighters in 2022 consisted of a force of around 70 MiG-29 Fulcrums and 34 Su-27 Flanker jet fighters, which bore a significant brunt of the early air war. When the Ukrainian ground based air defences had to be displaced during the opening days, it was up to these aircraft and their pilots to absorb the might of Russia’s air power.
The MiG-29 and Su-27 fleets suffered several losses during those opening days, but they managed to stem the Russian tide long enough for the ground based air defences to secure the skies over Ukraine. Since then, these fleets have been upgraded to employ western missiles and bombs, including the AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), which is used to suppress Russia’s air defence systems, as well as the 1,000 lb GBU-62 JDAM-ER and the 500 lb GBU-39B Small Diameter Bomb precision glide bombs.
A MiG-29 of the 114th Tactical Aviation Brigade pulls a high speed manoeuvre. The leading edges of the wings and the horizontal stabilisers are painted in Ukrainian blue and yellow to ease identification during combat and prevent friendly fire at low level. | Source: Ukrainian Air Force
Their primary role however remained air defence, with these aircraft maintaining the defensive counter air mission against missiles and drones until the introduction of the F-16. The actions of the 40th Tactical Aviation Brigade, who flew MiG-29s over Kyiv during the early days of the war, birthed the legend of the ‘Ghost of Kyiv’, the name of which was later awarded to them in 2024 via presidential decree.
There have been a number of attrition replacements for Ukraine’s MiG-29 fleet, including 13 from Slovakia, 14 from Poland, along with a number of spare parts that allowed Ukraine to reactivate some of its stored fighters as well as three that Azerbaijan had in Ukraine for maintenance. However, losses have been heavy, with 39 aircraft visually confirmed damaged or destroyed, leaving the MiG-29 fleet significantly depleted over time.
Colonel Oleksandr Oksanchenko’s Su-27 that he flew during the Royal International Air Tattoo in 2019. | Source: James Gray
The Su-27 has not received any attrition replacements, with 20 confirmed lost over the course of the fighting. This included the tragic loss of Colonel Oleksandr Oksanchenko ‘The Grey Wolf’, Ukraine’s principal Su-27 display pilot, who was killed in combat on Feb. 25, 2022. His loss was sorely felt in the air show community, with the Royal International Air Tattoo dedicating a memorial to him at the show that same year.
The memorial to the fallen pilot in 2022. His loss, amongst so many, was sorely felt. | Source: James Gray
Ukraine’s primary air-to-ground aircraft at the war’s start were the 14 or so Su-24 Fencer and the 30 odd Su-25 Frogfoots which have also played key parts in the war to date. The Fencer fleet was essential early in the war to provide close air support and interdiction against Russian forces that landed at the Hostomel airport in 2022.
Their attack here helped to block the runway that the Russian paratroopers of the VDV were going to use to bring in reinforcements by air, which gave the Ukrainian units of the National Guard the time to counter attack and contain the Russian landing. The actions here prevented the loss of Kyiv and allowed the country to stay in the fight for the long term.
Ukrainian Air Force Su-24M Fencer with underwing Storm Shadow missiles from the front. | Source: Vladyslav Demyanenko/Ukrainian Air Force
The Su-24 was also the aircraft chosen to carry the British, French and Italian donated Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG air launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), which have proven devastating against Russian supply depots, bridges and naval forces. Parts from the Panavia Tornado were bolted on to the airframe to allow for the missile to be integrated, allowing it to carry the weapon into combat.
Due to this mission set, losses have been lighter than during the early war, as the Storm Shadow has a long stand-off launch distance, enabling the Su-24 to stay out of Russia’s air defences. However, the fleet has still lost 22 airframes in total, along with many of their pilots.
Keen eyed observers will see that losses for the Su-24 are higher than their initial fleet total. This is thanks to the maintainers and engineers who were able to bring back a significant number of aircraft from storage, giving them a new lease of life to fight the invasion.
Rare footage of the release of French guided aerial bombs AASM Hammer from the board of a Ukrainian Su-25 attack aircraft. pic.twitter.com/J7lFfzA0dr
Likewise, the Su-25 has been Ukraine’s primary close air support weapon, delivering volleys of unguided rockets at long distance early in the war due to heavy losses. The supply of Soviet munitions dwindled over time due to a lack of resupply, and so the Su-25 took more of a backseat to the MiG-29 in the ground attack role.
However, the fleet was significantly augmented with deliveries of French AASM Hammer bombs which gave the Frogfoot the stand off distance it needed to get back into the fight. Losses have still been unfortunately high, with 22 aircraft lost over the last five years of war, significantly degrading the fleet.
The ex-Soviet force of fighter planes and their pilots have soldiered on far longer than anyone had expected them to when the war started in 2022. However, it is the assistance of NATO and Ukraine’s Western allies that will enable the UkrAF to develop into the future.
The Future Fighter Fleet
The first F-16s entered Ukrainian airspace in August 2024, following extensive training programs abroad in multiple European partner nations as well as the United States. Jointly,they set up the European F-16 Training Center (EFTC) at the 86th Air Base in Fetești, Romania, which serves to train Ukrainian and Romanian pilots on the platform.
Three Ukrainian F-16s flying in formation together, each is equipped for an air-to-air engagement, carrying AIM-120 AMRAAMs and AIM-9 Sidewinders, likely for counter drone missions. | Source: Ukrainian Air Force
With this and several other training programmes in place, F-16AM/BM aircraft were then donated by Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and soon to be Belgium, to sustain the UkrAF. According to retired USAF pilot Lt. Gen. David Deptula, Ukraine’s F-16s now fly “80 percent” of all Ukrainian combat sorties, marking a significant change in the makeup of the overall fighter force. Even with the maintenance problems already discussed above, the F-16, being a Western jet, has more available spares than the ex-Soviet fleet, with the majority of spare parts being controlled by the Russian Federation.
Ukraine currently has an estimated 39 F-16s in service, so far having lost five to attrition over the last few years, but it is expected to raise to a maximum of 80 aircraft once deliveries from Denmark and Belgium are completed. At that point, the F-16 will be the most numerous fighter in Ukrainian service.
Cockpit photo from a Ukrainian Air Force F-16 Sept. 10, 2026, while defending against a Russian mass air attack. Off the aircraft’s starboard side, a Russian jet-powered Geran one-way attack drone can be seen falling from the sky, trailing smoke, having been shot down by the Ukrainian pilot—his third gun kill of the sortie, using the F-16’s 20mm cannon. | Source: Official Ukrainian Air Force
Tragically, Ukrainian MiG-29 pilot Captain Andrii Pilshchykov ‘Juice’, who played a key role in advocating for the delivery of F-16s to Ukraine, was killed in a training exercise in August 2023.
Following his initial wartime service, he spent months giving interviews to Western media and even traveled to the U.S. to meet and convince American lawmakers to enable the donation of the fighters to Ukraine. He was very much the public face of the campaign to see Ukrainian pilots in F-16s and their current impact on the war is in no small part due to his efforts.
A message from ‘Juice’ — the Ukrainian MiG-29 pilot I interviewed a few weeks ago.
Alongside the F-16, Ukraine has also received six Mirage 2000-5 fighter jets from France, with one lost to attrition quite soon after their initial delivery. These aircraft also allow for the employment of SCALP-EG ALCMs, taking some of the strain off the dwindling Su-24 force. It is expected that France will send more to Ukraine as it retires its current fleet, with between 12 and 20 aircraft expected to be delivered over the coming years.
A Ukrainian Mirage 2000 takes off carrying Magic 2 air-to-air missiles for air defence purposes. | Source: Ukrainian Air Force
This fleet acts more as an interim option before 16 Dassault Rafales can be delivered to the country, following an announcement made by French President Macron in July this year. The first four aircraft will be delivered following completion of their pilots training which is starting this year.
It is still unknown if these will be new build fighters, or more likely aircraft from existing French stocks, though they are part of a purchase that aims to see 100 Rafales in Ukrainian colours. Unlike the donated Mirages, these aircraft are paid for by the Ukraine Support Loan and will give the Ukrainians a new advantage over their Russian opponent with the introduction of the Meteor missile to the battlefield.
The Rafale will be the premier fighter of the future UkrAF, but it will not be alone. Up to 16 Gripen C/Ds are expected to be donated to Ukraine in early 2027, coming directly from the Swedish Air Force. These aircraft will then be joined by a further 20 Gripen E/F fighters, which have a capability comparable to the Rafale but with a significantly improved rough strip performance.
Sweden will donate 16 Gripen C/D fighters to Ukraine, with deliveries starting early next year.
Ukraine will additionally purchase 20x Gripen E fighters, with deliveries starting in 2030. Sweden will additionally provide maintenance and training support. pic.twitter.com/y748IDg1Bq
The final tally of expected aircraft will be around 150 aircraft, rising to around 300 if Ukraine’s aspirational orders of 100 Rafales and 100 Gripen Es come to fruition. Either way, the added aircraft more than make up for the losses in material incurred so far during the war and will give Ukraine an advantage over Russia in the air for the very first time.
It is still a long road until Ukraine receives all its fighters, and the logistical nightmare that such a diverse fleet represents will be a tough manage for a force already operating six types of frontline aircraft.
The F-16 Block 70/72
Given the progress made in F-16 training, UkrAF performance and the logistical challenges that introducing a new aircraft into service becomes, Ukraine is also exploring a possible pivot to newer block models of the aircraft. The F-16 training centre is a long term investment that could be greatly improved upon with the acquisition of 4.5 generation F-16s, which have capabilities similar to Gripen and Rafale, but in a package that Ukraine is already using en masse.
Finally, after years of delay, the first of the 66 new F-16V Block 70s for the Taiwanese Air Force has been delivered. Packing an AESA radar, modern avionics, and a much nastier electronic warfare suite, this latest Viper is a very different beast from the F-16 that first took to… pic.twitter.com/zcXHlmydzT
The F-16 Block 70/72, or F-16V in the case of existing aircraft upgraded to the new standard, is the most modern variant of the aircraft, representing both new builds directly from Lockheed Martin as well as upgrade packages for older aircraft. The variant uses an advanced APG-83 AESA radar, a massive improvement over the older mechanically scanned arrays that Ukraine currently uses, having better range, better electronic warfare capabilities and better data links. The radar leverages hardware and software commonality with F-22 and F-35 AESA radars, giving it some of the benefits of a 5th generation aircraft.
The aircraft utilises a modernized cockpit to allow for better systems integration, and vastly improved avionics. Some versions come with conformal fuel tanks to improve the aircraft’s baseline range, which could drastically improve the survivability of the aircraft on the ground, operating further away from the front.
These capabilities could be added onto existing F-16s through a modification programme similar to that undergone by Taiwan’s F-16 force, but it would require significant assistance from the United States. Relations between Ukraine and the U.S. are at a warmer point than they were the previous year, with Ukraine having reached an agreement with U.S. President Donald Trump for the production of the missiles used in Patriot air defence systems.
The Block 70/72 variants would be a significant boon to the UkrAF, but only time will tell if the force is able to acquire them.
A Flydubai Boeing 737 MAX 8 flying from Dubai to Tel Aviv diverted to Saudi Arabia after the two pilots reportedly became involved in a violent confrontation inside the cockpit.
A Flydubai Boeing 737 MAX 8 operating flight FZ1073 from Dubai International Airport to Ben Gurion Airport was diverted to Saudi Arabia on Sept. 30, 2026, after a serious incident developed inside the cockpit while the aircraft was enroute. The first hints about an ongoing incident arrived when the aircraft was noticed on flight tracking websites plummeting 14,000 ft in less than 30 seconds.
The aircraft later inverted the route and landed safely at Tabuk Airport, in northwestern Saudi Arabia, after transmitting a series of emergency signals. All passengers, approximately 174 – many of which from Israel, were reported safe and accounted for by Flydubai, while Saudi authorities said that both pilots sustained injuries and were taken to hospital.
Flydubai flight #FZ1073, a Boeing 737 MAX 8, registration number A6-FKF, flying from Dubai to Tel Aviv, diverted to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, following an onboard security incident.
Timeline (UTC):
03:05 — Take off from Dubai
05:21 — Altitude fluctuations begin
05:22 — Aircraft drops… pic.twitter.com/xFS6138BIA
The incident initially triggered fears of a hijacking because the aircraft briefly transmitted the international transponder code 7500, which indicates unlawful interference. As a precaution, Israeli authorities scrambled fighter aircraft and held urgent security consultations while the airliner approached Israeli airspace.
Flydubai FZ1073, a Boeing 737 MAX 8, was diverted to Saudi Arabia after a serious cockpit incident during its approach to Tel Aviv on Wednesday.
The flight from Dubai to Ben Gurion Airport transmitted emergency squawk 7700 before switching to 7500, the international code for… pic.twitter.com/ufELugunfO
Following the landing, Israeli officials said that the aircraft had not been hijacked. Instead, the emergency appears to have resulted from a violent confrontation between the two pilots, which was stopped with the help of the cabin crew and passengers.
The flydubai flight that landed at Tabuk Airport in Saudi Arabia appears to have sustained damage to the rudder, likely due to the rapid plunge it took amid the incident. pic.twitter.com/A2paTx7TUf
Images which emerged following the landing show that the aircraft suffered substantial damage, with the rudder missing a large part. During the descent, the Boeing 737 reportedly exceeded its maximum operating speed.
A violent altercation and stabbing in the cockpit of a FlyDubai flight over Saudi Arabia this morning caused the 737-8 to plummet 18,400 feet in just under two minutes, exceeding its maximum operating speed by nearly 100 kts.
FZ1073 departed Dubai early in the morning, at 03:05 UTC, on a scheduled flight to Tel Aviv. According to publicly available flight-tracking data, the Boeing 737 was cruising at approximately 34,000 feet when it suddenly began a sharp descent at 05:22 UTC, according to data provided by Flightradar24 and AirNav Radar.
Between 05:22:07 and 05:22:36 flight #FZ1073 dropped from 30,875 feet to 16,750 feet (-14,125 feet in just 29 seconds) pic.twitter.com/hHfnX7cKWI
The aircraft reached approximately 15,000 feet in less than 30 seconds. This abrupt maneuver was followed by a sharp climb and another sharp descent, before the aircraft stabilized at approximately 15,000 feet and continued the flight toward Saudi Arabia.
The sequence was accompanied by a series of emergency transponder codes which were transmitted from 05:31 UTC, about ten minutes after the beginning of the first descent. The aircraft first transmitted 7700, the internationally recognized transponder code for a general emergency.
03:05 — Take off from Dubai International Airport
05:31 — Squawk changed to 7700
05:38 — Squawk changed to 7500
06:11 — Aircraft left Flightradar24 ground-based coverage
06:28 — Squawk 7700 received via satellite
06:58 — Last signal… pic.twitter.com/ChlUs4kRDU
Several minutes later, it briefly transmitted 7500, the standardized code which indicates possible unlawful interference, raising concerns that the aircraft could have been hijacked. The aircraft subsequently returned to 7700 before turning south and diverting toward Tabuk.
Meanwhile, Israeli fighter aircraft were scrambled as authorities attempted to determine what was happening aboard the aircraft. The incident also prompted urgent consultations involving Israeli officials, reportedly including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
An Israeli official subsequently told Reuters that the emergency signals had been transmitted following a physical altercation between the two pilots.
What Happened in the Cockpit?
The precise sequence of events remains under investigation, but increasingly detailed accounts from Israeli officials and passengers point to a violent confrontation between the pilots. Reuters reported that two Israeli officials said the current Israeli assessment was that the incident may have been an attempted terror attack.
Following situation assessments and passenger testimonies, Israel is treating the incident as a full-fledged terrorist attack. It appears that the co-pilot repeatedly stabbed the captain. Once the attack began, several crew members and passengers managed to break through the… https://t.co/BXS4kIjGXk
“During the flight, as they were approaching Israel, one of the pilots stabbed the other pilot and, apparently, tried to crash the plane with its passengers on board,” said Netanyahu.
After speaking with passengers, the Prime Minister said a passenger and one of the crew members were able to break into the cockpit and overpower the pilot, while another crew member managed to stabilize the aircraft. The pilot who carried out the stabbing was arrested upon landing by Saudi authorities.
Israeli media have also circulated a photograph purportedly showing a passenger with a blood-soaked shirt. Reuters said it was unable to independently verify the photograph.
Meanwhile, Saudi authorities have confirmed that both the pilots were injured. The precise nature and severity of their injuries has not been fully disclosed, although authorities confirmed that both were transported to hospital for medical treatment.
Flydubai later sent two replacement planes to Tabuk, and all the passengers of flight FZ1073 have now departed Saudi Arabia.
Do you own a fun car with a dual-clutch automatic transmission and sometimes wish you would have gotten a stick? These days, it may not even be your fault. Plenty of fun cars are sold exclusively with paddle-shifted automatics, and they’re probably faster (and safer) in the hands of mortal drivers as a result. But driving enjoyment doesn’t always come from being quick, and the art of operating a manual is something many enthusiasts still embrace.
Enter the Quickshift, from Limitless Engineering—a new effort from Ferris Rezvani (yep, that Rezvani). This fancy little piece of machinery puts a gated manual shifter in the palm of your hand. It’s designed to interface with your car’s existing transmission control system, allowing you to crack off manual, rev-matched shifts as if your car had a full three-pedal setup. And the best part? Limitless says it installs in hours and requires no permanent modifications to your car.
And when I say “your” car, in this case, I mean it fairly literally. Limitless showed off a demonstrator of the kit in a Ferrari 458, but Rezvani himself says the system can be adapted to work in any car.
“Modern cars have amazing technology, but along the way they’ve lost the emotion,” Rezvani said.
“Quickshift is not meant to be an old fashioned manual but the modern version of a manual; giving drivers the tactile gated feel to row your own gears without a clutch pedal to slow you down,” Rezvani said.
“The way you interact with the car matters,”Rezvani continued. “Reaching for a gated shifter, feeling it move into position, hearing the engine respond; that creates an emotional connection. Quickshift is about giving drivers more of those moments.”
Made with Google AIMade with Google AIMade with Google AI
So, what’s the catch? Well, for starters, Rezvani isn’t exactly known for budget-friendly projects. In fact, the company’s web site boasts about its bespoke commission program. Sure, Limitless can probably build you one of these for the ratty, 20-year-old GTI you occasionally see on Facebook Marketplace, but it would probably cost you more than the purchase of the car itself—perhaps several times over. In that same vein, the cost to integrate this kit cleanly into your car’s interior is likely to vary wildly depending on what you’re driving. This is very likely an “if you have to ask…” type situation.
And after all that, you still don’t get a clutch pedal out of the deal.
One of the most well-known bombers of all time, the B-17 Flying Fortress became famous for the long daylight bombing raids over Europe in WWII. While it lacked the range and bomb load of its contemporary B-24 Liberator, the B-17 became the more famous of the two due to the many tales of B-17s bringing their crews back home despite heavy damage. With up to thirteen machine guns, the B-17 seemed to be genuine flying “fortress in the sky.”
Ask anyone who has seen one, heard one, or flown one “Is the B-17 the best bomber ever built?” They will likely give you more explanations than you care to hear about this magnificent aircraft. To most warbird enthusiasts, there is just nothing like a B-17 Flying Fortress. As explained by Brent William Perkins in his book Memphis Belle: Biography of a B-17 Flying Fortress, with the classic lines of the early military, the Fort typifies what a heavy aircraft ought to look like. A large sweeping tail and broad wings, along with the angled windshield and distinctive nosepiece make the B-17 stand out among other designs.
Just sitting still, a B-17 gives the appearance of a warrior, while at the same time showing the graceful curves of a Hollywood movie star. Bristling with heavy machine guns in every direction and sitting tail low as if it is ready to leap into the air where, with its broad and deep wings, it finds its home. Dubbed “The Flying Fortress” by Richard Williams, newspaper reporter for the Seattle Times, the bomber was conceived under the Boeing proposal known as the model 299. It was April 1934, and a flyable prototype had to be ready in less than one year.
