Capt. J.W. “Doc” George, a U.S. Air Force A-1 Skyraider pilot, arrived at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand, as part of a CSAR replacement rotation from Bien Hoa, South Vietnam. When asked what callsign his flight would use, he suggested the one he used at Bien Hoa: “Sandy.”

The name stuck, was passed to his replacement and soon became the standard callsign for all A-1 Skyraiders flying CSAR missions protecting downed aircrews.

The Sandy role was later transferred to the faster LTV A-7D Corsair II in 1972 as the last Skyraiders were withdrawn from Southeast Asia. However, the A-7 struggled in the role due to its higher maneuvering speeds, which made it less effective for low-and-slow visual searches and close helicopter escort than the A-1.

In the late 1970s, the Corsair passed the CSAR baton to the A-10 Thunderbolt II Warthog, which offered excellent loiter time, survivability and firepower suited to the mission. The A-10 airframe and its pilots still carry the “Sandy” callsign today.

As the Air Force accelerates plans to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt II by fiscal year 2029, the service faces a growing set of unanswered questions about what replaces it in combat search and rescue, one of the military’s most specialized mission sets.

More than an analysis of replacement aircraft and their capabilities, the transition raises concerns about the pilots in the cockpit, who for nearly five decades have received specialized training in the combat search-and -rescue mission and built trust within the CSAR community. With congressional oversight and legislation underscoring concerns about CSAR operational readiness, and on the heels of a CSAR mission over Iran that brought two F-15E airmen home, the stakes of those unanswered questions have taken on a new sense of urgency.

Highly skilled Sandy pilots

In the past several decades, A-10s have assumed the Sandy role in CSAR operations in the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and most recently in the April 3, 2026, operation that recovered two American F-15E Strike Eagle airmen from Iranian territory. One supporting A-10 sustained heavy battle damage during the mission; its pilot continued flying long enough to eject safely over Kuwait.

During an April 6, 2026, press conference detailing that mission, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the role of a Sandy: “A Sandy has one mission: to get to the survivor, bring the rescue force forward, and put themselves between that survivor on the ground and the enemy,” Caine said. “They are committed to this. This is what they live for. And this is what they’ve trained for, for many, many years.”

The rescue mission that brought 2 F-15E Strike Eagle crew members home

Only the most experienced A-10 pilots are selected for Sandy qualification, which requires specialized training in CSAR tactics and procedures as part of a full CSAR task force, including HC-130 tankers and HH-60 helicopters.

This advanced training takes place primarily at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, home of the 357th Fighter Squadron, the Air Force’s formal A-10 training unit. Here, Sandy pilots participate in integrated exercises, local ranges and large-scale events like Angel Thunder, the Air Force’s largest and most comprehensive CSAR exercise. Additional operational integration takes place at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.

In a typical four-ship A-10 Sandy CSAR formation, each aircraft has a specific role, according to USAF documents. Sandy 1 is the lead pilot, serving as the rescue mission commander and on-scene commander, responsible for overall command, survivor authentication and threat suppression. Sandy 2 provides cover and backup leadership. Sandy 3 and Sandy 4 focus on the escort mission, protecting the HH-60 rescue helicopters throughout.

For nearly five decades, the A-10 has proven ideally suited for the Sandy role.

Still, the Air Force is moving forward with plans to retire the A-10 by fiscal 2029. What replaces it in the Sandy role, and whether any other platform can replicate what the Warthog and A-10 Sandy-qualified pilots bring to the CSAR mission, are questions the service has not yet answered.

CSAR in a world without Warthogs

The Air Force has confirmed there is currently no formal or informal transition underway for the Sandy 1 rescue mission commander role — the on-scene command function of every CSAR operation — to any other specific airframe.

“Discussions are still ongoing regarding the use of multi-role platforms serving in the A-10’s Sandy 01 RMC role,” an Air Combat Command spokesperson said. The same applies to the Sandy 2, 3 and 4 escort roles, the spokesperson said.

The service’s stated transition strategy centers less on the aircraft and more on the expertise of A-10 pilots themselves, suggesting the F-35A as the likely destination platform for Sandy-qualified A-10 pilots.

“The Air Force is leveraging the extensive experience of its A-10 pilots to ensure a successful transition to other aircraft,” the 355th Wing Public Affairs office said. “A-10 pilots bring a wealth of expertise in close air support and combat search and rescue experience, which is invaluable as the A-10 continues to divest and they transition to 5th generation assets like the F-35.”

The service also acknowledged that standards for validating successor-platform performance in the CSAR mission are a work in progress.

The Pentagon “is carefully reexamining future Close Air Support and Combat Search and Rescue requirements,” the 355th Wing Public Affairs office said, “including how the Air Force will validate the effectiveness of its multi-role fighter fleet in performing all aspects of the CAS mission.”

No specialized Sandy qualification program for any successor platform, such as the one that existed for the A-10 for many years, has been confirmed to exist or be under development.

Lt. Col. Joel Bier, a retired U.S. Air Force Weapons School instructor pilot and Sandy 1 instructor with more than 2,500 hours in the A-10, said the service’s transition strategy underestimates the complexity of the Sandy mission.

“No other pilots train to Close Air Support, Forward Air Control (Airborne), and Combat Search and Rescue with the ferocity of the A-10 community,” Bier said.

The challenge, Bier said, is not simply whether the F-35A, F-15E or F-16 airframes are capable of performing the Sandy mission, but whether the pilot is properly trained for it.

“A jack of all trades is master of none. Each of the fighter communities trains to a half-dozen or more equally complex missions, but CSAR is fundamentally different. It is friendly-centric and combines elements of air superiority and contingency planning at lower speeds and longer durations that fighter platforms do not routinely train to.”

A-10 versus F-35

In 2016, the Air Force conducted testing to evaluate potential Sandy replacements at the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Lt. Col. Joshua Wood, the squadron’s commander at the time and an F-35 pilot, was on record expressing skepticism about direct platform comparisons.