Ensuring total victory
Boeing Model 299
With the certainty of war on the horizon, military strategists were looking towards airpower to ensure total victory. At the time, there was no bomber in the US arsenal that could meet the coming demands that aerial warfare would require. The US Army Air Corps (the USAF was not born until 1947) needed more range, precision weapons delivery, and combat survivability than the aircraft in the inventories could handle at that time. The call went out. Design a bomber that can fly for ten hours at 25,000 feet, can climb to 10,000 feet in five minutes, and can maintain 7,000 feet with the designed useful load and one engine out.
Boeing had done it. After spending only $275,000.00, the 299 rolled out of the factory on Jul. 17, 1935. The 299 could carry up to 4,800 pounds of weapons in the bomb bay just a little more than a the year after going on the drafting tables. Little did they know that they had designed an aircraft that would set the standards for high altitude bombing through the end of the century.
Only one month and three days after roll out and accumulating some 14 hours and 5 minutes of test time, the 299 took off from Seattle, WA, bound for Wright-Patterson near Dayton, OH. Nine hours and three minutes later it put the rubber on the runway in Ohio. Average ground speed was 233 mph. This flight stole the show from the up and coming Douglas B-18, which was really just a beefed up DC-2. It also overshadowed the much worked over Martin B-10.
B-24 Vs B-17
On Jan. 17, 1937, the Air Corps placed an order for thirteen YB-17s. Production for the plane would run a little more than eight years through August 1945, after some 12,731 Fortresses were built. It is believed that around 10,000 of these actually left the United States for assignments all over the world. Despite the Fort’s uncanny ability to survive major battle damage, roughly 4,500 B-17s were lost in combat flying mainly from the European Theatre of Operations and the unsinkable aircraft carrier known as the United Kingdom. From this island, the mighty Eighth Air Force launched the greatest air armada ever—where the sky roared for a thousand days and the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress marked its place in history.
Huge selection of WWII aircraft diecast models to choose from – get yours here.
Is the B-17 the very best bomber ever built’? For years, the argument has continued between the B-17 and the Consolidated B-24 Liberator. Was the B-24 the better plane? This question has consumed far too many for far too many years. The Liberator carried more, was faster, and could fly higher than the B-17. Although they did fly next to each other in combat, their role was a little different. The Flying Fortress and the Liberator complimented each other and were never meant to be competitors. However, competition was inevitable, as they were both successful bombing platforms.
New bomber designs
The two bombers were simply the result of an exhaustive search by the War Department through aircraft builders for the new bomber designs that were so badly needed. Of the design submissions, the -17 and the -24 were the best. Their designs were simply the result of what was needed at the time. Consider the numbers. B-24 production ran up to 18,188 of the huge twin-tailed leviathans. However, by the end of the war, so many modifications had been made to the B-24 that it could no longer fly further or faster than the B-17.
Wartime Impact – The ability to penetrate hostile airspace, weather enemy threats, carry the correct bomb load, deliver the load successfully, and return home. Defensive Characteristics – From single barrel machine guns through electronic counter measures, stealth, and even speed. What bomber defends itself better than any other? Range – Could the bomber launch, ingress, loiter, deliver, and return? Available Bomb Load – What could carry the most and how many different types of weapons could it haul? Accuracy – The result of the bomb delivery system and the aircraft’s stability and control predictability. Survivability – Evading or withstanding enemy ground-fire and aerial attack. What bomber had the lowest loss to sortie ratio?
B-17: The best bomber ever built
B-17 and B-24 bombers
From the time that aerial bombing began through today, these aircraft stand out among the very best ever designed: the German Gotha bombers; the Heinkel 111; the B-17; B-24; Lancaster; Aichi D3A Val; the B-47 Stratojet; the B-52 Stratofortress; the FB-111; the B-58 Hustler; B-1 Lancer; B-2 Spirit and more.
Most agree, given the above criteria, that the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is the best bomber ever built. Apparently, the US military felt the same way. The baker one-seven was not fully retired from active service until the late 1960s!
The debate over which was the better plane began early in the War and continues even today. General James Doolittle wrote his studied comparisons, in which he partly stated that in an effort to improve the B-24’s defensive characteristics, performance was compromised at the expense of the added weight of the armor and armament. One very unusual example of the Army Air Corps attempt to improve on the Liberator was to graft the entire front of a B-17G onto a B-24J. The results were terribly unsuitable, and only three tests were flown by this plane. The hybrid bomber could only climb to 18,000 feet and lacked both longitudinal and directional stability.
One note from the study report stated that the installation increased the already excessive basic weight of the B-24J. But the Bombardier and Navigator reported that they favored the increased room in the forward compartment over the traditional B-24 arrangement.
Memphis Belle: Biography of a B-17 Flying Fortress is published by Schiffer Publishing and is available to order here.
Photo credit: Airwolfhound from Hertfordshire via Wikipedia, UK San Diego Air & Space Museum and Senior Airman Curt Beach/U.S. Air Force
The new award is a step towards the Air Force’s planned fleet of 267 F-15EXs, replacing the aging F-15C/D Eagle and also beginning the recapitalization of the F-15E Strike Eagle fleet.
As The Aviationist had reported, the larger acquisition will allow the service to begin the recapitalization of the aging F-15E Strike Eagle fleet, in addition to replacing the F-15C/D Eagle which the F-15EX was originally meant to supplant. The award of the new contract also comes on the same day Boeing was chosen by the Navy for its F/A-XX next-generation fighter jet, after being selected last year for the Air Force’s F-47 NGAD.
Air and Space Forces Magazine, considering the $2.38 billion contract value disclosed by Boeing, estimated an average cost per airframe of $108 million. This value does not include the GE Aerospace F110-GE-129 engines, which the Air Force will purchase separately.
Boeing, for its part, said that it is currently delivering Lot 3 aircraft, and will continue for the remainder of this year. The deliveries of the Lot 3 started earlier this month with the delivery of the EX-22. The company also added that it is working with the Department of War (DoW) and the U.S. Air Force to hike F-15EX production to two aircraft a month.
The DoW also awarded on Sept. 29 another F-15EX-related contract to the Wisconsin-based Astronautics Corp. of America for the fighter’s engine fuel hydraulic display depot activation. The $10 million sole-source acquisition contract covers the “knowledge, skills and operational resources to independently perform depot-level repair of F-15EX engine fuel hydraulics display.” Work will be performed at Oak Creek, Wisconsin, and is expected to be completed by October 2029.
F-15EX Lot 7 contract
Air & Space Forces Magazine also reported that the Sept. 29 contract came just before a deadline for using funds allocated through last year’s $2.8 billion ‘One Big Beautiful Act’ reconciliation package and the $115 million in the FY 2026 budget. The Trump administration’s 2025 reconciliation bill mandated a reduction of the allotted funds by 8.3% if they were not spent by Oct. 1, creating pressure to award the contract to Boeing before the fiscal year ended on Sept. 30.
The press release by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) reflected the urgency in closing the deal with Boeing:
“Through focused, complex negotiations, the F-15 Program Office and Boeing reached an agreement that maintains the procurement of all 22 Lot 7 aircraft within available funding […] This award followed extensive collaboration among program management, contracting, pricing, engineering, financial management, logistics and other acquisition professionals. The team assessed the impacts of changing production conditions and inflation, aligned the aircraft procurement with available funding, and completed the action before the fiscal-year deadline.”
A U.S. Air Force F-15EX Eagle II designated for Kadena Air Base, Japan, flies en route to Portland Air National Guard Base, Oregon, after departing Boeing’s St. Louis facility, Aug. 28, 2026. | Source: U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Melany Bermudez
Portfolio Acquisition Executive for the Fighters and Advanced Aircraft Directorate Brig. Gen. Timothy Helfrich described the Lot 7 contract as a disciplined approach that balanced available resources and industrial capacity. “The team remained focused on affordability, production continuity and delivering the aircraft needed to modernize the U.S. Air Force’s fighter fleet for the threats we face today and into the future,” Helfrich said in the release.
The release noted functional areas such as senior-level decisions, cost, schedule, and aircraft quantity that the team carefully accounted for before awarding the contract to Boeing.
“The Lot 7 award demonstrates what is possible when the acquisition enterprise moves with purpose, remains accountable to the taxpayer and stays focused on delivering capability to the warfighter,” said Col. Jonathan Varoli, System Program Manager of the directorate’s F-15 Program Office. “This effort brought together the right expertise, at the right time, to achieve an outcome that strengthens the F-15EX program and supports the future fighter force.”
Flying high for 5⃣!
Five years ago, the first #F15EX test jet flew. Since then, F-15EX has really taken off, completing hundreds of test flights and achieving several milestones — including Initial Operational Capability. Now, we’re delivering over 100 jets to the @USAirForce. pic.twitter.com/qwz6yEulL1
The F-15EX is the modern evolution of the twin-engine heavyweight multirole jet, featuring advanced avionics, large-area displays, digital backbone architecture and enhanced survivability capabilities. “It is intended to replace aging F-15C and F-15D aircraft while providing a platform for continued modernization as operational requirements evolve,” the Air Force said.
One of its defining features is the AN/ALQ-250 Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS), an electronic warfare suite that provides integrated radar warning, threat detection and advanced jamming and countermeasure capabilities.
Thanks to its capabilities, the F-15EX is also being introduced in the Indo-Pacific, with Kadena Air Base in Japan, home to the Air Force’s 18th Wing, selected as its first permanent overseas operating location.
Modern vehicles, like every other technology device we own, from smartphones to fridges and even dog collars, are connected to the internet 24/7. They learn from us, know things about us, and most of the time use that information to make our lives easier. Cars, specifically, collect vital driving and behavior data that is borderline impossible to opt out of if you want to use your vehicle’s modern convenience features. And a new study recently found that your sensitive information (some of which isn’t even car-related) is being shared with far more parties than you realize.
The only way you’ll be surprised by what you’re about to read is if you’ve been in a coma for the last decade or two. But even for those of us who are mildly aware of how the technology we rely on every day interacts with us and the data we generate, this recent study by Boston’s Northeastern University in partnership with Consumer Reports will make you raise an eyebrow—several times.
The study covered 21 vehicles of 19 different brands (listed below) and 30 companion mobile apps that process and handle user data.
You can peruse the 18-page paper here, but you can also see the main takeaways below:
Companion Apps Share Data That Goes Beyond Car Stuff: 70% of companion apps contacted more than five unique ATA (advertising, tracking, analytics) domains, typically sharing location, timing, and other data packets. For most test vehicles, adding the automaker or third-party (usually pre-installed) app at least doubles the number of ATA companies exposed to the owner’s data. The Envista and Nissan Ariya, which were nearly silent on their own, each reach 20+ ATA companies once the app is counted. myCadillac contacted 51 ATA domains.
How Many Third-Party Apps Your Car Contacts Wildly Varies: Over Wi-Fi, vehicles contacted at most four first-party domains but averaged about 9 integrated third parties. The Tesla Model 3 contacted 34 ATA domains and the Cybertruck 23, while the Mercedes EQS and Buick Envista contacted no third parties. Thirteen of the 21 vehicles contacted Google ATA domains, including ones like doubleclick.net that aren’t needed for core services. Vehicles with Android Automotive and Google services contacted many more trackers, and even sibling brands differed; oddly enough, the Envista, Lyriq, and Blazer did not behave in the same manner.
Some Apps Share Your VIN With Vendors, Something Not Even Your Smartphone Can Do: Seven apps (19 of 21 cars) transmitted personal information to ATA third parties: all four GM apps, HondaLink, Lincoln, and MyNissan. VINs were the most common, sent to recipients including Google, Microsoft, and Meta. The worry is that a VIN plus an email, phone number, or location lets an ad company link a specific person to their browsing and purchase history. The study also highlights that a VIN can’t be reset the way a phone’s advertising ID can. Also, I just published a blog this week about how I enjoyed Honda’s infotainment with Google Built-in, and cracked a joke about the price I am willing to pay for convenience.
OEMs Mostly Pass the Buck to Their Partners and Vendors: Of 17 manufacturers contacted for the study, 14 responded. All said their vendor contracts covered data flows. Five blamed embedded browsers in their apps, and seven said reading third-party terms is the consumer’s responsibility. Of course, if you opt out or simply don’t use the features, then you wouldn’t be utilizing your car to its full potential. Tesla warned about reduced functionality or inoperability, while Rivian warned about disabled navigation and over-the-air updates. The privacy policies disclosed that data may go to third parties but not which ones or why. Only Honda changed course. It had Amplitude delete the location data it received and stopped the app from sending it. Go Honda.
Gathering This Data Wasn’t Easy: Even if you only use the official apps pre-installed in your car, some of these may connect to your phone and ultimately open your browser. Once it does, the whole flow of data changes because it follows your phone’s browser settings, not your car’s. This means your car is now receiving cookies and browsing data and sharing them in ways you weren’t aware of or expected.
America’s path into the EV future alongside the rest of the world has been put on ice thanks to political winds, but automakers are keenly aware of the end game. Today might not look like tomorrow, and the topic of range anxiety, EV charging infrastructure, and charging times is enough to create a fight at the Thanksgiving table.
Automaker’s see the issue, and it’s large enough that seven of the world’s largest—BMW, Mercedes, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, and Stellantis—got together and created a joint venture called Ionna to build a nationwide network of fast chargers to rival Tesla’s Superchargers. Then Toyota joined a year later, bringing the total to eight. On the latest episode of The Drivecast, Ionna CEO Seth Cutler sat down exclusively with The Drive for a candid discussion about what’s taking so long, where are we today, and will EV fast-charging infrastructure really become what it needs to be in America to make the transition, and future, work?
Even though electric vehicle adoption has slowed in the US, it hasn’t stopped. Right now there are about 5.7 million EVs on the road here, with more being registered every day. Meanwhile, America only has about 250,000 public chargers to serve those drivers, and only 73,000 of those are the coveted DC fast chargers capable of juicing up an EV in less than 30 minutes. And as anyone who’s tried to use an Electrify America station recently can attest, it feels like they’re usually broken. The only company that’s really figured it out is Tesla, and although they’ve opened up their charging standard to other automakers, it’s still not enough.
The mission for Ionna was simple: build a reliable, high-powered electric vehicle fast-charging network across North America with at least 30,000 chargers and 2,000 stations in the U.S. by 2030 followed by Canada. Seth Cutler was appointed as Ionna’s CEO and tapped with making all this happen.
New here? The Drivecast is The Drive‘s weekly podcast that takes you behind-the-scenes on the largest controversies, stories, and characters shaping the automotive industry along with the way our roads look today. Powered by The Drive‘s inside access, original reporting, exclusives, and insights, The Drivecast aims to make everyone an insider.
Listen to The Drivecast via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Amazon Music. Love it? Like it? Want to help? Leave a five-star review on your platform of choice to help get The Drivecast in front of more people. Have a suggestion, tip, request, or feedback? Drop us a line at feedback@thedrive.com. I promise, we read every single email.
Full Transcript
Kyle: All right, big day on The Drivecast. We have Joel back from fishing—he survived, hopefully caught a lot. And Seth Cutler, CEO of Ionna Charging, here to talk about why charging is the way it is in America and what they’re trying to do about it. Seth, welcome.
Seth: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
Joel: Definitely welcome, Seth. And yes, I did catch a lot of fish—everything from crappie and northern to some perch and some amazing, beautiful walleye. I got a great 24-inch walleye; it was gorgeous. But we’re not here to talk about my fishing trip. Seth, you and I have met before. You crashed one of my interviews with one of your board members. It was a good time though; we had fun. Let me start there with the main tough question: why is America’s EV charging situation such an absolute hot mess? Like, why?
Seth: I think it boils down to probably two or three things. One is when you’re dealing with a nascent industry or nascent market, you’ve got new equipment coming to market, you’ve got not enough people staffed and trained on how to actually service that equipment, and there’s a lot of new technology interoperability—quirks in the system that have to be worked out. Honestly, having first-mover advantage isn’t always an advantage in a market. Sometimes being second or third is actually a bit of a blessing—better to be lucky than good, and I think that’s definitely helped us a little bit on the Ionna side. The second piece of that is really making sure that you’re building and focusing on the right things. It’s easy to get lost in, “Yeah, we’re just trying to put chargers in the ground to build out a national network,” versus “I’m trying to build out charging stations to service drivers and deliver an amazing experience.” While that distinction might not sound large enough, it definitively drives different behaviors culturally inside of an organization to deliver vastly different results to customers.
Kyle: Just to press on that a little bit, every industry has its challenges and its particularities, EV charging being a relatively new one, although not that new—I mean, the first public chargers appeared on America’s roads back in 2007, so we’re coming up on 20 years. You could argue that the first 20 years of gas stations were full of issues and a lot of learning happening. But I think from a normal consumer perspective, people who are not driving an EV or really knowledgeable about the space look at a gas station, look at an EV charging station, and a gas station seems to be a lot more complex in terms of the construction needed, the underground tanks, the environmental stuff, the fact that there’s a whole industry built around the convenience stores and the land and all that. EV charging, again from the normal consumer’s view, is just some cables. I know it’s more than that, but the point is, I think a lot of people don’t quite understand what’s taking so long. Why is growth where it is right now? Why hasn’t it reached the heights that were predicted five years ago?
Seth: It’s a great question. People often equate it to gas stations, but I’ve been much more equating it to cellular communications or cell towers. I remember my parents getting their first cell phone in the early ’90s as a kid, to 2026. Think about how many decades it took before people said, “Hey, I’m going to get rid of my landline and only rely on a cell phone as my only form of communication from a phone perspective, because I trust that it’s reliable and I have all the coverage I need.” It took probably 20-plus years, honestly. I think that’s very similar to what you see here: nascent market, not a lot of cars, so I’m not going to build 1,000 chargers in California at one time when there’s 10 cars on the road; I’m going to build just enough to survive from a capital deployment standpoint. It’s interesting to equate it that way when you think of it in that regard.
In terms of the complexity that goes into building these charging stations, there’s a few things that people don’t necessarily realize. One is, you’re trying to deploy an energy or power density in a footprint that people are normally used to deploying for a mall. You think about building out a mall, that’s going to take you three to five years. I’ve got to first design it, go through planning boards and zoning approvals, and then I actually have to build it. Construction of a mall could take a year or longer. When we sign a site for charging—not just us, but anybody—you could be shovels in ground after you get the permit within a week, and you could be ready for the utility to energize within six weeks. We’ve done sites in four weeks. Utilities just aren’t ready for that, they’re not used to that type of movement. The whole idea of charging, from signing sites and renting out parking spaces, to how you engage with utilities and bringing that much power to a small area very quickly, to the fact that a lot of these stations are unmanned—how do you make sure that irrespective of the fact there aren’t people there to keep an eye on the chargers and maintain them, you can build an operating model of data coming off these stations, telemetry, etc., to be able to remotely diagnose, monitor, and fix issues? Or having staff within two hours of every site built so that I can constantly fix these assets if they go down? It’s more than just deploying cables and wire and a post. It’s an entire industry that’s been developed in the last two decades for charging.
Kyle: That is good perspective. We’ll get back to the maintenance part especially, because that is one of the things I think people see the most: chargers that are out of order—not Ionna’s necessarily, but certainly a bad reputation the industry’s gotten off the start. Let’s get a little background to talk about Ionna’s growth specifically. The goal when the company was founded as this joint venture between seven automakers—and then Toyota joined—was put out for 30,000 chargers and 2,000 stations by 2030. Where are you guys at right now?