“When you try to have a comparative analysis of a single-mission platform like the A-10 against a platform like the F-35, which is fundamentally designed from the ground up to do something completely different,” Wood told Combat Aircraft magazine, as reported by War is Boring in 2016, “you run the risk of drawing unrealistic conclusions.”

Still, Wood described what happened when a former A-10 Sandy 1 instructor who had recently cross-trained into the F-35 stepped into a lackluster CSAR exercise.

“No kidding, he shows up and within five minutes on station he’s quarterbacked the whole thing,” Wood told the magazine. “They’ve rescued the survivor and everyone goes home.”

Wood attributed the result not to the F-35’s capabilities, but to the pilot’s CSAR background and Sandy training. “I would say 75% is the pilot,” he said.

Bier said the test results underscored the importance of Sandy training more than the F-35’s suitability for the mission.

“Would the F-35 pilots have stepped in if an F-16 or F-15E CSAR test had been going smoothly? Would they have intervened at all if they weren’t both recent A-10 Weapons School graduates and Sandy 1 instructors who had only transferred to the F-35 six to nine months earlier? And in the decade since, has anyone in the F-35 community created a single new Sandy qualified for the mission? The answer to all three is no,” Bier said.

“Those F-35 pilots, who I personally know and respect, never even flew another CSAR in the F-35 outside that test environment — a fact that speaks volumes about how the Air Force has prioritized the Sandy transition plan," he added.

A separate 2022 Pentagon test report comparing the F-35A and A-10C, obtained through Freedom of Information Act litigation, found that F-35A pilots reported a significantly higher workload than A-10C pilots in the forward air control mission, a role closely aligned with the on-scene command demands of Sandy. The report also noted that pilots from both aircraft found that the A-10C and F-35A performed more effectively together in contested CSAR than either platform did alone, pointing more toward a combined model than a direct replacement.

The test report was completed in February 2022, nearly three years after testing concluded in 2019. The report was finally made public more than six years after the tests took place — years after Congress had already begun approving the A-10 retirement the test was meant to inform.

CSAR community trusts the Warthog

The flight characteristics that define the Sandy mission present their own challenges for potential successor airframes.

“It’s fast enough to stay ahead of the rescue force, but slow enough to scour the ground for threats to it, and rugged enough to take hits from that threat when necessary,” Bier said of the Warthog.

The A-10’s unique capabilities extend to the rescue helicopter crews the Sandy pilots are tasked with protecting.

“A-10 Sandys serve HH-60W Jolly Green crews as their Rescue Escort — ensuring they arrive safely and with all the pertinent information at the downed aircrew,” Bier said. “Fighters will struggle to expose the small arms and AAA threats from medium altitude, while shifting to rotary wing fires sacrifices speed, armor and communications relay. These shortfalls increase risk to both the Jollys and the isolated personnel.”

The relationship between the A-10 and the accompanying CSAR aircraft is not incidental, Bier said, but rather by design.

“Calling the HH-60W or HC-130J flawed in the Sandy role is like saying the A-10 is deficient in the Jolly or Crown missions. It’s not intended as disrespect, nor is it a design flaw — it’s an intentional symbiosis. That’s precisely why Sandy, Jolly and Crown are synonymous with the CSAR mission.”

Lt. Col. Ryan Rutter, commander of the 357th Fighter Squadron at Davis-Monthan, described the relationship between the A-10 community and the rescue force in a recent 355th Wing release.

“The trust between the A-10 and the rest of the rescue community is absolute,” Rutter said. “They know we will do whatever it takes to protect them while they work to bring our teammates home.”

On April 3, 2026, the same day A-10s in the Sandy role helped recover Dude 44 Alpha from Iran, the 357th Fighter Squadron graduated its last class of A-10 pilots.

In official photo captions, the Air Force called the ceremony “the end of an era for A-10 training.” Air Combat Command confirmed the 357th is on track to inactivate in fiscal 2026, although specific timelines were not available.

Whether the closure of the 357th marks the end of the Sandy qualification pipeline entirely, or whether the Air Force plans to establish a similar program for successor platforms, remains unclear. Neither the 355th Wing nor Air Combat Command Public Affairs responded specifically to questions about the future of Sandy qualification training by the time of publication.

Congressional oversight

The fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law in December 2025, was the latest in a series of congressional measures aimed at slowing the A-10’s retirement. The measure required the Air Force to deliver a detailed briefing to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees no later than March 31, 2026, on the status of A-10 aircraft inventory and the service’s transitional plan for divesting all A-10s prior to fiscal 2029.

That deadline has passed. The Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs office could not confirm whether the briefing had been delivered. Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has pushed to stave off the A-10 retirement, did not immediately respond to questions about whether the committee had received the briefing.

It is unclear whether the A-10’s recent effectiveness in Operation Epic Fury factors into the Air Force’s transition briefing or divestment plans.

The NDAA also mandated that the Air Force maintain a minimum inventory of 103 A-10s through Sept. 30, 2026, an amendment authored by Scott, reflecting congressional concerns about the service’s transition planning and potential gaps in mission readiness.

In a statement provided to Defense News, Scott cited the A-10’s recent performance in Iran.

“For 50 years, the A-10 Warthog has reliably supported critical military missions. I was proud to lead an amendment in the FY26 NDAA blocking the premature retirement of A-10s currently in service today. Because the fleet is alive, the A-10 is proving why it’s critical to our forces, providing air power for freedom and leading the rescue efforts for our airmen that were recently secured from hostile forces in Iran,” Scott said. “I will continue to work diligently to ensure that our military is properly equipped with the best weapons systems available.”

Scott pressed the issue at an April 15 HASC Subcommittee on Readiness hearing, when he asked Gen. John Lamontagne, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, what the service was doing to prepare for CSAR operations when the A-10 retires.

Lamontagne responded: “It’ll be a mix of platforms, just like it’s been a mix of platforms in the past with HH-60s and overhead folks doing that coordination role that the A-10s have done very well over the years.”