Seth: We’re at about 185 stations live to the public right now. It’s important to give history as well as to where the company’s at. We started operations as a company in February of ’24, so we’ve only been a company for two and a half years with building a team and everything else. We opened our first site a year and a half ago, so we went from zero sites live to about 180 right now. There’s another 100 sites in construction, and there’s several hundred more sites that are working their way through permitting, power, and about to start construction. We’ve got about 600 sites right now already contracted, and we’ll have probably another 100-plus contracted by the end of the year. We’re making hay in a short period of time. There’s still a big mountain to climb, honestly, but there’s been a lot of folks in this industry for a long time that have had big promises and big ideas. The thing that we’ve been heavily focused on, back to what we think makes us different, is a very strong attention to execution around the driver. That’s all that matters. We’re not working on battery storage right now. We’re not working on a mobile app. We’re not working on how to make more money from the driver lounges and how to sell more potato chips. All we’re working on is quality of charging at scale, and that’s how we’ve been able to move so fast in a short period of time.
Kyle: I’m jumping out of order here, but you just said something interesting I wanted to ask about. You mentioned potato chips. For gas stations, gas is not where they make their most money; it’s everything they sell in the convenience store. The margins on gas, especially for a solo station operator or small franchisee, are pretty small. As you guys have built out this Rechargery concept and tried to add more amenities and services to fast chargers, do you see that as part of the profit margin—offering all these other things that people then buy, even though the costs of utilities and electricity don’t leave a huge margin to build on?
Seth: I’ll answer starting this way: we know the company has to get to financial independence and profitability over time. This is a for-profit business. Infrastructure has to be for-profit or it’ll never survive, and if it never survives, EVs will never survive. Very early on, we said let’s make some bets and plant some seeds for future trees. We’ve bought land at several dozen sites; we’ve built our own amenities where you’ve got buildings that we operate with vending machines, bathrooms, and other technology inside, like Amazon Just Walk Out; we’ve taken a piece of land, have a ground lease, and can come back later to add to it, add a building, or find a co-tenant. These things are all sitting there underground as seeds, but we’ve not focused time on that because it’s easy for an organization to get distracted and not have everybody working on driver quality and charging quality at scale. But we know that in 2027, 2028, or beyond, we’ll start to invest resources in terms of other ways to monetize or provide value to drivers with these things that we’ve developed that are different in the marketplace. But it is definitively not a focus right now.
Joel: Before we move on, I want to circle back to what you just mentioned about the 185 chargers. I interviewed Rivian founder and CEO RJ Scaringe on The Drivecast a couple months ago, and he noted that—he’s been very clear about this throughout time, so this is not a new line—there are, in his words, two reliable and notable EV charging networks in America: the Tesla Supercharger network, which he’s been very kind in praising what they’ve done, and the Rivian Adventure Network, which as of June was 4% the size of Tesla’s, with Rivian having about 150 stations, just a little lower than the 185 you noted. He noted his goal is to be one of the largest networks in the US in the coming years, and the thing he leaned into specifically is the extremely high uptime. I’m curious about your reaction to Scaringe’s comments, given that you guys have a network just a smidge larger than theirs right now, and I believe you lean on the whole “we’re reliable, we don’t have an app” philosophy.
Seth: I have a lot of respect for RJ and everything that the guys have done at Rivian; it’s pretty tremendous, and the same thing for Tesla. On the Ionna side, J.D. Power ranked Ionna as number one in their 2026 study, and that’s based purely on survey results they get from drivers that they go out and sample. The J.D. Power recognition was a great way to independently say not only do we think we’re good, but drivers are saying that they think we’re good. We’re seeing that with higher utilization and a lot more organic traffic on social media of people talking about Ionna and the experience they’re having, so that’s really promising. But there’s still a lot of work to be done. I know we can do even better than we’re doing now, and we have a lot more sites to go build. Again, we’ve only been doing this for 18 months from when we opened the first site. If you looked at our network back in June, I think we had about 130 or 140 sites live; we had 80 sites live in January. We’ve more than doubled the network in the last nine months, and we’ll have well over 200 sites live by the end of the year. My goal is to triple the size of the network this year from where we started at 80 at the beginning of the year. That scale isn’t baked into a lot of what people are seeing because we’re moving so fast right now.
Kyle: Speaking of scale, it sounds like if this growth continues, you guys are on pace for this 2,000 charging station goal by 2030. But 2,000 charging stations leading to 30,000 actual chargers seems like a bit of a leap, considering a lot of these stations so far have between four and six chargers themselves. How do you get to that actual saturation of 30,000 chargers? Charging stations is a great metric, but the actual plugs are what makes a difference for drivers.
Seth: There’s always a debate: is it bays, as we call them, or plugs, or is it sites? What matters most, particularly in this market right now, is making sure that we have the right coverage for drivers across the country so you can get across states, but also inside of certain cities. We are heavily focused on making sure that when we deploy in a geographic area, we’re providing enough coverage that Ionna can be their network of choice. Look at Florida: we’ve got about 24 or 25 sites live right now in Florida. Looking at powered charging rates at 150 kilowatts and above, we’re the third largest network provider in all of Florida behind Electrify America right now, based upon the number of high-powered bays. That’s real market coverage. By the end of the year, we’ll probably have 30 sites live and a couple hundred more bays, which will put us in an even better position in that state. We’re doing the same thing in Dallas, Houston, and across California. We’re heavily focused on making sure right now that we provide densely populated areas with the right Ionna network coverage that they can rely on today.
Kyle: Speaking of, I have a little bone to pick with you, Seth. I live in LA, where there are, as of now, a grand total of zero Ionna chargers. I know a couple are being built, not really in LA itself, but more in the Southern California region. But Joel lives outside Minneapolis, where there are eight Rechargeries in operation right now, with a few more on the way. LA has four times the population of Minneapolis, and yet we have no Ionna presence right now. I keep looking because I see the pictures of these beautiful stations, but so far, no dice. Why is it that a city like LA doesn’t have a presence, and a city like Minneapolis seems to have a pretty high saturation? Are you basing expansion off perceived demand and opportunity, or just ease of construction?
Joel: We will accept the answer that Minneapolis is just a better place. That’s an acceptable answer on this podcast.
Seth: Totally fair. Early on, what I wanted to make sure of was that we could start to deliver results to the market in terms of chargers live. In 2024, we came in, had to hire people, find a headquarters, and figure out how to make this vision real. The truth is that we deployed assets in places that were easier to build in to get stuff in the ground to go learn from. I didn’t want to go build the first site in LA because it would take a longer time, and second, that’s where you have highest utilization. I wanted to go learn in Kansas first, in Raleigh first, in Minneapolis first. That was very much intentional—I wanted to make sure that within the first nine months of operation as a company, we had the first sites live, which was pretty incredible. Now, we’ve got over 100 sites contracted in California right now. We’ve got over 30 sites that are either in construction or live across California, so from a sequencing standpoint, we are focusing a lot of time, energy, and effort into building scale in California. In NorCal, in PG&E territory, we’ll have over a dozen sites live by the end of this year. In Southern California, I think there’s probably close to half a dozen or more that are in construction right now with Southern California Edison, working hand-in-hand with them to get those energized either this year or into next year. The short answer is, in 2027, you’ll see a markedly different network of Ionna in California than you did prior. One of the sites that we’re opening in Southern California this year is our first flagship or beacon site in Orange County, just off the 405. Again, it’s not just more chargers in the back of a shopping mall; this site off the 405 is going to be 22 high-powered charging bays, a Just Walk Out Amazon partnership convenience store, outdoor seating, and all types of amenities nearby. We’re really trying to elevate that charging experience in addition to getting scale for drivers.
Joel: Now that we’ve established that Minnesota is training wheels to prep yourself for LA, Minnesota has a unique situation where people have cabins and cottages and go on road trips very often to go north on the weekend during the summer, or even in the winter for ice fishing and snowmobiling. As a Minnesota person, I would know where I would stop along I-94 or whatever if I were going up north. Do you guys tap local people when deciding on locations? How do you do that?
Seth: We’ve got what we think to be a fairly sophisticated model in terms of looking at traffic patterns, where people go from a city outward. Typically, people are going inside of a city during the week, and in Minneapolis, you’ve got a lot of people going out to their cabins. We’re constantly looking at what is that outflow of traffic outside of a city, where are they coming, where are they coming back, and then we look at annual average daily traffic on some of these roads to say, “Hey, this road doesn’t have a lot of traffic on it, probably shouldn’t build here, but this one does.” St. Cloud, we have a conversion going on right now with Circle K in St. Cloud, which is like 90 minutes or so northwest of the city. We know people are going to head up I-35 towards Duluth on the weekends, so we try to make sure we hit some of these corridors. We have a whole vacation corridor strategy, whether it’s in Minnesota or here in Raleigh where people go to Wilmington to Wrightsville Beach. We just opened a site near Wilmington, and two sites near Myrtle Beach in South Carolina, because we know that they’re trying to get to a specific vacation spot weekly or monthly.
Joel: On Saturday, my dad and I and some buddies were on our annual Canadian fishing trip, drove all the way up to Baudette and then crossed over into Canada. I was thinking to myself, if I owned a Rivian R1S or a Lucid Gravity, on this route, where would I charge? Which, by the way, is not a typical route; this is definitely an outlier situation. But there aren’t a lot of options on the way there. On the way home, it poured the entire way home—those six hours that we drove. I thought to myself, forget where would I charge for a minute; if I was charging—like the Tesla Supercharger in Bemidji, they’re in a Target parking lot with no canopy—if I had to get out to plug in, it would be awful because it was pouring rain, whereas every gas station we stopped at had a canopy. Not all of your Rechargeries have a canopy. Talk to me a little about the decisions to have canopies versus non-canopies.
Seth: Almost 30% of our sites that are live today have canopies right now. If you look at other networks today, most of them are single digits. We very much had a concerted effort to say we want to put covered charging out into the marketplace because we wanted to make sure that we try to provide the same level of convenience—trash cans, squeegees, canopies where possible—to drivers that drive EVs, because they expect it today on the gasoline side. I’ve still got garbage in the car to throw out; I’ve still got to clean my windshield. It’s also impossible to put canopies everywhere, whether it’s jurisdiction permitting offices that say they don’t want canopies in their jurisdiction, or because it’s going to block a sign of another store. We’ve had canopies where we get out there and dig a hole, and find that the water table is five feet higher than we thought it was, and you just can’t get the casings down for the footers. You go, “Do I kill the site or do I kill the canopy?” I say keep the site for reliable charging, kill the canopy. Where we can, we put in canopies, and where we can’t, we build reliable, affordable, convenient charging.
Kyle: We’ve been talking about the partnerships you guys are moving into with Circle K, Sheetz, Wawa, Casey’s… Because a lot of those are building on existing gas stations, I would imagine it’s more challenging to get a new canopy built just in terms of space availability when the gas station already might have two or three massive ones themselves. But I also feel like that’s probably the fastest route to increasing the number of plugs or bays, rather than trying to build your own Rechargery stations. Do you see these partnerships as the path to scaling here?
Seth: It’s a multi-pronged approach for sure. The Circle K relationship has been tremendous. We’ve taken over the vast majority of their existing US network and replaced those older 180-kilowatt chargers with our equipment. Those already have transformers and interconnects with utilities, so it helps give you a little bit more speed on some of those sites, while some of our more complicated sites take a bit longer to work their way through the funnel. We’ve been heavily focused on high-quality, large-scale retail partners—Circle K, Wawa, Sheetz, Casey’s—to provide drivers with a really great amenity that we can partner with, and then where we can’t or where we want to, we build our own amenities to complement that in the network.
Kyle: I’m curious how the partnership actually works structurally with these chains. Is it a lease agreement where you pay a monthly fee, or do they get a cut of the charging costs? How does it work financially?
Seth: We’re just a tenant in their parking lot. Part of the superpower of Ionna is the fact that we’re founded and funded by eight large automakers, both from a capital standpoint, but also in terms of what the potential is for digital integration into the OEMs. If I’ve got digital integration with the OEMs and digital integration to the retail partners, matching those two up, Ionna could be heavily focused on affordable, reliable, convenient infrastructure, and allow for these retailers and OEMs to work together on providing that next opportunity of experience.
Joel: It’s always bewildered me that no one—forget Ionna, Tesla, Rivian—has hooked up with McDonald’s, because they dominate America everywhere. It’s the ideal thing. Why are you or anyone not in every McDonald’s parking lot?
Seth: Putting charging stations in requires space and parking spots. Even with some of our Circle K or Wawa sites, there’s sites we’ve had to turn down because we’ve tried every which way to fit in eight stalls or 10 stalls and there’s setbacks or rules on how far from the road you have to be. Every store you build has minimum parking requirements from the town. The smaller the footprint of that retail provider or QSR (quick-service restaurant), the harder it is to actually deploy chargers. A lot of places we’d love to go, at the end of the day, it just becomes geometry.
Joel: That makes a lot of sense, because a lot of these McDonald’s don’t have large parking lots. But a lot of these charging networks are in Menards parking lots, Target parking lots, or Walmart parking lots, because these are big parking lots with plenty of space to put them in the back. That makes a lot of sense; thank you for shedding that light.
Seth: Yeah, for sure.
Kyle: On the topic of the chargers themselves, you guys use Alpitronic hardware, is that correct?
Seth: That’s correct.
Kyle: And the software is all done in-house, right?
Seth: We have a lot of different partners, so we do have other providers of software pieces that go along. We’ve got a charging station provider, credit card terminals… every one of these things has software that ties to them. What we’ve built in-house is providing an overall software platform layer that sits across all the different systems that we have. As these sites get more complicated, I’ve got electronic door locks, cameras, credit card terminals, internet providers. We’ve built all types of software controls, monitoring, diagnostics, and alerting that sits across everything that we deploy in our ecosystem.
Kyle: A two-part question on that: One, what have you guys done differently to avoid the reliability pitfalls that have bedeviled the whole industry? Half the plugs at a given station near me are always down, which is frustrating. More uptime would help everyone feel more comfortable with charging as a public utility. And two, I think it’s great that you guys don’t have an app. What did you have to do to make the whole business function without a dedicated app for payments and locating chargers?
Seth: On the reliability piece, it comes down to culturally how we built the business. What we’ve told our team and live by every day is the driver is the first and foremost center of our world when we make a decision. There’s a lot of times where a customer might say the charger didn’t work for me on the first try. Now you have a decision to make: do you ignore it because the next person charged okay, do you roll a truck, or do you wait to see if it worked for somebody else? Because we put the driver first culturally, that drives different behaviors where you say, “Nope, roll a truck.” We do what we call a health check and validate and verify what we heard from that driver. Most times it comes back as working fine, but other times we might find an issue and swap out a cable while on site. That permeates through the entire organization. When you have a decision to make, you look and say, “I’m going to do it with the driver in mind,” and that drives certain behaviors. That is part of our secret sauce. In addition to that, we’ve built a lot of tools, diagnostics, and now with AI, there’s a lot more you can do in terms of inferring what might be going on. We take an approach of when we think there’s something wrong, we take a “field medic” approach: go to the site with 10 parts, bring a Pelican case with every part to rebuild the charger, swap out all 10 parts, bring back all 10 parts, figure out what actually was broken, and then get smarter so the next field visit we only bring eight parts. That’s a different approach because we’re thinking about the driver and resolution time first and foremost.
Kyle: Before we get to the app question, what is the thing that breaks the most on a charger? What is the number one replaced item?
Seth: Physically, it’s the charging cable. It gets dropped, there’s interference, wear and tear, and then that causes an issue in the performance. Also, we’re finding we have to reset chargers more often than I’d probably like to, especially the credit card readers. But now we’ve built automation where when we see a certain behavior, those credit card readers automatically reset in the middle of the night, whereas before we just staffed up and reset all the readers as often as possible. Now we’ve built software tools to do that for us.
Kyle: You guys just need that little button you can only press with a toothpick, like on electronics: “Reset,” so the consumer can do it.
Seth: Exactly.
Joel: As we transition, America has decided on NACS—for those listening, NACS is the Tesla-style charger versus CCS, the clunky one we started with. Is CCS more or less reliable than NACS?
Seth: We haven’t seen any difference in performance between the two with our customers. By and large, our utilization right now is on CCS, but it’s interesting that we’re starting to see a lot more utilization and quicker growth on the NACS side, which lends itself to seeing more Tesla drivers charging with us than before. And keep in mind, a lot of vehicles being sold now are native NACS.
Joel: Just for context, the Ioniqs from Hyundai announced switching to NACS, Rivian switched for 2026 model year, Subarus and Toyotas switched, GM is switching… Teslas obviously outnumber everything on the road, but the automakers themselves, their newer cars have NACS.
Seth: Yeah.
Kyle: Speaking of automakers, Ionna is unique in that it’s a joint venture founded by seven, now eight, automakers. What’s it like having eight different bosses?
Seth: It’s a very unique company and opportunity. It really is a partnership between us and the eight OEMs. We have a Board of Directors from the OEMs on the investor side, so we have a lot of engagement with them in terms of oversight and governance. Our results are a testament to the relationship we’ve built to go build this company, because early on people asked how Ionna could be successful with eight car companies building it. There’s not eight car companies building it; there’s an Ionna team building the company with oversight from the investors in terms of specific results they’re looking for: quality at scale within the capital framework. As long as we operate within that framework, things work really well and we can make decisions day-to-day to drive results. But the next part of it is strategic: how do we integrate into the OEMs and automakers? These automakers are giving discounts to their drivers that charge at Ionna. We’re heavily focused on Plug & Charge and AutoCharge across all the automakers, and integrating into their apps. We don’t have an app partly because we don’t want to be in the way of the automakers and their customers. We want to provide reliable, affordable, convenient charging so that automakers can go sell more cars.
Kyle: So it’s not a case where GM is like, “Hey, we’ve got a high concentration of GM owners in this city, you should build more chargers there,” and Mercedes is like, “No, put it over here!” It’s not an activist investor presence?
Seth: No, it wouldn’t work. It would never work; that’s the key thing.
Joel: The elephant in the room is Ionna is owned by eight automakers, and they’re building the cars, selling the cars, and now selling you the fuel. Should this matter to anybody, or not really?
Seth: I think it should matter to people in a positive way—that you can take eight car companies as staunch competitors and they can come together to found and fund this type of entity for it to be successful. Sometimes what it takes is partnerships to drive innovation and forward momentum in any industry. When I saw the announcement in 2023, I thought this could be really interesting to finally solve charging, and that’s why I wanted to come work with the automakers and Ionna to build this company from literally zero and realize a vision they all had. There are days where I reflect back and think, I can’t believe we’re actually sort of accomplishing what was in that press release from 2023. It was a daunting task, and the level of support and engagement from the carmakers has been unprecedented.
Kyle: How does it work with the automakers’ own charging efforts and partnerships? GM has their own branded chargers with EVgo at Pilot stores, Mercedes has been launching their own branded chargers, yet they’re also investors in Ionna. How does that work when they’re kind of competing with each other as we’re all trying to build out this nationwide network?
Seth: There’s a big need for charging infrastructure in the country, as you guys know. There are EVs on the road today that still don’t have the charging they need, and there’s still cars being sold today, next year, and the year after, so we’ve got a gap. There are legacy programs that were set up that are still running their course. They’re separate entities; there’s no relationship to Ionna or interaction between us and those entities. It just allows for larger penetration of EV charging into the industry. But Ionna is special in that you’ve got this strategic joint venture that exists with eight car companies part of the effort.
Joel: How fast do we need to go? How fast do our chargers and how quickly do they need to be able to recharge go? News broke this morning out of China about how they have quote “five-minute charging that’ll take you to 70%,” leaving the rest of the world behind. But we are already getting fast. I had a Volvo EX90 in June, drove it to the lake, plugged into a 350 charger at an EA stop at Menards in Alexandria. At 44%, it took me 18 minutes—it instantly went to over 300 kilowatts, like 315, sustained it, and took me from 44% to over 90% in 18 minutes. How fast do we need to be, or is China just showing off?