Scott noted that the HH-60 is a helicopter, the rescue platform, not the Sandy escort. Lamontagne clarified he had understood the question to be about CSAR broadly, rather than the fixed-wing Sandy escort role specifically.

Despite these unanswered questions, Lt. Col. Bier offered a potential path forward.

“If the Air Force proceeds with final A-10 divestment in fiscal year 2027, significant CAS and CSAR capabilities risk being lost due to the compressed timeline,” Bier said. “Extending the remaining A-10 squadrons until a viable replacement is identified offers a logical bridge.”

Bier noted that, barring congressional intervention, an indefinite extension is unlikely given the service’s well-documented intention to move on from the A-10.

Absent extending the A-10 platform, one of the multi-role fighters already slated to replace A-10 units would likely inherit the Sandy mission. But platform selection alone is not enough, he said.

“The key is selecting an aircraft to deliberately carve out dedicated squadrons with a Designed Operational Capability statement for the Sandy/CSAR mission,” Bier said. “This must include a dedicated training mandate — modeled on the A-10’s current Ready Aircrew Program tasking — and unique Air Force Specialty Codes to prevent diluting that training in the larger multi-role platform community. These actions protect the Sandy community from mission creep and preserve its unwavering commitment to the CSAR covenant: that others may live.”

Bier warned that the Air Force cannot afford to ignore the hard-won lessons of the past.

“As the old military saying goes, lessons are written in blood,” Bier said. “Sacrificing over 50 years of hard-won institutional knowledge dooms our future warriors to relearn them the hard way.”

The joint program office created by the three nations announced the signing of a £686 million ($906 million) development contract on Thursday with Edgewing, the joint venture set up to develop the sixth-generation jet by local champions BAE Systems, Leonardo, and Japan Aircraft Industrial Enhancement Co. Ltd. (JAIEC).

“The £686 million contract invests in key design and engineering activities and enables the trilateral partnership to build momentum and accelerate pace of delivery,” the tri-government GCAP agency said.

Edgewing’s first contract follows growing concern over delays in funding caused by ongoing uncertainty over the U.K.’s Defense Investment Plan, which was due to contain GCAP cash.

Poland eyes benefits of joining GCAP sixth-generation fighter project

The plan was due to be completed last year, but has yet to be published amid a public spending crunch and a reported £28 billion funding gap in the U.K. defense budget.

That has left programs like GCAP under a cloud since the first contract with Edgewing was due to be signed off last year. Japanese officials have said they are worried GCAP delivery will be pushed beyond the scheduled date in 2035.

A source on the program told Defense News the new contract is a “bridge” allowing work to continue until the end of June, when it is hoped the U.K. spending plan will be complete and a second, larger contract can be signed.

“Today’s contract is tri-national, with the U.K. contributing, and designed to keep the program on schedule,” said the source.

Japan shrugs off GCAP delays, fast-tracks export rules for future warplane

Ahead of the completion of the Defense Investment Plan, the U.K. last month handed Leonardo a £1 billion contract to build 23 AW149 helicopters at the firm’s Yeovil plant in the U.K. to ward off closure of the plant.

Referring to the Edgewing deal, a spokesman for the joint venture said, “With the signing of this international contract, Edgewing is now fully empowered to drive the program forward as its industrial lead. Our priority is to ensure that engineering work continues to meet planned milestones and the business continues to ramp-up according to our projections.”

To date Italy, the U.K. and Japan have created separate funding for the program. The new contract is the first time they have signed a single contract with Edgewing.

“This is the first time in history that responsibility for the technical design and development of a combat aircraft program has been fully vested in a new international prime contractor, and we are making every effort to live up to this responsibility.” said the Edgewing spokesman.

Masami Oka, GCAP Agency Chief Executive said, “This contract is an important moment for GCAP, as activities previously conducted under three nations’ contracts will now be carried out as part of a fully-fledged international program.”

Though the Department of Defense does not divulge the precise number of Tomahawks in the U.S. arsenal, the CSIS analysis estimates the U.S. still has around 3,000. It is a highly advanced weapon; in addition to its impressive 1,000-mile range and precision, it can also be controlled via satellite and can find a target while in flight.

As Cancian told Military Times, the concern from some in the Pentagon about burning through the Tomahawk stockpile is less about what will happen in Operation Epic Fury, and more about U.S. security commitments in other parts of the world — namely as a counter to China.

The below interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Military Times: Let’s talk first about what the Tomahawk does — how it’s launched, the mechanics of its use in this conflict and why it’s so important.

Mark Cancian: Tomahawk is a ship-launched ground attack missile. It’s very long range and very accurate. It’s been around for a long time, but it’s been upgraded continuously over time, and now the Block V is the current version. Its long range and accuracy have always been its great strength. Plus, the fact that it can be launched from sea means that you can move ships around and launch it. You don’t have to have aircraft coming from the United States, and you don’t have to have a base in the region.

They’re very flexible, and the fact that they’re long range means that if the opposition has some defensive capabilities, [U.S. forces] can stay out of those defensive capabilities. That’s why it was used in the early stages of Epic Fury, until the United States and Israel had beaten down what was left of the Iranian air defense system.

Once we established air superiority, the number of Tomahawks fired declined. It didn’t go to zero, but it came down because they’re so expensive and scarce that if we can use shorter range munition, then we’ll use that because those are much cheaper. To give you a little sense about that, a Tomahawk costs something like $3.5 million apiece and has a range of 1,000 miles, depending on the version.

A JDAM, which is a guidance kit put on a dumb bomb, has a range of maybe 20 miles, but cost $80,000 and has the same explosive effect and the same accuracy. So if you can use a JDAM, much better, but that means you have to get close.

MT: What does this do for weapons capabilities in other theaters, especially those with U.S. involvement?

Cancian: This is the key concern with the inventories because we have enough of everything, including Tomahawks and Patriots and THAADs to fight the current conflict, that is, Epic Fury. The problem is the effect on other theaters like Ukraine and the Western Pacific, a conflict against China. And strategists are very worried that depletion of inventories will weaken our ability to deter or to fight a conflict there.