Seth: Nobody stops to fuel their vehicle taking gasoline, gets out, rushes as fast as possible, puts as much fuel in the car as possible, and gets back in the car and drives away. Some of these gas stations today are more like a restaurant than a gas station. Look at Wawa, Sheetz, Casey’s, Buc-ee’s, Wally’s—these are places people are spending time inside the store. A lot of these places actually make a lot of their money inside the store because that’s where people spend their time. This idea that charging has to be done in five minutes or people won’t buy EVs is just not accurate. The proof is in the pudding in that 6% of all cars sold in July were still EVs with the existing current infrastructure set and technology set on the cars. You’re looking at how do you get to a place of 10 to 20 minutes from the charging speed, which gives you enough time to use a bathroom, get a sandwich, stretch your legs, take the dog for a walk, versus “I’m going to jump out of the car and make believe it’s Supermarket Sweepstakes and see how fast I can fuel up and drive away.” I just don’t think that’s what people are doing.
Joel: As a dad with a wife and two kids, two years ago we went down to Iowa for Christmas in the cold and snow. I timed it from the time I put it in park to the time I put it in drive: we parked, everyone went inside to the bathroom, grabbed McDonald’s, filled the car with gas. I timed it: it took 31 minutes. Four people, it takes a minute. If I had a Rivian, a Lucid, or an Ioniq 9, that would have been plenty of time on that Supercharger. That’s just the reality.
Seth: 100%, exactly. Everything we deploy now is 400 kilowatts; we’re looking at 500 kilowatts in our next generation of sites. Much above that, I don’t think you need it. I just don’t.
Kyle: I’m with you on the principle there, but I do wonder how you guys view the mindset that if you own an EV, a DC fast charger should be able to serve as your main charging source, whereas a lot of automakers will tell you that you should be charging at home every night, so DC fast chargers are only for road trips. A 30-minute stop might make sense when you’re on a road trip with family, but if you’re swinging by your local charging station for your weekly commute, you don’t want to be there for 30 minutes necessarily. Are you trying to focus on those kinds of drivers at all, or is it really the ideal use case for DC fast charging?
Seth: 70% of our investment is going to happen inside of cities. We’re building in Orlando, in Tampa, in Jacksonville. What we’ve built on the interstate system of Florida is minimal. It’s not necessarily easy to put chargers in your house. You’ve got older homes; it could be cost-prohibitive. So there’s definitely an advantage of charging at home, for sure. But we want to make sure that as you get into high-rise buildings, condos, or older homes that can’t support home charging, or if you do a lot of driving in a weekend, we want to make sure we’ve got charging in place in these cities to support these drivers.
Kyle: The real dream is if we could all have DC fast chargers at home.
Seth: At home, I’m sure the utility would love that.
Kyle: I’ve asked Southern California Edison about that; they are not on board, unfortunately.
Joel: Tesla’s really done a good job about targets if you ask me, but no one’s really doing a great job at grocery stores. I don’t know why, at least here in Minnesota…
Seth: Have you been to our Hy-Vee site? We’ve got a couple Hy-Vees up in Minnesota. We’ll send you a list afterwards.
Joel: I have a home charger. We put a charger up at the lake, put a charger here. But fast charging to go see family or go on a road trip is important. And 30% of people live in non-single-family homes in America—a big market.
Kyle: And I’m the guy with an EV who doesn’t have charging at home, hence my question.
Seth: It’s a challenge.
Kyle: It is a challenge. I live in an old house, don’t have a garage, it’s expensive to install one, and I’m on a two-year lease.
Seth: Our first house was in Connecticut built in the ’30s. I charged Level 1 all the time because it was impossible to get a Level 2 charger from my basement to the detached garage in the back of my yard, so I just plugged into an extension cord every night.
Joel: Hope that was safe!
Seth: It was definitely properly rated and properly installed.
Kyle: Well on that note, Seth Cutler, thank you so much for your time, really appreciate it.
Seth: Thanks for having me. Appreciate it too, great conversation.
The 2027 Jeep Cherokee has finally earned its “Trail-Rated” badge with the introduction of a Trailhawk. Once upon a time, Jeeps held virtually indefensible positions at the top of their respective segments when it came to off-road capability. These days, the 4×4-adjacent space is much more crowded, and simply wearing a Jeep badge isn’t a guarantee of automatic victory anymore.
Given that the new Cherokee shares its basic formula with the model it replaced, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that the new car isn’t exactly a quantum leap forward in capability. That said, the new midsizer does have a couple of tricks up its sleeve. It offers 9.0 inches of ground clearance thanks to a 1.0-inch lift over the standard Cherokee, and according to Jeep, it can ford 24 inches of water.
But the real party piece is Jeep’s “Active Drive II” all-wheel-drive system, which incorporates a two-speed transfer case and an electronic locking rear differential. The former is a segment exclusive, and Ford is the only competitor with a mechanical locking rear axle.
Year/Make/Model
Ground Clearance
Approach Angle
Breakover Angle
Departure Angle
Low Range
Locking Rear
2027 Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk
9.0 in
28.8°
21.9°
31.8°
Yes
Yes
2026 Subaru Forester Wilderness
9.3 in
23.5°
21.0°
25.5°
No
No
2026 Honda CR-V TrailSport
8.2 in
17.7°
N/A*
22.1°
No
No
2026 Toyota RAV4 Adventure
8.5 in
20.0°
N/A*
24.0°
No
No
2026 Ford Bronco Sport Sasquatch
8.7 in
31.2°
21.7°
27.9°
No
Yes
*Breakover angle is not published officially by Honda or Toyota for these trim levels.
On paper, Jeep is clearly aiming for a segment-best entry here. The Bronco Sport brings similar mechanical capability (and even has the advantage in approach angle) but lacks a proper crawl ratio. Subaru enjoys an advantage in ground clearance, but relies on its fairly rudimentary X-Drive programming for the technical bits.
We’ll have to see exactly how this plays out in the real world, especially since one of Jeep’s main drawbacks doesn’t appear here: size. The Cherokee leans toward the midsize space much the same way the Compass leans subcompact, and that extra length and width will work against it when trails get tight.
Jay Lacklen is a retired Air Force reserve pilot with 12,000 military flying hours. He grew up in Arlington, VA, and graduated from the University of North Carolina-Chapel in 1969. He entered service in 1970 and retired in 2004 as a Lt Col with 12,500 flying hours. Lacklen taught Air Force T-1 pilot training simulators at Columbus AFB, Mississippi from 2005-2014. He grew up in Arlington, VA and graduated from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in 1969. In addition to pilot training aircraft, he flew 330 hours in the C-7 Caribou, 2000 hours in the B-52 bomber, and 9,500 hours in the C-5 Galaxy transport.
He flew in all major military actions from Vietnam to the Iraq War. Lacklen lives in northern Virginia and is married with four adult daughters and two granddaughters.
The Central Highlands could present challenges. The often austere fields lay between ridge lines or, in one case, sat on a planed-off hilltop that sloped away in all directions.
Huge selection of transport diecast models to choose from – get yours here.
I once watched my aircraft commander make three attempts to land on one. The steeply sloping terrain made judging the landing difficult. All normal visual cues told the brain you were still far above the field, and yet, suddenly there it was, immediately below you, leaving the plane too high to land. Finally, on the third frustrating try, the pilot, although still too high, decided to put it down anyway. I couldn’t believe he would try it, but I had no control over the situation except, perhaps, to scream.
The pilot dove the aircraft at the 1,500-foot runway, then yanked back hard on the yoke just above it. Unfortunately, the dive had increased our airspeed, so the plane floated, possibly catastrophically, down the short runway.
Metal runway
We touched down with about seven hundred feet remaining on the slippery PSP metal runway before the terrain dropped steeply into the jungle. The pilot slammed on the brakes and yanked the engines into reverse. The plane skidded and rotated slowly sideways as the reversed props threw up a huge dust cloud that enveloped us. Even though I couldn’t see the precipice through the dust, I knew it was approaching and we’d be lucky not to roll off the end and down the steep slope.
We stopped, blessedly, on level ground. The pilot took the throttles out of reverse, and the dust cloud slowly dissipated as we both sat gasping and speechless. Looking forward, I could not see level ground, only the jungle a hundred feet below. We had stopped with just enough runway overrun remaining to turn sharply to taxi back to the cargo ramp area. Another five feet and we’d have been bouncing down the slope into the jungle, and infamy.”
I’ve already logged almost 4,000 miles in The Drive‘s 2026 HondaPreludelong-term test car, and I’ll put in many more before the project wraps up next year. That’s already enough seat time to get to know a car pretty darn well, but most importantly, to explore its tech, safety, comfort, and entertainment features.
Like most cars from any manufacturer today, the Prelude shares a standard suite of equipment found across the Honda lineup. It also runs on the same hardware and software as our previous long-termer, so you‘ll definitely see some stuff that isn’t super unique to the sporty coupe. That said, I’ll also touch on features that impact its driveability; specifically, its driving modes and multi-purpose paddle shifters.
I’m jumping straight to the nitty-gritty and classifying these into three categories: Like, Dislike, and On the Fence. Each item will include a brief explanation of why it’s in that category, plus any relevant details or rambling thoughts.
Seats: Not sure how Honda overlooked this, but neither the driver’s seat nor the passenger seat has adjustable lumbar support.
Steering Wheel: Love the shape and feel, but hate that in a $45,000 car it isn’t heated.
Adaptive Cruise: A major improvement in calibration and lane stability compared to other Honda models, but the Prelude brakes a bit too abruptly at the slightest sign of a car in front, or one alongside that’s driving too close to the lane markers.
Shut-Off Sequence: This issue appears across the lineup, and I will keep mentioning it until Honda addresses it. When you shut off the engine, everything shuts off. If you’re listening to music, that shuts down immediately. If you’re on a phone call via the car’s Bluetooth, that will also shut off. If you park on a city street, your blind spot monitors will not alert you to a car or cyclist approaching, so you don’t open your door. Most other cars keep auxiliary power on for 60 seconds after you press the Engine Start button, or let you customize this setting.
Electronic Parking Brake: I am not being super harsh on this one because I get that there is a safety aspect to it, but an automatically disengaging parking brake would be ideal. Nothing is more annoying than starting the car, putting it in gear, and hitting the gas, only to be held back by the parking brake. Ideally, the parking brake should disengage if the doors are closed, the driver’s seatbelt is buckled, and moderate throttle is applied.
Honda
Like
Suspension: I covered this in my First Impressions blog, but the electronic adaptive dampers are straight out of a European sports car at least twice the price of the Prelude. Yes, these are borrowed from the Civic Type R, but they have their own tuning, and they’re amazing whether you’re taking a chill drive or carving up some country roads.
Lighting: Again, the Prelude punches above its weight with projector-style LED headlights. The color of the beam is just right, not too yellow or too white or blue. The intensity is great, and so is the depth. They perform like something you’d check a $6,000 option box for on a Mercedes or BMW.
Visibility: Perfect forward, side, and rear visibility despite the Prelude riding fairly low to the ground and having a pretty sloping roof.
Driving Modes: Comfort, GT, and Sport. Comfort is super soft and a bit lethargic, but you can easily maximize fuel savings due to the throttle and hybrid system’s configuration in this setting. My go-to is GT, and that’s what I drive on every day. The suspension is less bouncy, and the drivetrain is reactive enough without the hybrid jolt being too punchy.
Google Built-In: Honda’s new Google-based infotainment system is quite lovely. I enjoy that once I log into my Google account, it knows everything about me. (Scary, I know.) All I have to do is press the Google Assistant button on the screen and tell it to take me somewhere, call someone, or find any necessary information on the internet without taking my eyes off the road. Ah, the sweet convenience I trade for my privacy.
Sound System: I’m not what you’d call an audiophile, but like most people who enjoy music, I appreciate a decent sound system. The standard Bose system in the Prelude features seven speakers plus a subwoofer, and it delivers good volume and clarity; when cruising on a smooth road with the windows down, I can pick up a song’s more intricate bits like I do with over-the-ear headphones.
Honda Sensing: Another thing that the Prelude shares with the rest of the Honda lineup, though a very important one. These features come as standard: Collision Mitigation Braking System, Forward Collision Warning, Lane Departure Warning, Road Departure Mitigation System, Adaptive Cruise Control, Low Speed Follow, Lane Keeping Assist System, Blind Spot Information System, Cross Traffic Monitor, Low-Speed Braking Control, Traffic Sign Recognition, Traffic Jam Assist, Auto High-Beam Headlights, and Driver Attention Monitor.
Honda
On the Fence
Door Handles: Yes, the pop-up handles that sit flush with the door look very cool. When you approach the car with the key fob on you and they pop out automatically, they’re great. When the keys are already in the car, and you’re trying to open the door, you have to push one end of the handle to make the other pop out so you canpull it to open the door. If you have both hands available, this is no biggie—though still annoying. If you only have one hand available, it’s challenging.
Paddle Shifters: The metal paddles in the Prelude can do two things depending on what driving mode you’re in. When S+ Shift is deactivated, the left paddle (normally used to downshift) increases brake regeneration—but there’s a catch. This regen, activated by clicking the paddle once or multiple times, isn’t permanent. It resets once the car comes to a standstill. It’s really just a way to slow down more strongly as you’re cruising to a stop (you can also use it when driving spiritedly) while taking advantage of or recharging the battery. The right paddle (normally used to upshift) cuts out drag and lets the car glide down the road without recapturing any energy. It’s a very neat—and, if you’re not used to it, a slightly unnerving feeling I’ve only felt in the bonkers Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX. When S+ Shift is activated (and it can be active in any driving mode), you can simulate gear shifting like you would in most semi-automatic cars. The reason why I’m “on the fence” about it is that it takes some brain power and understanding to figure out how this all works and when and how. It’s not all very straightforward.
Good morning, and welcome to The Downshift, which is a lap of today’s top stories from around the auto industry and car culture, curated by The Drive‘s editorial team. Each story gets summarized into a sentence or two accompanied by a link to the source for those seeking more information. Senior Editor Adam Ismail is still out on assignment and I’ll be your driver today.
Here’s what firing on Wednesday, September 30, 2026:
A new episode of The Drivecast, The Drive’s weekly podcast, will go live later today on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said the U.S. must “be extremely careful around how the Chinese OEMs come to our country,” and noted that Chinese imports quickly gobbled up European marketshare once entering the market. “It’s too late” for European countries, the CEO said. [Reuters]
3⃣ The 2027 BMW 3-Series debuted with Neue Klasse design inside and out and a starting price of $51,250. While it looks like the electric i3, it’s an entirely different car with its own proportions and details. [Motor Trend]
Meanwhile, the electric i3 gained a M60 model, which will serve as a M Performance version of the electric sedan that debuted earlier in the year. Specs haven’t been released, but M Performance Parts have been grabbed from the bin and tacked on for a more eye-catching look. [Motor1]
Mazda refuses to give up on the rotary engine. Moritz Oswald, project manager for product planning and co-creation at Mazda Motor Europe, noted that people love the rotary because of how it revs, and the easiest way to bring that to customers is to let them experience it. You can only experience something if it exists, though, if Mazda does bring back the rotary you can bet it’ll likely be attached to a hybrid powertrain of some sort. [CAR]
The U.S. Department Transportation Department said General Motors will see its technology costs go down by $20.4 billion through 2031 due to the new lower vehicle fuel economy rules. GM did not confirm the number, but said it is in favor of the rules and the “intention to better align fuel economy standards with market realities.” [Reuters]
BMW’s comeback plan includes growing margins by simplifying its business, lineup, cutting costs, and selling more expensive cars. [Bloomberg]
Porsche unveiled a retrofit infotainment system for 2009 to 2016 models including the 911, Cayman, and Boxster. The touchscreen-based system adds wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto and will arrive at Porsche dealers in early 2027. [Road & Track]
The Range Rover Sport Electric Debuted and looks … like a Range Rover Sport. Aside from the lack of tailpipes it would be hard to know this is powered by a big battery pack. The electric SUV will have 543 horsepower and 627 lb-ft of torque and go 0-60 mph in 4.3 seconds. Final U.S.-specs haven’t been released yet, but expect about 300 miles of range. [Motor1]
Lucid overhauled the Air’s infotainment system and aligned its interface with the newer tile-based design found in the Gravity SUV. The 2024 and older Air models will need a $950 hardware upgrade for the new software to work. [InsideEVs]
General Motors announced its lithium-manganese-rich batteries will be made in Spring Hill, Tennessee. The next-gen batteries will power EVs set to arrive in 2028. [InsideEVs]
Got a tip or feedback for The Downshift? Reach out to tips@thedrive.com
SM-6, Sea Venom, and Naval Strike Missile munitions were paired alongside a Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo to send the decommissioned Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.
Concluding Exercise Atlantic Thunder 2026, the sink exercise (SINKEX) was conducted in the Northern Atlantic off the Outer Hebrides in Northern Scotland. The former USS Klakring, an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate commissioned in 1983 and decommissioned in 2013, was specially prepared for the exercise with extensive cleaning and hazard removal.
The SINKEX was used to validate the capabilities of a number of new munitions which have entered service in recent years. Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) fired an SM-6 missile in its secondary role as an anti-ship weapon, testing the performance of the missile towards the upper end of its range.
Decommissioned Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate USS Klakring (FFG-42) being towed out of Philadelphia Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF) for SINKEX reportedly around Scotland – August 12, 2026 SRC: FB- Delaware River Shipping / John Curdy pic.twitter.com/y5JIvPBLVu
“Atlantic Thunder demonstrates the unmatched lethality and interoperability of the United States and United Kingdom,” said Captain Kelechi Ndukwe, Commander, U.S. Task Force 65. “This sinking exercise not only validated the power behind U.S.-UK offensive weapons but delivers a clear message to adversaries that the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy remain a ready allied force.”
New onboard SINKEX views — including some wild slo-mo
US-UK forces send the decommissioned guided-missile frigate USS Klakring to the bottom of the Atlantic
Blows delivered by USS Paul Ignatius, the newly commissioned USS Massachusetts, others
Royal Navy Type 23 frigate HMS Portland (F79) used the opportunity to conduct the service’s first ever ‘warshot’ launch of the Norwegian-built Naval Strike Missile (NSM) that has replaced the Harpoon in UK service. Petty Officer James Kenyon, an Above Water Warfare specialist on HMS Portland, said: “Being the first person to fire war-shot NSM and achieve a hit is a very proud moment, and one that will stay with me for the rest of my career. This was the culmination of over a year’s effort in planning and bringing the drills into service, and I am glad that I was able to contribute.”
Lieutenant Commander Louise Kirkaldy, Portland’s Principal Warfare Officer (PWO), said: “The successful firing of NSM marks a significant milestone for the Royal Navy, demonstrating our ability to deliver credible, modern maritime strike capability.”
HMS Portland launches a Naval Strike Missile during Exercise Atlantic Thunder off Scotland, striking the decommissioned USS Klakring in the Royal Navy’s first operational firing of NSM.
Portland’s contribution was added to by the ship’s embarked Wildcat helicopter, hailing from 815 Naval Air Squadron. In another first, the Wildcat fired a Sea Venom anti-ship missile at the Klakring in the first operational live firing of the weapon type against a realistic target.
A Wildcat helicopter can carry as many as four Sea Venom missiles per sortie, with each weapon packing a 120 kilogram warhead. Though much smaller than ship-killing weapons like NSM and Harpoon, the Sea Venom is designed to deliver enough destructive capability to destroy smaller naval vessels, or using multiple finely targeted missiles complete a successful mission kill against larger frigate or destroyer sized targets.
HMS Portland’s Wildcat Wildcat, prior to takeoff. | Source: LPhot Henry Parks/Crown Copyright 2026
Lieutenant Commander Rhydian Edwards, Test & Evaluation Commander, Maritime Aviation Strike Operational Advantage Group, said: “This was a landmark moment for the Wildcat Force. For the first time we demonstrated the live firing of an operational Sea Venom missile against a representative maritime target. More importantly, we proved our ability to execute the full maritime strike kill chain under realistic operational conditions.”
“This was about giving commanders confidence that Wildcat can find, fix and strike maritime targets using Sea Venom as part of a wider task group. The lessons learned from this activity will directly inform future tactics, training and operational capability development, ensuring Maritime Aviation Strike remains ready to fight and win when called upon.”
More air-launched munitions came in the form of guided bombs dropped by F-15E Strike Eagles based with the 48th Fighter Wing (FW) at RAF Lakenheath. P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft from the U.S. and UK also took part in the SINKEX, though no weapon launches have been attributed to them and their contribution may have simply been as surveillance platforms.
Finishing off the Klakring, the USS Massachusetts (SSN 798), commissioned into the U.S. Navy in March 2026, targeted the frigate with a Mark 48 Advanced Capability (ADCAP) torpedo.
USS Massachusetts (SSN 798) Virginia-class Block IV attack submarine leaving Faslane, Scotland – September 11, 2026 SRC: FB- Argyll Sea Glass pic.twitter.com/Ba4k7jzjyJ
Massachusetts, the 25th Virginia class submarine, was pushed into service without the traditional post-commissioning shakedown period in order to mitigate current shortfalls in U.S. attack submarine availability. The decision has been described as a ‘calculated risk’. The submarine was noted at the Royal Navy’s Faslane base earlier in September.
The US Navy announced Boeing has been awarded a multi-billion-dollar contract to produce its F/A-XX aircraft. The fighter will revolutionize advancements in open mission systems architecture, advanced mission systems and operational reach and capacity. F/A-XX is intended to replace the service’s fleet of F/A-18 Super Hornets.
“It’s an honor to be selected to produce the Navy’s first sixth-generation platform. Backed by decades of work, bolstered by game-changing innovations and solidified by the investments we’ve made in new facilities uniquely suited to build multiple products with next generation capabilities, our dedicated and talented team is ready to execute this critical program,” said Steve Parker, president and chief executive officer, Boeing Defense, Space & Security, in a company news release.
“Delivering two advanced fighters in parallel was always our plan, and we invested accordingly. We are ready and able to build multiple concurrent future combat aircraft franchise programs,” said Parker.
Construction continues on Boeing’s secure manufacturing facility, the largest in the U.S. Located in St. Louis, the facility will be part of the world’s most advanced, all-digital aerospace design and manufacturing system.
“Investment in facilities is just one part of the story; we’re also investing in technology and people so that we can deliver for our customers,” Parker added.
The technical and programmatic details of F/A-XX remain classified under US national security and export laws.
Northrop Grumman Vs Boeing
Noteworthy, only Northrop Grumman and Boeing were left to race one against the other in the US Navy Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) sixth-generation fighter jet program aimed at replacing F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft by means of a new air superiority fighter.
The Navy released this artist’s rendering of the Boeing F/A-XX, highlighting the Navy’s 6th-generation fighter intended to replace the service’s fleet of F/A-18 Super Hornets. Artist rendering: NAVAIR Public Release SPR-2026-0601.
As already reported in March 2025, the proposal submitted by Lockheed Martin to the service did not satisfy the US Navy’s criteria, a source with knowledge on the matter explained to Breaking Defense. What we know is that up to November 2024 proposals were evaluated by the service but as of today is not clear when Lockheed Martin was knocked out of the project. However, the company was no longer proceeding with any bid.
If Northrop Grumman had won the F/A-XX contract it would be the first fighter built by the company since the iconic F-14 Tomcat; instead since Boeing won the F/A-XX contract its facility in St. Louis will see a brighter future given that the company builds fighters in that facility.
Core attribute
According to a statement released in April 2025 by Rear Adm. Michael Donnelly, director of the Air Warfare division for the CNO, a “core attribute” of the F/A-XX is expected to be its range, up to “probably” 125 percent “of the range that we’re currently seeing today to give us better flexibility [and] operational reach.”
In a written testimony to Congress in May 2022, Navy officials said that the service NGAD program is meant to expand the range for carrier-based operations.
“The NGAD [family of systems] will replace the F/A-18E/F Block II aircraft as they begin to reach end of service life in the 2030s and leverage Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) in order to provide increased lethality and survivability,” reads joint testimony from Department of Navy acquisition officials. “F/A-XX is the strike fighter component of the NGAD FoS that will be the ‘Quarterback’ of the MUM-T concept, directing multiple tactical platforms at the leading edge of the battlespace.”
Since the F-14 Tomcat interceptor left the inventory in 2006 the effective combat radius of the carrier air wing has contracted. Since the Pentagon’s strategy focused on the Indo-Pacific and the need to counter China in a potential conflict, the Navy has had to explore ways to extend the range of carrier operations due to the vastness of the region. The MQ-25A Stingray unmanned carrier tanker will nominally increase the combat radius.
This model is available from AirModels – CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS
Boeing has won the U.S. Navy’s F/A-XX competition for the sixth-generation carrier-based fighter, with a contract valued at more than $20B for the full-scale development phase.
After months of wait, the U.S. Navy has finally announced Boeing as the winner of the competition for the F/A-XX sixth-generation carrier-based fighter as part of the service’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. With the award, Boeing will now develop and build the NGAD crewed fighter jets of both the Navy and Air Force.
The highly anticipated award comes after an imminent announcement was reported multiple times since March 2025, with the program apparently stuck in a limbo. The last such report mentioned the Navy would announce its selection by the end of August 2026.
Earlier this year, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Daryl Caudle warned that the Navy must accelerate development of F/A-XX to ensure it can penetrate future air defense environments over the next decade. “Our ability to fly with impunity with our existing airframes is fleeting,” Caudle said. “If I don’t start building that immediately, you’re not going to get it for some time.”
The announcement
In the statement released on Sept. 29, 2026, the Department of War said Boeing was awarded a contract valued at more than $20B for the full-scale development phase of F/A-XX. The contract covers multiple test aircraft for ground, airworthiness, systems, and weapons integration testing.
“The F/A-XX is a critical pillar in our commitment to maintaining peace through strength. F/A-XX will dominate contested airspace, extend operational reach, and deliver a decisive combat advantage for the warfighter,” said Michael P. Duffey, Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment. “The F/A-XX platform represents a crucial, non-negotiable investment in America’s national security and long-term air combat capabilities. We are joining forces with Boeing to field these capabilities rapidly, ensuring our warfighters possess the lethal and highly networked systems required to deter aggression, project undisputed power, and secure absolute air superiority.”
A rendering of Boeing’s proposed F/A-XX design. | Source: Boeing
The F/A-XX is expected to provide advanced carrier-based power projection, further extending the range of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. The new fighter jet will augment and eventually replace legacy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers beginning in the 2030s, and operate alongside the F-35C and Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA).
“This achievement marks a new era for the U.S. Navy,” said acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao. “The Sixth-Generation fighter is a generational leap in air superiority and will provide the world’s best aviators with unparalleled capabilities to fight, win, and come home safe. We are excited to partner with Boeing, and for our warfighters to continue to dominate the skies and defeat our nation’s enemies.”
6th-gen edge.
Thank you, @USNavy, for continuing our partnership to design, build and deliver your F/A-XX aircraft. We’re honored to produce the 6th-generation fighter that will revolutionize advancements in naval aviation to maintain U.S. carrier air superiority.
The statement released by Boeing puts emphasis on the company’s work on the NGAD programs of both the Navy and Air Force.
“Delivering two advanced fighters in parallel was always our plan, and we invested accordingly. We are ready and able to build multiple concurrent future combat aircraft franchise programs,” said Steve Parker, president and chief executive officer, Boeing Defense, Space & Security.
History of the F/A-XX program
The F/A-XX is the strike fighter component within the U.S. Navy’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family of Systems (FoS). The requirement for this aircraft has been around since 2008, with a formal Request for Information in 2012, to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the 2030s.
A formation of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 31 “Dust Devils” aircraft, including an EA-18G Growler, AV-8B Harrier II+, an F/A-18F Super Hornet, and an F/A-18D Hornet, flies over Point Mugu’s Sea Range in Californati during a photo exercise. | Source: U.S. Navy
Later, the F/A-XX was included in the service’s NGAD program, which is a separate program from the identically named Air Force program. The Navy says that its “specific capabilities and technologies are under development, however analysis shows it must have longer range and greater speed, incorporate passive and active sensor technology, and possess the capability to employ the longer-range weapons programmed for the future”.
The NGAD FoS will include unmanned platforms with F/A-XX as the quarterback, exploiting the Manned/UnManned Teaming (MUM-T) concept to reduce risk to the manned aircraft, while simultaneously increasing capability, capacity, and survivability. The new MQ-25 Stingray will be the first unmanned asset to employ this capability, extending the strike range and enhancing maneuverability of the Carrier Air Wing.
Continued development of MUM-T will enable information sharing across a distributed force, increasing survivability, reducing risk to manned aircraft, and ensuring weapons capacity. The Navy is evaluating the appropriate mix of F/A-XX, manned and unmanned platforms to ensure the most lethal and affordable CVW possible, depending also on the maturity of autonomy and Machine Learning technologies.
The Navy envisions future unmanned air vehicles with survivable planforms, sensors, and robust autonomy able to find, fix, identify, track, engage, and assess land, sea, and air targets. These UAVs will be employed alongside manned aircraft and unmanned attritable assets to enable integrated kinetic and non-kinetic fires at tactically relevant ranges in multidomain operations.
In a 2021 document, the Navy showed a fictional F/A-XX operating in a MUM-T environment with four drones, whose shape represents the MQ-25. Interestingly, the drones were shown employing Air-to-Air (AA), Electronic Warfare (EW) and Command and Control (C2) payloads, much like the Loyal Wingman drones currently being developed. This falls in line with the service envisioning Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) to fill refueling, communications relay, logistics, airborne electronic attack, strike, and ISR&T missions in the future air wing.
The F/A-XX placeholder design as shown by the U.S. Navy in its vision for 2030-2035, together with a better image of the original fictional design. (Images via U.S. Navy and Tapatalk) | Source: U.S. Navy
In 2024, in an interview released to Aviation Week, Rear Adm. Michael Donnelly, director of the air warfare division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, said the Navy will develop its aircraft independently, a reverse of previous reports who said the Navy and Air Force would share the developments of their next generation aircraft programs.
The Navy’s decision to move forward independently might have shielded the F/A-XX from the results of the NGAD’s review and the subsequent decisions. The service is confident in the suitability and affordability of the F/A-XX and is committed to move forward with the program.
“We have to have an affordable platform to make it relevant to our force structure and force design, so we’ve got that in mind,” said Donnelly. “We think we’ve got an affordable solution that supports our force structure of the future.”
According to Donnelly, the F/A-XX program was on track for the Milestone B decision to move the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase by the end of fiscal year 2025.
“We feel really good through the concept development that we’ve got the right bracket for those requirements and the attributes we need to deliver the capability,” Donnelly says. “We’ll continue to look at that as we go through the next phases of the acquisition process and make smart decisions.”
An early artist’s render showing a hypothetical F/A-XX fighter-attack aircraft. | Source: Boeing
What F/A-XX Is Expected to Deliver
The Navy envisions F/A-XX as more than a simple replacement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler. The new aircraft is expected to combine stealth, extended range, electronic warfare, and command-and-control functions into a single next-generation platform.
Navy officials previously said F/A-XX is expected to have approximately 25% more range than the F-35C, as well as more advanced jamming capabilities than the Growler. Moreover, it is also designed from the outset to control multiple Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), as noted by the CNO.
“The next-generation airframe, F/A-XX is so vital,” Caudle said. “It’s vital because of, one, the CCAs it will command and control. Its penetration – the Growlers won’t last forever, so it’ll be our electronic attack airplane as well. Its range will be coupled with the MQ-25 for clandestine refueling and organic refueling from the carrier.”
The aircraft is therefore central to the Navy’s future carrier air wing concept to maintain the service’s ability to project power in high-threat environments. In this mix of crewed and uncrewed platforms, the F/A-XX will be the quarterback, often said the Navy.
Navy’s and Air Force’s NGAD relation
According to Rear Adm. Donnelly, the new carrier-based fighter will be affordable, versatile and independent of Air Force-funded technologies such as an adaptive-cycle turbofan engine. While the service already said it would require a different airframe than the Air Force’s NGAD, other systems to be included were not mentioned.
The second rendering of the U.S. Air Force’s sixth generation fighter, the F-47. | Source: U.S. Air Force
Initially, the Navy appeared interested in the adaptive-cycle technology being developed for the Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program. In the past decade, however, propulsion plans for the two services have diverged, according to Donnelly.
“We’re looking at more of a derivative-type engine solution,” said Donnelly. “That’s just one example where we probably are different in many ways from the Air Force. In totality, they are two unique programs from an acquisition point of view and also going forward, so we’re relatively independent of each other at this point.”
Both programs appear to be under budgetary pressure, as both services are currently working on multiple large programs. In the Navy’s case, the 2025 budget for the new aircraft suffered a cut of 67%, with the $10.3 billion requested between 2025 and 2028 reduced to just $3.3 billion. The senate voted to restore $450 million to the budget but, even if approved, there would still a cut of 59% compared with last year’s budget.
Earlier this year, lawmakers agreed on the Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Appropriations Act to allocate $897 million specifically to F/A-XX, mandating the Pentagon to award a development contract aimed at accelerating initial operational capability. The wording used called out the Department of Defense for the slow pace of the program.
Another difference between the Navy’s and Air Force’s 6th gen fighter could be their roles. While the latter envisions its new aircraft mainly as an air superiority fighter, the Navy wants it to be multirole, optimized for air-to-surface strike but still capable of fleet defense.
“The central focus of its design is to be able to conduct long-range fires, sea control and those types of missions. Inherent in its design is its ability to participate in fleet defense,” Donnelly says. “We can’t afford to have a break-glass capability or a really unique single-mission or single-phase-of-operation focus.”
A final difference is the manned or unmanned debate. The Air Force left the door open for an optionally manned configuration, which was also the initial configuration proposed for the F/A-XX. However, the Navy has now opted for a fully manned platform.
“F/A-XX is intended to be a manned platform,” Donnelly says, noting that the “F/A-XX will really be our pivot point from a manned air wing to a hybrid future, with a manned-unmanned air wing.”
In the waning days of the Cold War, a Soviet MiG-23M flew pilotless across Warsaw Pact and NATO airspace, eventually crashing into a house in Belgium and killing one person.
On July 4, 1989, a MiG-23 departed a Polish airbase for a routine training flight and lost power while ascending on climb-out, or so the pilot thought. Believing the engine had failed, the pilot ejected.
However, this unbelievable flight was far from over, with the jet continuing across Europe, causing F-15s to scramble after the radio-silent intruder ignored NATO airspace and warnings. What the F-15 pilots discovered was a mysterious ghost plane cruising along at 39,000 ft.
A Frightening Takeoff
On July 4, 1989, Soviet Colonel Nikolai Skuridin climbed into a MiG-23M for an ordinary training flight at Bagicz Air Base near Kołobrzeg, Poland, located on the Baltic coast. The aircraft belonged to the 871st Fighter Aviation Regiment, which operated MiG-23s as part of the still heavy Soviet military presence in Poland, even though the fall of the Berlin Wall and the beginning of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact were just months away.
Col. Skuridin’s MiG-23M, with the bort number 29 below the cockpit, was a product of the Cold War, codenamed ‘Flogger-B’ by NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). The aircraft utilized a variable-geometry wing design which featured wings that could be swept back or forward. Despite its late 1960s roots, the aircraft was capable of exceeding Mach 2 powered by a single Tumansky R-29 turbojet engine. It was this engine that would ultimately set the bizarre flight in motion.
A Soviet MiG-23MDL in flight with the variable-geometry wings in the forward position, Feb. 1986. | Source: United States Navy
Seconds after takeoff, while at very low altitude, Skuridin heard a sudden loud bang. The afterburner shut down and, with the engine RPM dropping rapidly, the MiG began to quickly lose airspeed. Indications were engine failure and Skuridin was given permission to eject from the aircraft.
Skuridin attempted to point his aircraft toward the Baltic in hopes of preventing it from crashing into populated areas, and ejected, landing safely on the ground. Both ground control and the pilot expected the MiG-23 to crash any second now. But it didn’t.
Aerial view of the Bagicz Airfield in Poland, taken in 2021, clearly showing the proximity of the Baltic Sea. | Source: Wikimedia Commons
Back to Life
The R-29 engine didn’t completely shut down. In fact, shortly after the pilot ejected, the RPMs began to surge, restoring the thrust. With the pilot and ejection seat gone and the canopy separated, the aircraft was significantly lighter. The renewed engine thrust was enough to arrest its descent, while the automatic flight-control system stabilized the aircraft.
The ejection seat and pressure suit used in the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 on display at the Technik Museum Speyer in Germany. | Source: Wikimedia Commons
The resurrected fighter continued a westerly course while climbing, eventually reaching close to 39,000 ft of altitude. The now empty, unarmed, and stabilized MiG continued on west, cruising along at a leisurely 400 mph toward one of the most heavily monitored airspaces on the planet at the time, with the Soviets not realizing the aircraft was continuing on this flight path.
Soon Polish territory was behind the stray fighter and East Germany on the horizon. Soviet authorities had lost track of the MiG and NATO was unaware of the situation as the aircraft continued on towards NATO airspace.
Threat Detected
NATO radar picked up the MiG as it neared the end of East German airspace and approached West Germany. As it crossed the border, it appeared a Soviet fighter had just blatantly entered NATO airspace without authorization. Soviet intimidation flights were a common incident during the Cold War years, but normally the aircraft came in pairs, and this one flying alone was ignoring radio contact attempts.
An F-15C of the 32nd Tactical Fighter Squadron, Soesterberg, Netherlands taken in the mid-1980s. | Source: United States Air Force
In response, the United States Air Force (USAF) scrambled a pair of F-15C Eagles. Stationed at Soesterberg in the Netherlands, the American fighters belonged to the 32nd Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS). Known as the ‘Wolfhounds’, this unit was part of the U.S. air defense of Western Europe.
Intercepted
USAF Captains J.D. Martin and Bill Murphy caught up with the MiG-23 in their F-15Cs, only to find a strange sight. The aircraft was obviously unarmed, displaying no weapons on the pylons. As they closed in, they were surprised to see the canopy of the MiG was missing along with the pilot and the ejection seat. The aircraft was flying along almost perfectly at 400 mph and 39,000 ft altitude with no human guidance.
View of the Cockpit of a MiG-23. | Source: Wikimedia Commons
The USAF pilots radioed their findings and were given permission to down the aircraft in case the aircraft ran out of fuel, to avoid it crashing into a populated area. However, the problem was that shooting down the MiG with missiles would shower populated areas below with deadly flaming debris.
It was decided to simply accompany it to the English Channel at watch it run out of fuel and splash into the sea. But again, that is not what happened. The RAF (Royal Air Force) placed a Phantom FGR2 on alert should the MiG continue on and find its way into British airspace.
Tragedy Strikes
However, the MiG-23 did not continue on course for the Channel, but instead veered towards Belgium and Northern France. The thirsty Tumansky R-29 turbojet engine finally flamed out and, after an uncrewed flight of over an hour, the unpowered jet was now beginning its inevitable descent towards the earth. The French Air Force went on alert as the aircraft seemed to have the city of Lille in its sights.
Map showing where the MiG went down at Bellegem, Belgium, not far from the French border. | Source: Wikimedia/Open Street Maps
At around 10:30 am, the MiG now turned heavy glider was near the city of Kortrijk, continuing on into Belgian airspace and just few miles from the French border, when it finally came down in Bellegem.