MT: What role does the Tomahawk play in deterrence?

Cancian: With China particularly focused on Taiwan it’s very helpful because China has a tremendous number of missiles. We want to stand back as far as we can, but still be able to shoot in against any Chinese invasion force or any Chinese force that has established itself on Taiwan.

I should note that there’s what’s called a maritime strike Tomahawk, which is the relatively new version that could hit ships. The original version could only hit ground targets, but this other version can hit ships and [in the event of a] Chinese invasion of Taiwan, that would be very helpful.

MT: What is the level of damage that this munition can do? And where have we seen that in Operation Epic Fury?

Cancian: It does a lot of damage — it has a 1,000-pound warhead. The drones that we’ve used and that the Iranians have used, they have warheads that are between 50 and 100 pounds. So it’s somewhere between 10 to 20 times the effect of a drone. Whatever it hits, it’s going to cause a lot more destruction.

MT: How long will it take for the U.S. to recuperate its stockpile, and what does that entail?

Cancian: The Department of Defense has been talking with [defense contractors] for several years to get production rates up. It began in the Biden administration. It’s continued in the Trump administration. Hegseth has been going on this Arsenal of Freedom tour, plant to plant, to talk to workers and management about speeding up production. Bottom line, I think currently, to replace the 850 to 1,000 that we’ve expended, you’re talking two or three years.

MT: If we’re firing fewer Tomahawks how does that shift the strategy?

Cancian: It doesn’t shift the strategy. But what it does mean is that we don’t have to use these very expensive and scarce missiles as much, but can use the much less expensive short range munitions. That means we can keep the fighting going much longer, in fact, essentially indefinitely. And although we put a big dent in the inventories, you know, we’re not going to go down to zero Patriot and Tomahawks.

MT: There’s also been a very significant use of the Patriot system in the Gulf. Do you have concerns there about our ability to protect U.S. installations, or to assist our allies with those kinds of defenses?

Cancian: Right now, we have enough Patriots to defend in the Gulf against the Iranian ballistic missile attacks, and that’s what the Patriots do. They’re not used against drones. We estimated there were about 4,000 [Patriot missiles] at the beginning of the war. We’ve maybe used 1,000 now, so we’ve used a quarter, which is, on the one hand a lot. On the other hand, that means you still have three-quarters left.

But again, you have this strategic problem, and you have the same problem about rebuilding the inventories. We’re producing [about] 600 Patriots a year. About half of those go to the United States, and half go to allies, and that’s going to continue. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some discussions about maybe reallocating some of that production to other countries, shifting people around in the queue so that maybe the Gulf states would get up to the front, and maybe some others would be moved back.

Tehran’s goal is to impose persistent economic and political costs until Washington concludes that continuing the war is not worth it. To achieve that, Iran is exploiting a gap in U.S. Air Force doctrine — the distinction between air superiority and air denial, and between the blue skies and the air littoral. So far, it is working.

Air superiority — the control that permits operations at a “given time and place without prohibitive interference from air and missile threats” — is what the United States has achieved over southern and western Iran and is now working to extend eastward. That control allows large-scale strikes and freedom of maneuver at medium and high altitudes. As Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted on Tuesday, “Given the increase in air superiority, we’ve successfully started to conduct the first overland B-52 missions.”

By that measure, the campaign has been a success. But the strait is still closed.

Hegseth reveals secret trip to Middle East amid escalating Iran war

Air superiority is meant to assure freedom of action not just in the air, but across all domains for the entire joint force.

Air Force Doctrine Publication 3-0 is explicit on this point: air superiority “prevents enemy air and missile threats from effectively interfering with operations of friendly air, land, maritime, space, cyberspace, and special operations forces.” That includes the Navy’s ability to escort commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.

By that measure, the United States does not have air superiority where it counts.

Iran’s drone and missile campaign has already forced American forces back. In 2003, the bulk of U.S. combat and support aircraft operated from forward positions in Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia while carriers patrolled the Persian Gulf. Today, carriers increasingly operate from the Red and Arabian Seas while land-based airpower has shifted toward bases farther from the strait, leaving U.S. forces positioned for the high-altitude fight over Iran, not the persistent-close-in coverage the strait requires to keep shipping lanes open under continuous drone and missile threat.

Iran’s strategy of air denial is why.

Air denial is a strategy of contesting control of the air without achieving air superiority outright. It leverages the advantages of large numbers of low-cost and mobile systems employed in a distributed way to keep the air domain too dangerous, too costly and too uncertain for joint forces to operate. Critically, the barriers to achieving air denial are considerably lower than those required to gain and sustain air superiority, yet it can impose disproportionate costs.

In the Strait of Hormuz, Iran is putting this strategy into practice. Tehran is exploiting the air littoral above the strait, employing drones and missiles capable of reaching oil tankers and naval vessels in minutes. Iran has struck more than 20 commercial vessels in and around the strait since the war began, killing at least seven sailors. This action has effectively halted traffic through the strait, except for a handful of ships that Iran has let pass — in many cases, for a hefty fee. The U.S. Navy has reportedly declined requests from the shipping industry for military escorts, citing the ongoing threat.

Iran’s strategy appears to be working. Gas prices have risen a dollar a gallon in a month, U.S. stock markets have entered correction territory, and the White House is under growing pressure to wind down the conflict. Iran planned for exactly this.

Tehran built this playbook, funded it, and watched it succeed. The lessons come straight from the Red Sea, where Houthi proxies used cheap, distributed drones and missiles to impose costs that more than 800 U.S. airstrikes between 2024 and 2025 could not eliminate. Now, Iran is running the same playbook over the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States has no ready answer. Achieving and maintaining air superiority in the air littoral above the strait demands the very layered defense capabilities in which the Pentagon has systematically underinvested: large numbers of low-cost, attritable systems to continuously attack launch locations and dispersed manufacturing; mobile air defenses rapidly and persistently deployable near threatened waterways; low cost persistent airborne platforms capable of detecting and destroying waves of drones; and interceptors capable of sustaining high engagement rates without exhausting inventories.