Wim Delaere, an 18 year old man, was home alone when the big warplane plowed into his farm house residence. He was killed upon impact. The rest of his family was away from home at the time. The tail section of the MiG, bearing the red star insignia of the Soviet Union, could be seen protruding from the rubble. The absence of a significant weapons load likely limited the potential consequences of the crash, preventing a worse disaster for residents and responders.
This video mistakenly describes the incident as a shoot down, but is valuable as it contains the actual radio chatter of the intercepting F-15 pilots that continues to the crash as well as images of the crash site and crashed aircraft.
Fallout
The fact a stray Soviet military jet had flown over multiple nations without notification from the Soviets to sovereign governments created a diplomatic crisis at a time when the Cold War was already approaching its end. Belgium issued a formal protest and publicly criticized the lack of communication from the Soviets about the phantom flight and the details of the aircraft’s armaments or lack thereof.
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev publicly expressed his regrets and the Soviets issued an official apology. Moscow compensated with the equivalent of approximately 25 million Belgian francs, equivalent to about $685,000 at the time. After a Belgian investigation, the Soviets were allowed to retrieve the wreckage of the aircraft ten days after the incident.
A very simple automated flight control system on an empty fighter had exposed the weaknesses of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact. NATO was successful in intercepting the MiG, but seemed powerless to prevent it from crashing into civilian populated areas. The Warsaw Pact lost track of its own aircraft and failed to notify other countries of the possible danger.
Abandoned by the Soviet military in 1992, vegetation has overtaken much of the former airbase in Bagicz near Kołobrzeg, Poland, in this image taken in 2007. Since Oct. 2012, the site has been used as an airfield for general aviation under visual flight conditions (VFR). | Source: Wikimedia Commons
A pilotless aircraft seemingly defeated the two most powerful military/defense organizations on earth. Abandoned just after takeoff and lost track of, it managed to streak 625 miles across much of Europe ending up on the other side of the continent even after being intercepted and ended in taking the life of a teenager.
The W93 warhead and Mk7 reentry body assembly are part of the Trident II D5 Life Extension (D5LE2) which will modernize the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad.
The U.S. Navy’s W93 warhead and Mk7 reentry body assembly, which will equip the Trident II Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) as part of the D5 Life Extension 2 (D5LE2) program, have entered the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the Portfolio Acquisition Executive (PAE) Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) announced on Sept. 24, 2026.
The program reached Milestone B earlier this year, and the EMD phase will now “focus on completing production design and proving that the design is producible to meet the needs of the Navy,” the PAE SSP said. The W93 warhead and the Mk7 reentry body assembly are the first U.S. nuclear warhead and reentry system in nearly four decades, says the service, providing a modern warhead to the Navy’s submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strengthening the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad.
The announcement also comes after Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) – the design agency for the W93’s nonnuclear components and the lead warhead systems integrator for nuclear weapons programs – announced on Aug. 31 the launch of the Atrax sounding rocket to collect critical physical performance data and match its simulated models for the W93’s development.
SNL subsequently revealed that the W93’s first flight test is scheduled approximately two years after the Atrax test. The W93/Mk7 program is an interagency Nuclear Weapons Life Cycle effort between the PAE SSP and the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
The US announce the progression of the new W93/Mk7 nuclear warhead for TRIDENT D5LE2 into its Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase. This directly touches the UK as well: the W93 is effectively the US counterpart and “sister” to the UK’s ASTRAEA A21/MK7, with some… pic.twitter.com/EqbzfmpwOV
The D5LE2 is being developed for the U.S. Navy’s upcoming Columbia-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), meant to replace the 14 older USS Ohio-class boats. The first eight Columbia-class SSBNs will enter service with the D5LE system, while D5LE2 will be introduced on the ninth SSBN and retrofitted to the earlier ones.
During its service aboard Ohio-class submarines, the Trident II D5 also underwent its first life extension program, the D5LE, that upgraded critical electronics and guidance components, which will allow it to remain operational through the 2040s.
Lockheed Martin Awarded $850 Million Contract for Trident II D5LE2 Program
Lockheed Martin has received an $850 million contract modification from the U.S. Navy to continue the design and development of the Trident II D5 Life Extension 2 (D5LE2) program, a key component of the… pic.twitter.com/cq3Dt6Wr25
— Global Defense Insight (@Defense_Talks) July 14, 2026
Navy officials later deemed additional upgrades would be insufficient for long-term aging of critical components and the modern demands of the Columbia fleet, prompting the D5LE2 effort. D5LE2 effort ensures the Trident remains credible through 2084.
The Trident II D5 also arms the four boats of the Royal Navy’s Vanguard-class ballistic missile nuclear submarines (SSBN). A January 2025 Lockheed Martin release about a $383 million contract modification for the D5LE2 confirmed that the UK will participate in the effort under the Polaris Sales Agreement.
Effective interagency coordination
PAE SSP director Vice Adm. Douglas Williams emphasized the “flexibility and adaptability” that the W93/Mk7 provides to “ensure an uninterrupted at sea deterrent for the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad.”
“We were able to accelerate our entry into this next phase because of the dedicated partnership between PAE SSP, National Nuclear Security Administration, and our industry base,” Williams said in the Navy release. “This is what working at hyper-speed looks like.”
The collaboration between PAE SSP, NNSA and SNL under the interagency Nuclear Weapons Life Cycle supported the design and development of the W93 warhead and Mk7 reentry system. NNSA administrator Brandon Williams said in the release: “Credible deterrence demands that we move with urgency, and the progress we’re making on W93/Mk7 demonstrates exactly that.”
Happy 8-26
The largest submarine ever built by the US, Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine USS District of Columbia (SSBN 826), will be launched next year. pic.twitter.com/b3FnamR0jy
“We are revitalizing and modernizing the Nuclear Security Enterprise to design, develop, and produce this critical new weapon with the precision our Warfighters demand,” added Williams. “We will continue working together to deliver this capability to the fleet and ensure our sea-based strategic deterrent remains ready for the future.”
As mentioned earlier, while the PAE SSP will sustain the existing Trident II D5 on the Ohio-class boats, and integrate the Trident II D5 Life Extension 2 (D5LE2) on the new Columbia-class SSBNs, it is also “pioneering regional strike capabilities of the future.”
This includes the development of the Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N) and the non-nuclear hypersonic Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) system. The CPS shares the same Common-Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB) with the U.S. Army’s Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) “Dark Eagle.”
Sounding rocket tests provide W93 development data
Ross Wagnild, an aerospace engineer at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), said the Atrax sounding rocket test helped them improve the credibility of their modeling and simulation tools in preparation for the W93 warhead’s development. SNL is also developing the Mk7 reentry vehicle, meant to “safeguard and carry” the W93 warhead and the Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRV) – as shown in the official concept illustration by PAE SSP – to the target.
Sounding rockets are suborbital experimental vehicles carrying instruments “to collect [general] environmental data in flight without the scope of a full program test,” otherwise difficult to be replicated on the ground.
The Atrax test is not intended to assess “the precision or accuracy of the reentry vehicle.” The Atrax specifically measured the interplay of “aerodynamic forces and structural response” during reentry conditions.
A sounding rocket flight test is giving Sandia engineers real-world reentry vibration data to improve modeling and inform nonnuclear component designs for nuclear weapons.
The trial provided data that can be compared with the models developed through NNSA’s Advanced Simulation and Computing program and make them more accurate. The measurements of the actual vibration, aerodynamic load and impact on internal physical components helped “better evaluate the survivability of nonnuclear components of our weapon systems,” Wagnild added.
The data generated by the Atrax test also supports future weapons programs as it aids correct engineering and component design decisions, reducing costs and cutting development timelines, according to Kelsey Forsberg, who works in nuclear deterrence at Sandia. Forsberg said NNSA investments in programs like High Operational Tempo Shot and the Enzo demonstrator helped pave the way for the Atrax test and “reduced risk to the W93 program.”
The “cutting edge sensors” on the reentry vehicle collected data to test the accuracy of their simulation codes on “thermal, fluid and structural models to better understand where improvements might be needed.” The test vehicle itself had a new reentry vehicle, a three-stage sounding rocket and a new separation system.
In addition to the W93, Wagnild said the Atrax test will provide the broader hypersonic community with data that could improve hypersonics modeling and build confidence in modern sensor suites for other hypersonic vehicles.
B-36 Peacemaker survived to five cancellation attempts
The B-36 was first conceived in 1941 as a transatlantic bomber to strike Europe from bases in the US. By 1943, the focus switched from the European Theater to the Pacific for use against the Japanese home islands. After more design changes and greater success of the B-29s, the prototype XB-36s first flight was delayed until Aug. 8, 1946; nearly six years after initial design contracts were signed.
When production ended in August 1954, more than 380 B-36s had been built for the US Air Force. In 1958-1959, the USAF replaced the B-36 with the B-52. Although never used in combat, the B-36 was a major deterrent to enemy aggression.
As explained by Meyers K. Jacobsen in his book Convair B-36: A Comprehensive History of America’s “Big Stick”, it is interesting to note that the B-36 program might have been canceled at least five times during the big bomber’s career. It is a testament to the plane itself that it did manage to survive during a difficult transitional period in Air Force history.
First possible cancellation:
The letter of intent, dated Jul. 23, 1943, from the Army Air Forces to Convair, was superseded a year later by a definitive contract for 100 B-36 airplanes. This $160 million contract included a $6 million fixed fee, and the cost of all spare parts and engineering data. However, the contract had no priority by that time, but delivery schedules remained the same, with the first B-36 off the production due in August 1945 and the last in October 1946.
With victory in sight, war contracts were being scrutinized for cancellation, or drastic cutback. Aircraft production was actually cut by 30% on May 25, 1945, a reduction of 17,000 planes. As far as the B-36 was concerned, there was no question that a long range bomber was needed. In 1945; the B-36 seemed the best answer, so, on Aug. 6, 1945, General Arnold approved the Air Staff recommendation to keep the B-36 production contract intact.
Second possible cancellation:
On Dec. 12, 1946, General Kenney, who had been promoted to four star general in March 1945, and had headed SAC since April 1946, suggested reducing the procurement contract for the 100 B-36s to just a few service-test aircraft. After studying available performance estimates on the B-36, the SAC commander believed it to be inferior to the forthcoming B-50, an advanced B-29 design. Among the shortcomings of the B-36 cited by General Kenney, were a useful range of only 6,500 miles, insufficient speed, and lack of protection for the bomber’s fuel load.
Neither the Air Staff or Lt. General Nathan F. Twining, AMC commanding general, agreed. General Twining said that the B-36 should not be judged solely from the XB-36, which had just started its flight testing. He added, all new airplanes encounter teething problems, including the B-17 and B-29. Moreover, the B-36 was the only suitable aircraft far enough along to serve as an interim long range atomic bomb carrier until the B-52 arrived. General Carl Spaatz, the AAF’s new commander, wholly agreed with General Twining. The B-36 contract was retained in full.
Third possible cancellation:
The new Air Force Aircraft and Weapons Board, formed by new Deputy Chief of the Air Staff General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, met on Aug. 19, 1947, and discussed the future role of strategic bombing, and the means of accomplishing such missions, if so needed. The senior officers were to recommend the weapons that best supported the long range plans for the Air Force’s development and gradual buildup to 70 groups.
The board members differed on how to solve these complex problems. Some considered the B-36 already obsolete and favored buying fast jet bombers—a gamble, since these would have insufficient range and would not be available for years. Others wanted to increase the B-36’s speed with the new proposed VDT engine, using the plane as an all-purpose bomber. Still others preferred the B-50, because it was faster than the present B-36 and could also obtain greater range and speed with the addition of VDT engines.
However, after prolonged discussion, a consensus emerged to retain the B-36 as a special purpose bomber, which would eventually be replaced by the B-52 (1953 at the earliest). The B-36 program avoided cancellation once again.
Fourth possible cancellation:
When it became obvious that a faster B-36 (designated B-36C, equipped with VDT engines) could not be obtained, the Air Force once more thought of cancelling the entire B-36 program. Yet, various factors had to be considered. Twenty-two of the basic and relatively slow B-36As were nearly completed by spring 1948. A great deal of money had already been spent on the controversial program. Therefore, the Air Force decided to postpone any decisions. It instructed Air Materiel Command to waive the modification of several shop-completed B-36As that had been awaiting adjustments, and to expedite their delivery. This would allow Convair to speed up the aircraft’s flight test program. Also, new yardsticks, the VR diagrams, were to be used to measure the B-36’s real performance against other bombers under similar conditions.
Huge selection of Lockheed Martin diecast models to choose from – get yours here.
Test results, though not spectacular, favored the B-36. It seemed that the B-36, so maligned, might turn out to be a better airplane than had been expected. If so, any hasty reduction of the production contract might wreck the program, just as it was beginning to pay off. The beginning of the Russian blockade of West Berlin on Jun. 18, 1948, spared the Air Force’s indecision. USAF officials, deeply concerned by the Soviets’ aggression, unanimously agreed to stay with the B-36. The proposed 34 VDT-equipped B-36Cs would revert to the B-36B configuration, assuring the Air Force of getting 95 of the 100 B-36s under contract since June 1943. The B-36 was saved from cancellation another time.
Curtailment of the defense budget
Curtailment of the defense budget in 1949 brought interservice disagreements to a boil. The Air Force and the Navy had long recognized that whichever service possessed the atomic mission would eventually receive a larger share of the budget. Thus, they had grown more and more wary of each other’s strategic programs. Meanwhile, the B-36, the Air Force’s atomic carrier, had been the target of much criticism, even though few people had even seen it, let alone flown in it.
In early 1949, the B-36’s future was highly questionable. An anonymous document began making the rounds in the press, congressional, and aircraft industry circles charging that corruption had entered into the B-36’s selection, and that the aircraft’s performance did not live up to Air Force claims. In August, a second unsigned paper accused the Air Force of having greatly exaggerated the importance of strategic air warfare. The charges of corruption and favoritism were investigated by the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives, and were quickly proven false. On Aug. 25, 1949, the investigation closed, after clearing the Air Force and Convair.
Fifth possible cancellation:
However, hearings on the B-36 resumed in October. Briefly stated, the committee had to decide, at least for the time being, whether the nation should rely on massive retaliation with intercontinental bombers in case of attack, or depend upon the Navy’s fleet and air arm, to defend the North American continent. Even though there were doubts about the B-36’s ability to evade enemy fighters, the Air Force emerged triumphantly from the October hearings.
This direct challenge to the B-36, done in a very public national debate, resulted in the bomber being vindicated. The B-36 program was retained and AF avoided cancellation for the fifth time.
Convair B-36: A Comprehensive History of America’s “Big Stick” is published by Schiffer Publishing and is available to order here.
Jay Lacklen is a retired Air Force reserve pilot with 12,000 military flying hours. He grew up in Arlington, VA, and graduated from the University of North Carolina-Chapel in 1969. He entered service in 1970 and retired in 2004 as a Lt Col with 12,500 flying hours. Lacklen taught Air Force T-1 pilot training simulators at Columbus AFB, Mississippi from 2005-2014. He grew up in Arlington, VA and graduated from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in 1969. In addition to pilot training aircraft, he flew 330 hours in the C-7 Caribou, 2000 hours in the B-52 bomber, and 9,500 hours in the C-5 Galaxy transport.
He flew in all major military actions from Vietnam to the Iraq War. Lacklen lives in northern Virginia and is married with four adult daughters and two granddaughters.
At the end of May, the B-52 Arc Light mission ended as the final three-ship cell, with our crew in the lead, departed U-Tapao. For many years, SAC crew members had joked about “putting out the Arc Light for good,” and here we were about to do just that. I had only flown two actual Arc Light bombing missions in 1973, and the rest of the crew had flown none, but we got to put out the “Light” for the thousands of crewmen who had flown the tens of thousands of hours over the previous ten years. They had done the heavy lifting; we had done little for the time we were at U-Tapao, but we got to take it home for good.
We would fly in cell formation until we reached the coast of California, then “two” and “three” would leave the formation to land at March AFB, CA, and we would continue on as a single ship to Carswell AFB, TX, a sixteen-hour mission.
Indignity
We had an indignity to suffer before takeoff, however. The staff told us to report an hour early so we could string up a room full of rattan furniture in the bomb bay to deliver to the deputy commander for operations at Carswell. This did not sit well. We faced a tortuously long mission without any extra duties, and this was an absolutely unnecessary task. No doubt one of the commanders at U-Tapao garnered a significant kudo for shipping the colonel’s furniture for free, but we were the ones providing the service. We hoped to be required to cycle the bomb bay doors en route over the Pacific, one final rattan bomb run.
This model is available from AirModels – CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS.
(On a similar mission during Gulf War 1 in 1990, I had to personally deliver two live lobsters sent by General Colin Powell from Massachusetts to General Norman Schwarzkopf in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Getting them there alive was my assigned mission. I await my grandkids asking what I did during the war. Why, I babysat two lobsters!)
When the time came, the three B-52s sat behind the runway hold line awaiting permission for the final B-52 takeoff from U-Tapao. Then tower cleared us for takeoff. On interplane frequency, I said, “OK, guys, let’s take our Buffs and go home,” and with that we took off. As we climbed out the Gulf of Siam, U-Tapao fell silent for the first time in a decade and would largely remain that way.
Interesting things
At cruise over the Philippine Sea at 42,000 feet, two interesting things happened. First, a jet contrail passed over us. This was unusual because we were already at our max altitude over eight miles high, and the other contrail was so far above us I couldn’t see the aircraft. I decided it must be a U-2 or SR-71 spy plane because I didn’t expect to encounter any aircraft higher than we were, much less so far above us I would be unable to see it.
Next, a U.S. Navy ship broadcast on guard channel asking if any American military aircraft were in the area. We answered that we were, and he asked if we could go “cipher” mode, or the scrambled, secret mode on one of our radios. The ship said they had an unknown target apparently shadow them and asked if we could drop down and take a look. I said I’d have to get permission to do so because I couldn’t make my destination if I used the extra gas to chase a shadow.
Shortly thereafter, the ship said they had resolved the issue and we wouldn’t be needed. I thought, briefly, we might find an excuse to cycle the bomb bay doors to rain rattan on the mysterious shadow, but it was not to be. The Carswell colonel would get his damn furniture. As the final indignity, neither colonel met us at either end to thank us for our efforts.
Several former engineers who worked on the Mach 3+ Spy Plane were contacted by NASA as the agency is looking for their help with a possible return-to-flight project.
Former US Air Force (USAF) and NASA test engineer Mike Relja was reached out by David Ash, a former US Navy and Joby test pilot, to help with the effort. Now in his late 70s, Relja was surprised when NASA contacted him about the project he told Aviation Week.
“I told the guy, ‘You know, I’m too old to be doing this. I wish you well. I’d like to see you make it. It would be interesting. But I just don’t think you can get there from here,” Relja explained.
SR-71A Tail No. 844 is the Blackbird at the centre of the effort. Since her last flight, the HABU (as the SR-71 is dubbed by her aircrews) has been sitting on display at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), California.
Aviation Week obtained commercial satellite images that showed that the spy plane was removed from its display pole sometime before April this year. The Blackbird was moved into the hangar that was once used for the Space Shuttle by NASA employees.
A NASA spokesperson told Aviation Week that the agency recognizes “the interest in the SR-71 and its remarkable history at NASA but have no additional information to share regarding the aircraft at this time.”
A new fleet of experimental X-planes
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman spoke about NASA plans to build a new fleet of experimental X-planes at the All-In Summit in Los Angeles earlier in September where Isaacman showed an image of a new aircraft. As the image below shows, the new plane seemed to feature something in common with the Blackbird such as its tail design, engine areas and cockpit. Isaacman added that NASA would soon be flying as high and as fast as it had in the past, and then go beyond those limits.