These are precisely the capabilities decades of procurement choices never built at scale, in favor of the small number of exquisite platforms that have performed so well in the blue skies above Tehran. The gap is not an accident. It is the result of choices. The Strait of Hormuz is one of their consequences.

Addressing this gap requires building low-cost, attritable systems at scale to contest and control the air littoral — not in small numbers as an afterthought, after the high-end aircraft are bought and paid for, but as a core mission — which inevitably means scaling back legacy platforms. The window to absorb that lesson is open now, while the cost is measured in closed shipping lanes and rising gas prices.

Maximilian K. Bremer is a nonresident fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center and head of Mission Engineering and Strategy for Atropos Group.

Kelly A. Grieco is a senior fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center and adjunct professor in the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University.

The request to land at Sigonella air base in Sicily was issued to Italian authorities after the aircraft had already taken off from the U.S., Italian daily Corriere della Sera reported on Tuesday.

Italy has a longstanding deal with the U.S. to allow it to use Sigonella for regular military flights, while permission for use of the base by flights not covered by the agreement must be granted by the Italian parliament.

In a speech to parliament this month, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said, “The bases used by the U.S. in Italy derive from agreements signed in 1954 and which have been updated since then by various governments. According to those agreements there are technical authorizations when it comes to logistics and non-kinetic operations that do not involve, put simply, bombing.”

She added that for any other kind of use of bases, “it depends on parliament.”

Since permission to land was requested by the U.S. after the jets took off from the United States, there was no time for such authorization to be obtained, the source said.

A statement issued by Meloni’s office on Tuesday said, “Every request is examined attentively, case by case, as has always happened in the past. There are no crises or frictions with international partners. Relations with the U.S., specifically, are solid and characterized by full and loyal cooperation.”

The refusal does however come in the wake of growing unease over the Iran war in the Italian government led by Meloni, who has previously positioned herself as a faithful ally to American President Donald Trump in Europe.

Meloni is playing a balancing act since she is keen not to alienate the majority of Italian voters who oppose the Iran war.

“We are not at war and we do not want to enter the war,” Meloni told Italy’s parliament earlier this month. She has also called the U.S. attack on Iran “outside the perimeter of international law.”

Spain has previously denied use of its bases to U.S. jets heading to Iran, incurring the anger of President Trump, who threatened to cut trade with Spain.

On Monday, Spain went further, closing its airspace to U.S. aircraft involved in the Iran war.

“Neither the bases are authorized, nor, of course, is the use of Spanish airspace authorized for any actions related to the war in Iran,” Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles said, adding the war was ”profoundly illegal and profoundly unjust."

The agreement was signed between Turkish Defense Minister Yaşar Güler and U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey in London on March 25, during the Turkish minister’s official visit to the United Kingdom.

Per the agreement, BAE Systems will deliver spares and support equipment, high-fidelity training simulators, electronic warfare capabilities and technical support services for an initial three-year period from the aircraft’s entry into service.

The exact value of the new contract was not disclosed. However, when the initial contract for the procurement of Eurofighter aircraft was announced in October 2025, the U.K. government stated that the total value of the deal would be worth up to £8 billion, or $10.7 billion.

According to BAE Systems, Turkey will pay £5.4 billion ($7.2 billion) for the purchase of 20 Typhoon aircraft and an associated weapons and integration package. That arithmetic would peg the value of today’s support and training contract at a maximum of £2.6 billion, or $3.5 billion.

Under separate agreements with the U.K. government, the Royal Air Force will train 10 Turkish instructor pilots and nearly 100 maintenance technicians, ensuring the Turkish Air Force can independently deliver training and support to future pilots and ground crew.

The Turkish air force wants to perform its own depot-level maintenance of the airframes, engines and other on-board equipment in Turkey when the planes start entering into service.

According to a press release issued by the U.K. government, the work also secures production of aircraft components and spares in support of Turkey’s maintenance of the aircraft, with the involvement of U.K. industry partners including BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, MBDA, Rolls-Royce and Martin Baker.

Gołota told public broadcaster TVP Info the government considers engaging Poland’s state-dominated defense industry in the tri-nation initiative, which is spearheaded by Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom, to boost the sector’s capacities and innovativeness.

“Today, we need to make up for some delays in this area, because, over the past decades, we have not produced aircraft in Poland, so our aviation industry requires development,” the official said.

The deputy minister also stated that Polish officials have already discussed the project with Italian and Japanese stakeholders, but he did not disclose the status of talks at the government level.

“Over the past few months, I have spoken to representatives of the defense industries of both Italy and Japan,” Gołota said. “They are showing an understanding of our proposal, and willingness to have further talks.”

The discussions come amid a delay in the signing of a deal between the three countries, represented by the GCAP International Government Organisation (GIGO), and the Edgewing joint venture which represents national players Leonardo, BAE Systems, and Japan Aircraft Industrial Enhancement Co. Ltd., a company owned by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and the Society of Japanese Aerospace Companies.

The latest development comes as Warsaw is analyzing whether to purchase an additional two squadrons of fighters for the nation’s Air Force. The available options include buying 32 more Lockheed Martin F-35s on top of the 32 jets Warsaw ordered in 2020, or alternatively selecting one of the two air superiority aircraft: the Eurofighter Typhoon or Boeing’s F-15EX fighter, as indicated by Polish military officials.

While the People’s Liberation Army has said nothing of the drop in activity near the self-ruled island that China claims as its own – flyby data comes from Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense – analysts point to a confluence of likely reasons led by political calculations.

China would hope not to anger the U.S. president before he meets with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, especially with Trump tied up in the Iran war, said Alexander Huang, a Taiwanese university professor and chairman of the Council of Strategic and Wargaming Studies in Taipei.

The two leaders’ summit is expected in late April.

Beijing has claimed sovereignty over Taiwan for more than seven decades and threatened use of force to take it, if necessary. Washington sells arms to the island, which it sees as an informal ally in the Western Pacific along with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. A 1979 act of Congress allows the United States to help defend Taiwan, if attacked.