Tail No. 844 has not flown for nearly 27 years and it would be difficult to operate since it could have water and sand inside it after spending so many years on display, Relja explained.
“I do know they’ve got people working on it. But again, without equipment, it’s beyond me what they’re doing,” he pointed out.
He also explained that even though the aircraft has two J58 engines and one spare engine under it, the J58 may not have been properly maintained or rotated for decades.
“When we were operational, if we had a spare engine, every 90 days we had to rotate the engine. Every 180 days, we had to run it to keep it as a ready spare. Now you’re talking about engines that have been sitting for 30-plus years,” Relja explained.
Problems
Moreover, in 2007 the USAF and NASA destroyed around $600 million worth of SR-71 spare parts so the supply of spare parts is another big problem. JP-7 fuel (a special type of fuel used only by the SR-71) would also be needed.
Besides these, the aircraft also needs triethylborane (TEB, a chemical used to start its engines) special engine oil and hydraulic fluids. Special carts were needed for several jobs Relja pointed out. “To get the engine out, you need a cart. You need equipment to pull the [engine] spikes, pull the [ejection] seat. All that stuff is gone.”
Nine SR-71s were flown to museums in the US and UK, hence their engines and other parts could be used for the project.
During the 1990s two SR-71 Blackbird aircraft were used by NASA as testbeds for high-speed and high-altitude aeronautical research at Dryden. The aircraft included an SR-71A and SR-71B (the trainer version), loaned to NASA by the US Air Force.
NASA SR-71s
During the 1990s two SR-71 Blackbird aircraft were used by NASA as testbeds for high-speed and high-altitude aeronautical research at Dryden. The aircraft included an SR-71A and SR-71B (the trainer version), loaned to NASA by the US Air Force.
The SR-71, the most advanced member of the Blackbird family that included the A-12 and YF-12, was designed by a team of Lockheed personnel led by Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, then vice president of Lockheed’s Advanced Development Company Projects, commonly known as the “Skunk Works” and now a part of Lockheed Martin Corp.
The Blackbird design originated in secrecy during the late 1950s with the A-12 reconnaissance aircraft that first flew in April 1962 and remained classified until 1976. President Lyndon Johnson publicly announced the existence of the YF-12A interceptor variant on Feb. 29, 1964, more than half a year after its maiden flight. The SR-71 completed its first flight on Dec. 22, 1964. More than a decade after their retirement the Blackbirds remain the world’s fastest and highest-flying production aircraft ever built.
The Blackbirds were designed to cruise at Mach 3.2, just over three times the speed of sound or more than 2,200 miles per hour and at altitudes up to 85,000 feet. The extreme operating environment in which they flew made the aircraft excellent platforms for conducting research and experiments in a variety of disciplines: aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, thermal protection materials, high-speed and high-temperature instrumentation, atmospheric studies, and sonic boom characterization.
SR-71 activities at Dryden were part of NASA’s overall high-speed aeronautical research program and involved other NASA research Centers, other government agencies, universities, and commercial firms.
The U.S. Navy said that two Naval Aviators ejected from their EA-18G Growler following an arresting gear failure aboard the USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier and were promptly recovered by search and rescue forces.
The U.S. Navy announced that a recovery mishap aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) resulted in two Naval Aviators assigned to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 3 ejecting from their aircraft. The service says that both were promptly recovered by search and rescue (SAR) forces and were safely returned to the ship to be evaluated by medical personnel.
Additionally, four shipboard personnel were also injured during the mishap and are receiving medical care. However, one Sailor is being evacuated to a Norfolk-area hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries.
DSTY613 (MH-60S) brought the injured into Sentara Norfolk General Hospital last night.
The mishap happened at approximately 6:18 p.m. EDT on Sept. 28, 2026, as the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier was sailing off the coast of Virginia. According to USNI News, the USS Eisenhower is currently at sea for a carrier qualifications campaign, and left Naval Station Norfolk in the afternoon of Sept. 28.
The service did not release details about the aircraft involved in the mishap and whether it went overboard or stopped on the deck. The ejection of two Naval Aviators seemingly points to either the F/A-18F Super Hornet or the EA-18G Growler, the only two types of twin-seater aircraft currently in service with Carrier Air Wings.
An F/A-18F Super Hornet, attached to the “Fighting Swordsmen” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 32, lands on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) in the Arabian Gulf, Dec. 10, 2023. | Source: U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Nicholas Rodriguez
CVW 3 is assigned one squadron of each aircraft, the Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 32 “Swordsmen” and the Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 130 “Zappers,” respectively. The Navy did not mention the squadron involved.
In the past, similar outcomes have resulted from rare mishaps in which an arresting cable snapped during an arrested landing and struck deck personnel as it recoiled, much like a whip suddenly released under tension. However, we can’t confirm that this is what happened in this case, as the Navy has not released specific details about the mishap.
The carrier recently completed its Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) at Norfolk Naval Shipyard. A PIA is a scheduled period for an aircraft carrier to undergo extensive maintenance, repairs and modernization to meet future operational demands, spanning a wide array of overhauls and inspections.
Update
The U.S. Navy confirmed that the aircraft involved was an E/A-18G Growler attached to the “Zappers” of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 130. The two Naval Aviators were forced to eject following an arresting gear failure and were promptly recovered by search-and-rescue personnel assigned to Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 7.
UPDATE 1: At 6:18 p.m. EDT on Sept. 28, a mishap involving an E/A-18G Growler, attached to VAQ-130, occurred during aircraft recovery operations aboard the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) off the coast of Virginia.
The service said that a total of eight Sailors were evaluated by ship’s medical personnel following the incident, while one Sailor was flown to a Norfolk-area hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries. The two aviators and two additional Sailors injured on the flight deck were flown to Naval Medical Center Portsmouth for follow-on evaluation.
An investigation into the causes of the mishap is ongoing.
Jay Lacklen is a retired Air Force reserve pilot with 12,000 military flying hours. He grew up in Arlington, VA, and graduated from the University of North Carolina-Chapel in 1969. He entered service in 1970 and retired in 2004 as a Lt Col with 12,500 flying hours. Lacklen taught Air Force T-1 pilot training simulators at Columbus AFB, Mississippi from 2005-2014. He grew up in Arlington, VA and graduated from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in 1969. In addition to pilot training aircraft, he flew 330 hours in the C-7 Caribou, 2000 hours in the B-52 bomber, and 9,500 hours in the C-5 Galaxy transport.
He flew in all major military actions from Vietnam to the Iraq War. Lacklen lives in northern Virginia and is married with four adult daughters and two granddaughters.
In November 1992, my Westover C-5 crew got “picked off” from our scheduled mission to fly another mission. The original mission was a standard Navy run to Rota, Spain; Sigonella, Italy; Bahrain; and return by the same bases to Westover.
When we alerted at Sigonella for our next leg, the command post offered us another mission. It seemed a Travis AFB active duty crew was in delay at Sig and their flight engineer was going non-current for a check ride and could not complete the mission. They asked if we would assume that mission instead of continuing our own.
C-5 mission around the world
The new mission would take us around the world, eastbound, through Pakistan, Australia, Samoa, and Hawaii. Had this been a crew with standard reservists, who needed to be home on time for their “real” jobs, we could not have taken the new mission. But this crew consisted of reserve bums (no other job) and ARTS. If I’d had a standard reservist crew, when asked if they would volunteer, they would have said “Hell, no!” But the bum/ART crew said “Hell, yes!” So around the world we would go. This would be my final mission hurrah at Westover.
The first leg would be a max crew-day body wrecker: Sig to Bahrain; to Islamabad, Pakistan; to Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean. We took off late in the afternoon from Sig, quick-turned Bahrain for fuel around midnight, and arrived overhead Islamabad just before sunrise.
I hoped for daylight because we would be within 20 miles or so of the Himalayan mountain chain and its 20,000-foot peaks. I didn’t want to fool around in the dark at an unfamiliar field with towering mountain peaks. Thankfully, the early predawn light allowed us to see the mountain outlines as we began our steep penetration to the field.
Our approach went routinely until we departed the final approach fix. I then saw as bizarre a sight as T have ever seen. In the dim predawn light, a heavy smoke fog rose from dozens of individual chimneys used to make bricks. These were apparently personal kilns for small family-run brick businesses, and even in the dim light I could see smoke rising that gave the area the look of an industrial ecological disaster, a dark sooty landscape that might have appeared similar to thermal vents on some alien planet inhospitable to humans.
Typical military outpost
In another surprise, about an hour later, the sun rose above the mountains and revealed an entirely different view. The Pakistani air base seemed Mediterranean in its climate. Warm air from the south provided short-sleeved shirt weather, and colorful flower gardens surrounded by verdant grass covered the base campus. We could have been back in Sigonella.
The base seemed a typical military outpost; cadets marched in formation and uniformed Pakistani Air Force personnel went about their tasks as we do in the States. After this second quick turn, we took off in bright sunlight headed south down the Indus River valley to the Indian Ocean enroute to Diego Garcia, about five and a half hours south.
Again I found the unexpected while flying down the Indus Valley. The river’s shores were barren, as was the entire valley. At least the Nile had a ten-mile, or so, wide strip of green along the river, but the Indus had once. It seemed to run through a barren desert, a landscape unchanged by its presence.
I had stayed awake the entire mission thus far, almost 20 hours, and I was winding down hard as we approached the Indian Ocean. My two fellow pilots, Keith Guillotte and Craig Peters, had taken sleep breaks previously, so I told them they had the leg to Diego and I hit the bunk to sleep like a dead man.
The lights of Darwin
The other pilots rousted me out of my slumber cave in the forward bunk room prior to descent late in the afternoon on a sunny tropical day. After landing and getting our rooms, we visited a beachcomber style bar and grill that provided a marvelous view of the ocean waves breaking on the reef about a mile away, as picturesque a tropical view as I’ve seen. Unfortunately, that is about all there is to see on Diego.
Late the next afternoon, we alerted for the second leg of our eastward journey, about 2,500 nautical miles and six hours to Darwin on the north shore of Australia. We flew this segment almost totally at night, and rarely have I felt more alone in the universe, with no signs of land or humans for hours on end over the East Indian Ocean.
My only connection with civilization, the HF radio, made communications, as mentioned previously, sound as if I were calling Oceanic Control from Mars from my spaceship.
Finally, the lights of Darwin appeared far in the distance surrounded by nothing, the outback to the south and the Indian Ocean to the north. I’d report to you on Darwin except I saw almost none of it except base operations at the air field. We refueled, filed our flight plan and ate in about three hours. Then we launched south across the Australian continent for the three-hour flight to the isolated radar tracking station of Woomera, 300 miles north of the south coast port city of Adelaide. On the way we would pass almost directly over Alice Spring in the interior.
Southern Cross
Midway in our climb to FL 330, the earth below us went black with no signs of human habitation. The view remained this way for most of our cross-continent trek across the outback.
After a while at cruise, I sat alone as Keith and Craig slept. Checklists were complete and there was no chatter on interphone. I experienced silence and darkness for long stretches of time, except for the stars. The stars! I remembered the Crosby, Stills & Nash song “Southern Cross” and my promise to finally see this constellation mostly invisible from the Northern Hemisphere.
I didn’t really know what I was looking for—something the size of Orion or the Big Dipper? There was something of a moon lighting the sky so only bright stars shone brightly enough to be seen as I scanned the cosmos. After a few moments I looked up and there it was, a large four-point cross in the southern sky, four bright stars rising above me. I stared in awe at this symbol from heaven that southern mariners had used for thousands of years to guide them. This seemed a near-religious moment, and I felt as if I were in a celestial cathedral with a soaring needed to complete the moment.
Woomera wave
We landed in morning sunshine in Woomera for a stay of several days. On landing rollout, however, we got a “Det Fail” light on our annunciator panel telling us one or more of our 24 wheel brakes was free-wheeling and not providing any braking action. Sometimes this malfunction can be cured by adjusting the wheel hubs, but sometimes it cannot and more extensive maintenance is required. Except there was no maintenance in Woomera and such a fix might require a week or more to fly in from Travis AFB in California. We adjusted the hubs and hoped that would be sufficient, something we would not know until takeoff roll.
I had anticipated Woomera providing an outback showcase of the Australian interior, a hiking opportunity and photo bonanza. As soon as I exited the plane, however, I met the scourge that would hound us over the entire crew rest, leave us cowering inside buildings in self-defense and longing for an opportunity to leave this hell hole.
When outdoors we constantly employed what the locals term the “Woomera wave,” or a flapping arm motion in front of your face in a futile attempt to hold the creatures at bay. As the only targets for miles in any direction, we became the hunted prey for these outback denizens as they invaded Woomera in huge swarms. Being indoors provided some relief, although the pests had penetrated even this space to a minor extent. Outside excursions around the small town that covered only a few dozen acres were limited to the local bank to cash checks (debit cards were still ten years or so in the future) and grocery store.
Launch for Sydney
My one unrequired foray to the modest zoo on edge of town left me longing for a hat with mosquito netting. l employed a constant Woomera wave while quickly reviewing the caged kangaroos, koalas, kookaburras, and parrots before fleeing back to the hotel.
After a few days in this purgatory we launched for Sydney. At 60 knots on takeoff roll, the “Det Fail” light again illuminated – and no one said a word. Technically this would demand an abort call and termination of the takeoff, but that would mean perhaps a week in Woomera waiting for a maintenance team from the States to fix the problem. No way, Jose, we were leaving this place!
On landing roll at Richmond AFB in Sydney a few hours later the “Det Fail” light again illuminated and immediately all three of us shouted “Det fail light!” We told the station manager he’d have to fly in a Maintenance Recovery Team from the States to fix this gear malfunction. He said he had a C-141 due in the next day and could do that. Drat! The next day? However, when I called in the next day, the manager apologized profusely that Travis had sent the wrong parts! “Oh, no!” I replied, smiling. “Call us when you have the parts,” I continued. “We’ll be roaming Sydney until you do!”
This good fortune could not be fully exploited, however, because much of the crew, to include all three of us pilots, were coming down with head colds. This had been precipitated by several grueling crew days that impaired our immune systems and would crimp our forays around Sydney to allow us extra sleep time to fight the malady.
Pago Pago
We spent three days in Sydney, mostly nursing our head colds. What a waste, to finally get to Sydney and then get sick for most of the stay.
Our next trip segment promised to be exotic in a South Pacific manner, five hours to Pago Pago in American Samoa and about another five hours to Hickam AFB, Hawaii. We took off in early morning sunshine and stayed in it all the way to Hickam.
Pago Pago proved as marvelous as I anticipated, a small speck of green on an endless blue ocean, about twenty miles long east to west and ten miles wide north to south. The runway seems built on the ocean, as waves break almost on the edges of the concrete.
Just to the north the highest island peak rose 2145 feet above the Pago Pago harbor. That is about as much of the island as we saw. We spent our three-hour turn time in a large open-air thatch roofed arena where Samoan dancers performed for us.
We had to be on our way, unfortunately. My cold had gotten worse as it threatened to close my right ear’s Eustachian tube and cause an ear block on descent. I kept my sinus spray at the ready as we took off and climbed out to the north toward Hawaii, five hours away.
C-5 mission around the world: grounded in Hawaii
I knew from flight surgeon briefings and from experience not to use the nose spray on the way up. The air pressure in my inner ear would soon be greater than cabin pressure and would blow congestion out of the ear tube. About thirty minutes prior to descent I would use the spray and hope it dampened Eustachian tube inflammation and prevented the ear block. This rarely worked, however, because the spray only briefly passed by the Eustachian tube entry into the throat and had limited effect. And, sure enough, my right hear blocked on descent into Hickam.
However, this would be a relatively mild block that cleared a few minutes after landing. It did ground me for three days, something my squadron mates back at Westover found suspicious. Yeah, sure, you get yourself grounded in Hawaii, what a fairy tale! The other two pilots were also grounded for the same style head cold, so they provided me with cover.
Huge selection of transport diecast models to choose from – get yours here.
NASA quietly removed the SR-71 #844 from static display at the Armstrong Flight Research Center, where it sat since the type’s last flight in 1999, just as NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman is promising a new generation of high-speed X-planes.
An SR-71 Blackbird has disappeared from NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, California. The aircraft, NASA tail number 844, had been sitting on display outside the Armstrong facility for years since the last flight on Oct. 9, 1999.
Aviation Week and The War Zone were the first to report about the disappearance. According to Aviation Week’s Defense Editor Steve Trimble, commercial satellite imagery indicates that the Blackbird was no longer at its usual location since at least May 17, 2026.
Aviation Week subsequently reported that the aircraft was moved into a hangar earlier this year for an inspection. Sources familiar with the matter indicated that NASA had been exploring whether the SR-71 could potentially return to flight, although the agency said they have no additional information to share regarding the aircraft when contacted by The War Zone.
However, the timing is particularly intriguing. In fact, only few days before, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman presented an image of a mysterious high-speed aircraft during the All-In Summit in Los Angeles. The slide, titled “Rebuilding our X-plane portfolio,” showed an aircraft emerging from clouds whose silhouette immediately recalled the iconic Blackbird.
Asked whether the aircraft shown was an SR-71, Isaacman cryptically replied: “You sure that’s a Blackbird?” He did not clarify what the aircraft actually was. Instead, he said that NASA was “getting back in the business of flying high and fast again.”
An unidentified aircraft appeared on a slide titled “Rebuilding our X-plane portfolio” during NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s All-In Summit presentation. | Source: NASA
However, information reported by Aviation Week in its ‘Check Six’ podcast suggests that there may be more behind the movement of SR-71 #844 than a routine change in display location.
The SR-71 that disappeared
The SR-71 #844 is not any Blackbird, as it was the final SR-71 to be produced and the last one to fly. The aircraft started its career with the U.S. Air Force, which assigned it the serial number 64-17980.
In 1990, this SR-71 was loaned to NASA by the U.S. Air Force. Throughout the 1990s, it was one of the Blackbirds operated by NASA as a high-speed and high-altitude research platform.
NASA’s final SR-71 flight took place on Oct. 9, 1999. Following the end of its flying career, 844 remained at what was then Dryden Flight Research Center, now Armstrong, where it eventually became part of the facility’s outdoor display.
Aviation Week Defense Editor Steve Trimble reported that sources indicated that 844 had been moved into a hangar for an inspection. Obviously, that alone would not establish that NASA is preparing the Blackbird to fly again as static display aircraft can require inspection, maintenance and preservation work after years in the open.
The Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE) pod is seen on the upper rear fuselage of an SR-71 aircraft during take-off of the first flight to experience an in-flight cold flow test. | Source: NASA/Tony Landis
However, there is a significant detail which might change the story. In fact, according to Trimble’s reporting, NASA also contacted former members of the SR-71 program to determine whether they would be interested to participate in a potential return-to-flight effort.
That information has not been confirmed by NASA. If the reporting is accurate, any such effort has evidently not been publicly acknowledged; Trimble noted that he could find no identifiable funding line associated with it in available budget documents.
If NASA really were considering returning an SR-71 to flight, #844 has several characteristics that would make it an obvious candidate. As mentioned earlier, it was the last SR-71 built and also the last one to fly, and the Mojave Desert – where the Armstrong Flight Research Center is located – offers an environment which is highly favorable for long-term preservation.
Additionally, #844 benefited from upgrades introduced late in the Blackbird’s operational career, including the Digital Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System (DAFICS), which integrated flight and inlet controls and made the violent inlet ‘unstarts’ that had characterized earlier SR-71 operations increasingly rare.
Going higher and faster
The timing of the aircraft’s disappearance becomes even more interesting when considered alongside Isaacman’s recent comments. As we recently reported here at The Aviationist, during his September 2026 All-In Summit presentation, the NASA administrator described the agency’s intention to rebuild its X-plane portfolio.
The NASA SR-71A during cold flow testing as part of the Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE) program. | Source: NASA/Carla Thomas
The X-59 QueSST, currently NASA’s most visible experimental aircraft program, is focused on demonstrating quieter supersonic flight. Isaacman made clear that he sees the aircraft as only the beginning of a broader effort.
At EAA AirVenture in July, Isaacman had already spoken about the SR-71 in the context of NASA’s historical X-plane portfolio. When asked about plans for a new crewed hypersonic aircraft or an SR-71 successor, Isaacman said the area was of significant developmental interest.
At another AirVenture panel, Isaacman was asked which aircraft he would like to fly but had never flown. His immediate answer was the SR-71 Blackbird. This led the moderator to ask whether he had the authority to bring one back, with Isaacman replying: “That’s classified.”
Obviously, none of those comments constitutes confirmation that NASA is restoring the SR-71 to fly again. However, they provide an intriguing backdrop to what is otherwise an unexplained move.
Why would NASA want an SR-71 again?
What makes the SR-71 interesting enough to NASA for a potential return to flight is its flight envelope. In fact, the SR-71 was designed to cruise at around Mach 3.2 and at altitudes approaching 85,000 feet.
A NASA SR-71 refuels from a KC-135 tanker assigned to Edwards Air Force Base. | Source: NASA/Lori Losey
Its ability to operate at extreme speed and altitude made it an unusually useful research platform, and NASA used its Blackbirds for work involving aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, thermal protection materials, high-speed instrumentation, atmospheric research and sonic booms. None of the aircraft currently used by NASA can reproduce this combination of capabilities.
NASA operated SR-71s during the 1990s specifically because their performance opened research opportunities unavailable to conventional aircraft. Considering the ongoing research in the hypersonic flight regime, the Blackbird could potentially provide a unique bridge between conventional supersonic flight testing and the much more challenging regimes associated with hypersonic speeds.
The SR-71 could also conceivably serve as an airborne test or launch platform for experimental high-speed vehicles. There is historical precedent within the Blackbird family: the M-21, a modified A-12, was developed to air-launch the D-21 high-speed reconnaissance drone. Any comparable use of an SR-71 today, however, would require an entirely new integration effort.
However, NASA may not necessarily want an original SR-71 to become a conventional flying aircraft again. Instead, the agency could use the aircraft as a technological and aerodynamic reference for a new X-plane.
Isaacman’s comments suggest that NASA is interested in radical airframe and propulsion designs rather than simply incremental improvements to existing systems. A new aircraft could retain some of the fundamental aerodynamic principles that made the Blackbird successful while taking advantage of six decades of advances in materials, manufacturing, avionics, flight controls and propulsion.
A J58 turbojet used in the Lockheed SR-71s which NASA flew, during an engine run. | Source: NASA/Tony Landis
Bringing an SR-71 back would be an enormous undertaking
Returning an SR-71 to flight status is easier said than done. Because of its extreme operating environment and unique characteristics, the maintenance of the Blackbird required a substantial effort, with a dedicated support infrastructure that however disappeared after the fleet’s retirement.
The Pratt & Whitney J58 engines were designed around the aircraft’s unique operating requirements and used JP-7 fuel, a fuel with a high flash point and high thermal stability specifically produced for the SR-71. The last stocks of JP-7, which is no longer in regular production, were burned in 2002, although ten years later an unspecified quantity of JP-7 was produced again for the X-51 Waverider unmanned ramjet-powered hypersonic demonstrator.
Aviation Week also noted the economic challenge to return the SR-71 to flight. About two years after the final flight, the possibility of reactivating an SR-71 for intelligence missions was examined, with estimates reportedly reaching $40–45 million. Almost 27 after the final flight, the challenge would be considerably greater.
Could the SR-71 follow the F-117’s example?
While it remains unclear whether an SR-71 will ever return to flight, there is already a remarkable precedent for a supposedly retired aircraft continuing to play an important role years after leaving operational service: the F-117 Nighthawk.
The F-117 was officially retired in 2008, with the remaining aircraft transferred to the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada. Following retirement, the remaining aircraft were placed in Type 1000 recallable storage at Tonopah, preserving them in a condition that initially allowed for possible return to service. That requirement was eventually repealed in 2016, allowing the Air Force to begin divesting portions of the fleet.
Yet retirement did not mean the end of the Nighthawk’s flying career. Nearly two decades later, F-117s continue to fly regularly, supporting training as low-observable adversary aircraft and cruise-missile surrogates, while also being used for research, development, test and evaluation activities that may include support for next-generation programs. The Air Force has even taken steps to keep the type viable for years to come, including work associated with aerial refueling certification with the KC-46A.
In that respect, the F-117 offers an interesting parallel to what could potentially happen with the Blackbird.
Both aircraft emerged from extraordinarily advanced engineering programs and possess characteristics that remained relevant, or potentially useful, decades after they were designed. An SR-71 returning to the air would therefore not necessarily imply a return to its former reconnaissance mission. Like the F-117, it could instead serve as a unique test, research or development asset, exploiting capabilities that remain difficult to reproduce even decades after the aircraft was designed. A testament to another design that was remarkably far ahead of its time.
The test validated the MV-22B’s as an alternative platform to the P-3C Orion for the Navy’s Sonobuoy Quality Assurance Program, while laying the groundwork for expanded tactical employment of the Osprey.
Building upon an ongoing effort to repurpose the MV-22B Osprey for Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) by rapidly distributing sonobuoys over water, the U.S. Navy has conducted its first production lot acceptance test of new sonobuoys using the tilt-rotor aircraft. The Sonobuoy Quality Assurance Program (SQAP) test took place on Aug. 19, 2026, off the coast of San Clemente Island, California, and was announced by the Anti-Submarine Warfare Systems Program Office (PMA-264) on Sep. 22, 2026.
The demonstration marked a departure from the use of the Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 30’s (VX-30) P-3C Orions, with the Osprey being used both as a substitute SQAP platform and helping to reduce the testing backlog. The test validated “the tiltrotor aircraft as an alternative platform for the Navy’s SQAP, boosting operational readiness and laying the groundwork for expanded tactical employment across the fleet,” the PMA-264 said in the release.
Images from the Aug. 19 test, posted on the DVIDS network on Sept. 2, showed sonobuoys being loaded onto a MV-22B from the Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1 (VMX-1) at the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar, California.
U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Tristan Courtney, a crew chief with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 265 (Rein.), 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, deploys buoys during anti-submarine warfare training, in the Philippine Sea, Aug. 8, 2025. | Source: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan
Consistent with the Osprey’s emerging ASW role
Both the caption and the release mentioned that the demonstration tested hand-launching sonobuoys by opening the Osprey’s rear ramp. The release also provided details about the mechanics of that manual method and how the crew adopted suitable piloting procedures and flight profiles.
It must be noted that sonobuoys have already been hand-launched from the MV-22B Osprey during tests that took place last year, as The Aviationist had reported. Ospreys from the Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 162 (VMM-162) and VMM-265 had seen crews release A-size sonobuoys during the Atlantic Alliance 2025 exercise in July and a dedicated ASW test with crewed P-8A Poseidon and MH-60R Seahawks in August.
The significance of the August 2026 event, therefore, was not the first deployment of sonobuoys from an Osprey, but the first time the aircraft was used for the Navy’s SQAP lot acceptance testing. In its press release, PMA-264 said the first SQAP using the Osprey also supports the broader effort to utilize the tiltrotor’s speed for the ASW mission by generating performance data and laying down varied operational procedures.
Cpl. Donovan Nickelson, a crew chief with VMX-1, straps sonobuoys onto the MV-22B Osprey at MCAS Miramar, California, Aug. 19, 2026. | Source: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alexander Vaughn
“In addition to meeting test criteria, the mission also provided operational experience that will help VMX-1 refine tactics, techniques, and procedures for future tiltrotor anti-submarine warfare support,” said the press release. “PMA-264 and PMA-275 will analyze acoustic and deployment data from the flights to refine procedures for future quality assurance missions and joint fleet operations.”
First Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance test using the Osprey
PMA-264 said that the SQAP involves subjecting “random production samples to over-water testing to evaluate reliability and acoustic performance before delivering vendor inventory to operational squadrons.” PMA-264 Program Manager Capt. Greg Hinkle explained the goal is to ensure that “the sonobuoys delivered to the fleet perform exactly as expected.”
The U.S. Navy operates a range of sonobuoys, some of which are: the AN/SSQ-125 Multi-Static Active Coherent (MAC) sonobuoys; the AN/SSQ-36 Bathythermal sonobuoys; the passive AN/SSQ-53G Directional Frequency Analysis and Recording (DIFAR) sonobuoys; and the active AN/SSQ-62F Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy System (DICASS). Images show SSQ-53H written on the sonobuoys being loaded onto the Marine Osprey.
Historically, the SQAP has relied on VX-30’s P-3C Orions, which “performs quality assurance drops using automated launchers.” The August test “proved the MV-22B Osprey can serve as a dependable substitute if primary test platforms are unavailable, helping prevent testing backlogs and keeping delivery schedules on track.”
A U.S. Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey, assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 163 (Reinforced), 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), performs routine flight operations in the South China Sea, June 12, 2026. | Source: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tyler Miles
Hinkle said utilizing the MV-22 for a role like conducting sonobuoy acceptance trials helps “reinforce our supply chain and ensures frontline aircrews have the mission-ready stores they need to detect and track undersea threats.”
The official information does not specify how many trials took place and how many Ospreys were employed, but the framing suggests a single event and Osprey may have been used. One image appears to show a batch of 15 sonobuoys prepared to be loaded on the MV-22B through the rear ramp.
Hand-launching sonobuoys
Unlike the P-3, which uses automated launch containers triggered from the cockpit, the MV-22B required aircrew to manually launch the buoys from the open rear cargo ramp. Crew chiefs removed container caps and inverted launch tubes to release the sonobuoys into the slipstream.
Because manual sonobuoy deployments are slower – creating longer gaps between drops compared to automated launchers – VMX-1 aircrew “adjusted by reducing flight speed, matching the precise target pattern and spacing needed for acoustic testing,” the release said.
The hand-launch process also requires tight coordination between the pilots and crew chiefs. “The pilot holds steady flight parameters while the co-pilot manages navigation, timing, and communications, queuing crew chiefs in the cargo bay to program and release the buoys on schedule,” the release explained.
For the first time @USMC#MV22B‘s deploy a screen of SSQ-53G sonobuoys. MAG-39 has been working with @USNavy HSM Weapons School Pacific to develop tactics emphasizing the speed, range, and expeditionary nature of MV-22’s to support the Navy in their anti-submarine warfare mission pic.twitter.com/Yfk9YMiD5n
V-22 pilot and VMX-1 advanced projects lead Lt. Col. Brandon Pope said the event served as “an invaluable opportunity for our pilots and crew chiefs to build proficiency” for the intricate synergy between the load crew and the pilots during cargo release from the rear ramp.
Pope added: “Hand-launching from an open ramp requires split-second coordination; the crew must be deliberate with timing, airspeed control, and internal communication. This test demonstrated how the V-22’s range, speed, and versatility can support broader maritime domain awareness and distributed fleet operations.”
After U.S. forces at RAF Fairford rapidly stepped up security precautions yesterday, police have now confirmed that arrests have been made and residents evacuated in the adjacent village of Whelford as explosive ordnance disposal teams investigate a number of vehicles.
Following widespread reports on Sep. 26, 2026 regarding security levels at RAF Fairford – with spotters reporting alerts audible over the base’s Giant Voice tannoy system, aircraft being dispersed across the airfield, crash gates being blocked and reinforced, and an apparent rise in security level to FPCON Delta – we now have an indication as to the kind of imminent threat the base might have been preparing for.
BREAKING: Major incident declared and number of properties evacuated in Gloucestershire after men arrested on suspicion of offences under the Explosives Act.https://t.co/bvcwRBh8HPpic.twitter.com/lpBj6ePvEw
Whelford, a small village just outside RAF Fairford’s security fencing, has seen a large police presence descend and vehicles are investigated by British Army explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams. As a precaution, many local residents have been evacuated from their homes to a temporary emergency shelter established at a nearby leisure centre.
Gloucestershire Police, in an official statement, said: “A number of properties are currently being evacuated in the Whelford area following the declaration of a major incident. It follows the arrest of several men on suspicion of offences under the explosives act.”
“A cordon is currently in place but we’d like to reassure people that we believe this incident is contained,” the force added.
As well as Fairford, other U.S. bases in the UK – including RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall – have stepped up their own security. Yesterday, unusually, an air ambulance was even denied a requested transit across Mildenhall’s military air traffic zone (MATZ).
HELIMED 85, an Air Ambulance operated by East Anglian Air Ambulance, was denied transit through the Mildenhall MATZ this evening.
While U.S. military force protection condition (FPCON) levels are not directly advertised to the public, clues to them being changed can be seen from outside the fence, and occasionally the boards advising arriving personnel of the current FPCON level can be seen at entry/exit gates.
It is still unconfirmed, though very likely, that Fairford went to FPCON Delta – the highest level possible – while other bases like Lakenheath went to FPCON Charlie.
Another user on Facebook posts:
‘Can confirm base has apparently declared FPCON Delta, meaning highest threat level, civilians are told to stay clear of the base perimeter’ https://t.co/OAACqHD7CD
FPCON Delta is reserved for when an attack is deemed imminent or has just occurred. Entry to the base becomes limited to strictly essential personnel only, with ID and vehicle checks strictly enforced, while on the base personnel are effectively locked down to their specific place of work. FPCON Delta can sometimes be accompanied by an order to shelter in place.
Covering the situation last night, you could tell people were on edge.
Spotters were spooked upon hearing about the FPCON Delta.
I called the UK MOD for comment, they declined to issue the comment.
But the USAF did provide a statement – in essence they didn’t deny the reports… https://t.co/C6xXLsF6Fm
Though the investigation has only just begun, eyes will almost certainly first turn towards Iran, who said any base used to support Operation Epic Fury is seen as a valid target, including those in Europe. Fairford is still home to a forward deployed contingent of B-1B Lancer strategic bombers which, along with B-52 Stratofortresses, flew daily missions from the Gloucestershire airfield during the height of the U.S.-Iran War.
Munitions, including cruise missiles, could be seen being loaded onto the aircraft before departure to the south or southwest. They would then return after almost a full day in the sky.
Iranian agents are widely known to operate quite extensively on foreign soil, and previous arrests have been made in the UK of Iranian-linked individuals under the National Security Act. Other arrests have been made of Iranian nationals under the Terrorism Act.
In many cases, agents are thought to have arrived in their assigned countries through legal means – under work or student visas – in order to attract as little attention as possible. Homegrown agents with national citizenship can also be recruited, allowing them to operate even further below ‘radar’.
Earlier this month, we reported on a security alert at RAF Fairford following the surprise landing of a civilian business jet, though in that case all details were relatively quickly resolved and the landing established as accidental.
Update: Sept. 27, 1230 UTC (1330 local time)
Live camera feeds from news helicopters have documented activity by military EOD robots inspecting three vans in Whelford. One of these vans is marked with what is apparently fake branding for a fuel delivery company, displaying a mobile phone number which is not publicly linked to any such company.
This appears to be an L3Harris T7 explosive ordnance disposal robot. The max lifting capacity is 250lbs near the chassis with it’s single arm, and 60lbs at full extension.
It seems unlikely that the robot would be able to manipulate full barrels from the back of the van onto the… https://t.co/LzesC0GRRM
An image is also circulating purporting to show the arrest of several men by armed police (regular police in the UK are not routinely armed) early in the morning in Whelford. They appear shirtless, likely having been made to undress as a precaution against suicide vests.
Gloucestershire Police were due to deliver a press briefing before 1300 local time, but at the time of writing this has been delayed with no details as to when it will now happen.
Update: Sept. 27, 1300 UTC (1400 local time)
Gloucestershire Police’s short press briefing began shortly before 1400 local time, in which they confirmed five arrests had been made following an emergency call placed at 0045 regarding three suspicious vehicles near RAF Fairford.
Around 85 households have been evacuated inside the 400 metre cordon.
“Work to establish the full nature of this incident is ongoing,” a police spokesperson said. “We are in constant communication with our partners both locally and nationally, in particular we are working closely with our partners in counter-terrorism policing.”
The BBC live shot shows the proximity of the vans (red circle) to the base.
The five men have now been rearrested by counter-terrorism police on suspicion of the preparation of an act of terrorism. This rearrest (a formal measure – they had not been released from custody) means the expanded allowances of the Terrorism Act may now be applied, and the men are able to be detained for a longer period without being charged.
Confirmed: Armed officers arrested five men in the Whelford area on suspicion of committing offences under the Explosives Act. They were further arrested on suspicion of preparation of a terrorist act, contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act.
Under the Terrorism Act, suspects can be detained for up to 14 days without formally being charged with an offence. Usually detention without charge is limited to 24 hours, with extensions up to 96 hours allowed with judicial approval.
Update: Sept. 27, 1400 UTC (1500 local time)
A NOTAM has now been issued restricting airspace within a 4 nautical mile radius around the incident site to approved traffic only. News helicopters are now unable to gain a view of the scene.
The NOTAM reads:
RESTRICTED AREA (TEMPORARY) INSTALLED (WHELFORD, GLOUCESTERSHIRE) WI 4NM RADIUS OF PSN 514120N 0014527W. APPLIES TO ALL ACFT INCLUDING ANY SMALL BALLOON, ANY KITE, ANY UAS AND ANY PARACHUTE INCLUDING A PARASCENDING PARACHUTE OR PARAMOTOR. PILOTS ARE FORBIDDEN TO FLY WITHIN THE DESIGNATED AREA WITHOUT THE PERMISSION EMERGENCY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY GLOUCESTERSHIRE POLICE DRONE TEAM, CTC TEL 07966 516802. ATC UNITS CLOSE TO THE AREA ARE REQUESTED TO ADVISE AIRCRAFT ON THEIR FREQUENCIES OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS NOTAM. RESTRICTION OF FLYING REGULATIONS MADE UNDER ARTICLE 239 OF THE AIR NAV ORDER 2016.
It applies up to an altitude of 9,500 feet, and has a notional end date of Oct. 5 – though it could be cancelled before this date.
Update: Sept. 27, 1530 UTC (1630 local time)
Both UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham and U.S. President Donald Trump have commented on the unfolding events. Burnham, who wrote his statement on social media, said: “I know today’s incident near RAF Fairford will be deeply concerning for local residents and for many people following developments across the country. My thanks go to Gloucestershire Police, Counter Terrorism Policing, our Armed Forces and all those working to keep the public safe.”
I know today’s incident near RAF Fairford will be deeply concerning for local residents and for many people following developments across the country.
My thanks go to Gloucestershire Police, Counter Terrorism Policing, our Armed Forces and all those working to keep the public…
“I am especially grateful to those residents who have been asked to leave their homes while precautionary checks are carried out. The safety and security of the public is our first priority, and I want people to know that we will always take every step necessary to protect our communities and keep our country safe. The investigation remains ongoing, and I would urge people not to speculate while the authorities establish the full facts,” he added.
This is the first major security incident faced by Burnham’s government after he succeeded Keir Starmer as Prime Minister in July.
BREAKING: Donald Trump responds to the suspected bomb plot at RAF Fairford
“Working with Britain, it was an amazing job. We had them under investigation. They were looking to do big damage to our fort, and working with the British worked out great and we got them” pic.twitter.com/PlChiTQlSx
President Trump, who spoke informally to reporters after stepping down from Air Force One (notably a VC-25A) in Chicago, said: “Working with Britain, it was an amazing job. We had them under investigation. They were looking to do big damage to our fort [sic], and working with the British worked out great and we got them.”
This article concerns a developing story, and may be updated if and when new information becomes available.
Login
.jpg){kind=link}