But the drop in warplane activity was probably not a “concession” to Trump, said Denny Roy, senior fellow at the East-West Center think tank in Hawaii.

“If anything, Beijing would want to remind Trump that tensions are high over Taiwan and would argue that to lower tensions the US must reduce its support for Taipei,” Roy said.

China’s March 4-11 Two Sessions, an annual event in Beijing where delegates from around the country examine work reports and approve laws, could have focused China’s leadership away from military activity in the Taiwan Strait, Huang said. He said the air force may have lacked a clear mandate for that period, leading to fewer flights.

“While there has been much speculation on the decline in incursions, it’s all the case that PLA military activity declines ahead of the Two Sessions,” said Brian Hioe, non-resident fellow at the Taiwan Research Hub of the University of Nottingham.

China’s removal of two top generals including a senior vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission in January may have created a “residual” effect that dented air exercises near Taiwan, Huang added.

Since the start of March, the Taiwanese defense ministry logged as few as two PLA aircraft sorties on three days since March 7, down from usually a dozen or more per day before March.

Other daily sortie counts in March ranged from three to eight, though with odd spikes into low double digits.

The sorties usually fly over waters near Taiwan, which sits across a strait 160 kilometers (99 miles) from China. Analysts have described aircraft maneuvers as “grey zone tactics” aimed at intimidating Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te, who takes a dim view of Beijing.

Oil price hikes due to conflict in the Middle East would deter but not stop the Chinese warplane activity since Beijing can absorb the cost, analysts say. Jet fuel prices have risen more than 80% during the conflict.

“It’s definitely a waste of energy and of course a burden, but they wouldn’t have the same concern as in a democratic country,” said Huang Chung-ting, an associate research fellow with the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taipei.

Taiwanese officials aren’t guessing the reasons.

Shen Yu-chung, deputy minister of the Taiwan government’s Mainland Affairs Council said on March 10 that “we fear that only China would know” the reason for the recent letup in activity.

PLA aircraft over the three days ending on March 19 showed renewed activity, the Taiwan defense ministry said via X. It reported 28 sorties in the 24 hours ending at 6 a.m. on Tuesday, 36 aircraft by Wednesday morning and 12 planes at the same time on Thursday.

A resumption to the norm does not mean more than before the hiatus, Hioe said.

“It is important not to see a return to regular activity as large-scale military exercises, as some media reports have framed it,” he said.

The EC-2 plane, ridiculed by judgy aviation enthusiasts for its bumpy body, took off from Gifu Air Base on March 17, checking a key box in the envisioned plan of fielding the aircraft for operations in March 2027.

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force – or JASDF for short – stated, “We’ll continue working toward its introduction to improve capabilities in the electromagnetic domain, and to strengthen the cross-domain operations capabilities.”

When deemed ready the aircraft will be assigned to the Electronic Warfare Operations Group located at Iruma Air Base, east of Tokyo.

Last year’s defense budget listed funding of 41.4 billion yen – around $262 million – to continue development of the EW aircraft.

Of note, the EC-2 was converted from the first production C-2 transport delivered to the JASDF. The twin-jet C-2 is similar in size to an Airbus A400M, with acquisition officials choosing it for the EW role thanks to its payload capacity and flight performance.

While the aircraft is not expected to win any beauty competition – with its bulbous nose that resembles a platypus, two tandem dorsal humps and protruding lateral fairings – it performs an important mission of disrupting and neutralizing enemy radar and communication systems on the ground and in the air from a safe distance.

Specialized equipment includes jamming technology, electronic countermeasures, electronic support measures and satellite communications. This equipment was developed domestically, including the upgraded J/ALQ-5 jamming system.

Concerned by troublesome neighbors like China, North Korea and Russia, Japan’s fiscal 2026 budget stated: “The electromagnetic spectrum has become the frontline of offense and defense in modern combat. In light of this situation, securing superiority in the domain of electromagnetic spectrum is an urgent issue.”

The question for Japan is how many EC-2s the JASDF should acquire. The defense-acquisition directorate says the number is “currently under consideration,” although officials have previously mentioned a requirement for four aircraft.

The JASDF operated a solitary EC-1 EW aircraft from 1986 until its retirement last year. Moving from one EW platform to potentially four demonstrates the importance Japan is now placing on electronic attack.

Kawasaki has built 18 C-2s for the JASDF so far. With one converted to an EC-2 and another becoming an RC-2 electronic-intelligence platform in 2020, the JASDF currently has 16 in a transport configuration.

Of note, budgets since 2024 have allocated money for additional RC-2 electronic intelligence aircraft.

Incidentally, the JASDF has also tested a C-2 with the American Rapid Dragon palletized weapons module. This system would allow long-range cruise missiles – such as Japan’s upgraded Type 12 weapon – to be launched from the rear of a transport aircraft.

However, defense leader have yet to decide on the future acquisition of such a system.

The packages include systems for the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan, and range from advanced radar and air defense sensors to counter-drone technology and aircraft munitions, according to several statements released Thursday by the U.S. Department of State.

The notifications come as missile and drone attacks have intensified across the Middle East during the war with Iran, putting pressure on air defense systems used to protect U.S. forces and regional allies.

The State Department said the secretary of state determined that an emergency justified the immediate sale, allowing the administration to bypass the typical congressional review process under the Arms Export Control Act.

Among the proposed sales is a long-range radar for the UAE that is designed to integrate with its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, for $4.5 billion.

The UAE package also includes a $2.1 billion fixed-site system designed to counter small drones, as well as $1.22 billion in air-to-air missiles and a $644 million set of F-16 munitions and upgrades to support its fighter aircraft.

Separately, Kuwait would receive $8 billion in lower tier air and missile defense radars designed to detect shorter-range threats, while Jordan’s $70.5 million package focuses on aircraft repair and parts to maintain its existing fleet.

Together, the sales point to a broader effort to build layered air defenses that are capable of detecting and intercepting threats at different ranges.

The demand comes as U.S. air defense systems are being used at a rate analysts worry exceeds the pace at which stockpiles can be replenished.

The event, spotted by aviation photographers over the Mojave Desert near Edwards Air Force Base, California, during a mission lasting approximately 5.5 hours according to spotter reports and online flight tracking, represents a precursor step toward validating capabilities essential for the B-21’s long-range, penetrating strike role.

The Air Force statement did not mention aerial refueling or fuel transfer. Publicly available images show the stealth bomber positioned behind the tanker in a formation typical of refueling preparations, but ground-based observations alone cannot confirm physical connection or fuel offload.

I believe I captured a "first" today. 🙌#b21 #b21raider #stealthbomber pic.twitter.com/ZHj1WnTTQk

— jmh.creates (@JarodMHamilton) March 10, 2026

“We can confirm that a B-21 Raider completed a test event involving a close-proximity flight with a KC-135 Stratotanker,” an Air Force spokesperson said in a statement. “This flight is part of the ongoing, rigorous test campaign to validate the B-21’s capabilities and operational readiness. To maintain enhanced security measures, we will not provide further details on specific test points. The B-21 program remains on track to deliver a survivable, long-range, penetrating strike capability to the U.S. Air Force.”

Here's a few shots I snapped of the B-21 doing AR tests over California yesterday. Much more to come later 🤙 pic.twitter.com/2yEWXsqyUU

— jmh.creates (@JarodMHamilton) March 11, 2026

Aerial refueling remains a critical milestone for the Northrop Grumman-built B-21 Raider, enabling extended endurance in contested environments without reliance on forward basing.

The program continues flight testing at Edwards, building on prior achievements, including the delivery of the second aircraft to the base in September 2025, which enabled progression into mission systems and weapon integration testing.

The first operational B-21s remain on track for arrival at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, in 2027, supporting initial operational capability in the late 2020s.

On March 11 at 9:30 am, the deep and distinctive rumble of two Norwegian fighter jets echoed across the silent, mountainous terrain here in northern Norway, where NATO forces are currently conducting part of the biennial Cold Response 2026 exercise.

Seconds later, two F-35s from the Norwegian Air Force darted off from Evenes Air Station to monitor a Russian Ilyushin Il-20M aircraft detected along the Norwegian coast. The military plane, which Moscow primarily uses for surveillance and reconnaissance missions, flew with its transponder switched off, according to the Norwegian Armed Forces.

A statement from the Forsvaret, Norways armed forces, described the event as “routine and expected” during large-scale military exercises.

“They identified and shadowed the aircraft along the Norwegian coast before it turned northwards off Vesteralen – the [Russian] plane then flew south twice more, reaching as far as Lofoten, before returning to the Kola Peninsula around 1:30 pm,” the statement said.

It was the second instance in as many days in which Russian aircraft were detected and identified as operating in international airspace off Finnmark, Norway’s northernmost region that straddles the Barents and Norwegian seas.

On March 10, two F-35s were deployed for the same mission. That time, the Russian Ilyushin Il-20M was reported to have headed north of Sørøya and then returned to the Kola Peninsula.

During a media briefing, Col. Hans Martin Steiro, the Norwegian air wing and base commander at Evenes, explained that in quick-reaction alert (QRA) missions, an alarm sounds when a non-allied aircraft is detected, and fighter crews have 15 minutes to be airborne.

Norwegian pilots have flown an average of 38 QRA missions aimed at unidentified Russian planes per year since 2022, according to a military briefing to reporters.

The move comes as the ruling party advances efforts to relax stringent export restrictions on defense equipment and weaponry. The government has not disclosed yet how it plans to overcome fiscal bumps, but the National Diet, Japan’s legislature, is expected to approve allocations for the jets this month.

Parliament had earlier eased export restrictions on GCAP, which is short for Global Combat Air Programme, but an overhaul of the key defense transfer policy may completely lift limitations and allow future exports to countries at war.

The changes are also expected to clear the way for the 11 Mogami-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy, which Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi is scheduled to finalize later this month.

In the next-generation warplane effort, there has been a delay in the contract between the three governments, represented by the GCAP International Government Organisation (GIGO), and the industry joint venture named Edgewing, which represents national contractors BAE Systems, Leonardo and Japan Aircraft Industrial Enhancement Co. Ltd., a firm owned by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and the Society of Japanese Aerospace Companies.

BAE says its Eurofighter pipeline is filled until first GCAP assembly

Edgewing was set to get its first design work contract by the end of 2025, but the contract has been held up by the delay of delivery of the British Defense Investment Plan, which was due to contain the necessary funding.

That plan, in turn, was originally due last fall, but has been held up amid high-level efforts to contend with budget shortfalls in the U.K.

Shigeki Muto, a retired lieutenant general and former head of the Air Defense Command, told Defense News that delays in the contract signing between GIGO and Edgewing “indicate uncertainty in financial commitments in design and organizational setup,” which could impede major investments from Edgewing.

For now, the British delay seems manageable, perhaps impacting prototype manufacturing by a matter of months or a year, said Muto.

“At present, this situation should be interpreted as a funding adjustment phase rather than a structural crisis,” he added.

GCAP is Japan’s most expensive defense project and its first international co-production deal with European allies. Set to replace the defense forces’ F-2 fighters, compounding delays with the new aircraft could create gaps later on, according to retired Lt. Gen. Eiichirou Fukazawa, a former Northern Air Defense Force commander.

‘Madness’: Italy’s Crosetto slams British secrecy on GCAP fighter jet

“Considering the increasing pressure from China’s military capabilities, delays in introducing new combat capabilities would impact negatively on Japan’s overall defense posture,” he said.

Reports indicate that costs have tripled, but it’s unclear if the Japanese government under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi would augment this year’s budget for GCAP, earlier earmarked at 700 billion yen ($4.44 billion) for initial research and development from 2023 until 2027.

Experts say a front-load contribution can be justified while easing political backlash: Japan will likely become GCAP’s primary operator, and the tech transfer for fighter development will boost the domestic defense industry, which will advance global expansion goals.

Additionally, shouldering the initial fiscal burden creates an advantage because it allows “expanded access to technology, gives Japan stronger negotiating power, and achieves greater leadership influence, which would be beneficial for future defense exports,” Muto explained.

The government has largely been satisfied with the GCAP program, says Yoko Iwama, Professor at the Tokyo-based National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, a state think tank.

“This partnership with the Europeans is a new experiment and a sort of de-risking from the Americans — it’s been seen that way here,” Iwama told Defense News.

“We are quite aware of the difficulties involved with an international collaboration because we have experience dealing with the Americans. We know it’s not going to be easy, but we thought it was a risk worth taking and it has shown it was worth taking, seeing the Trump administration,” Iwama said.

Reports surfaced that Germany might be open to joining GCAP, but details remain behind closed doors. Japan’s position on Germany’s participation will be weighed by numerous factors, experts say, but concerns are ripe in Tokyo that adding any new player could hold up development.

The government “places high importance on adhering to the original development schedule and would likely view the participation of new players as undesirable,” Fukazawa said.

Tom Kington in Rome contributed to this report.

Officials in Canberra said the Wedgetail from the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) No. 2 Squadron would provide a “long-range reconnaissance capability which will help secure the airspace above the Gulf” for an initial four-week period.

No details on its planned basing were provided, but Al Minad Air Base near Dubai is a likely locale, as the Australian military has maintained a presence there since 2003.

Twelve Gulf nations have been targeted by Iran so far since the United States and Israel launched strikes against the Tehran regime on Feb. 28.

Australian E-7A airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft are no strangers to overseas deployments. One was in Europe for six months to support Ukraine, where it flew 45 sorties – including a record 17.1-hour mission.

The platform also supported U.S. operations against Islamic State in Syria from 2014-2020.

The aircraft is expected to provide a “huge boost” to the region’s defenses against Iranian drones and missiles, Malcolm Davis, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, wrote on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter.

The UAE, home to 24,000 Australians, has defended itself against 1,500 Iranian rockets and drones so far. To help replenish weapon stocks, Australia will dispatch an unknown quantity of AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) to the country.

The U.S. approved the sale of 200 AIM-120C-8 and 200 AIM-120D-3 AMRAAMs to Australia in April 2025, so the UAE will probably receive older missile variants still held in stock. The missiles will arm UAE Air Force F-16 Block 60 fighters that can fire the beyond-visual-range missile.

Australia stated it “supported action aimed at preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and preventing Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.”

However, Australian leaders have said the country won’t be a protagonist in Israel and U.S. combat operations.

“The Albanese government has been clear that we are not taking offensive action against Iran, and we have been clear that we are not deploying Australian troops on the ground in Iran,” reads a government statement, referring to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Eighty-five Australian troops will deploy to the Middle East, and last week Canberra announced the deployment of a C-17A transport aircraft and KC-30A aerial tanker to the Gulf.

The notice, issued by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s weapons office at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is not a solicitation but a market research tool to identify firms capable of producing a system with “similar or improved capabilities” to the SiAW. Responses are due March 19.

The SiAW is a supersonic air-to-ground missile designed to rapidly strike mobile targets, including integrated air defense systems, ballistic missile launchers, GPS jammers and antisatellite systems in contested environments.

The Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a $705 million contract to develop and test the SiAW in September 2023, following an initial phase that also included Lockheed Martin and L3Harris. Northrop Grumman delivered the first SiAW test missile to the Air Force in November 2024, and completed a successful F-16 separation test in December 2025.

The sources sought notice lists platform compatibility requirements that include the F-35, F-16, F-47 and B-21. This marks the first time the F-47, Boeing’s Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter, has appeared by name in a public Air Force acquisition document tied to a specific weapon system. The F-35 is the initial platform for the SiAW, and the Air Force has previously indicated the B-21 bomber may also carry the weapon.

The SiAW program is currently executing a Middle Tier Acquisition Rapid Prototyping phase. The notice calls for a 48-month period of performance from contract award, with a first production lot delivery targeted for 2030. Fiscal 2026 budget documents show prototype development is slated to continue through the first quarter of fiscal 2027.

Required capabilities outlined in the notice include extended standoff range, an advanced antiradiation seeker capable of targeting frequency-agile and low-probability-of-intercept radar systems, precision GPS/INS navigation with antijamming capabilities, robust electronic counter-countermeasures and the ability to reattack. The Air Force is seeking production capacity of up to 600 all-up-rounds per year with a 15-year service life requirement.

The outreach comes as Operation Epic Fury against Iran has heightened concerns about munitions stockpiles and industrial base capacity, according to a Center for Strategic and International Studies report published Thursday.

The notice does not explain why the Air Force is seeking alternate sources for a SiAW equivalent, or whether identifying additional vendors could affect the Northrop Grumman program.

The U.K. Ministry of Defence confirmed Saturday that U.S. forces had begun using the British base for “specific defensive operations to prevent Iran firing missiles into the region.”

The BBC reported at least three B-1B Lancers at the base, with the first aircraft arriving the evening of March 6 and two more on March 7.

Aviation tracking outlet The Aviationist reported four arrivals in the initial deployment, followed by a second flight bringing the total to eight B-1Bs in Europe.

According to The Aviationist, three of those aircraft diverted to Ramstein Air Base in Germany after low visibility prevented landing at Fairford following a mission over Iran; five are currently at Fairford.

The B-1B, originally built by Rockwell and now supported by Boeing, is operated by Air Force Global Strike Command and is a supersonic conventional strike aircraft capable of carrying up to 24 AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles internally.

B-1Bs have already played a significant role in the war. According to reports from early briefings, CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper said B-1 and B-2 bombers had carried out pinpoint strikes on missile sites deep inside Iran during the operation’s first 72 hours.

In a March 2 post on X, CENTCOM said the bombers struck deep inside the country “to degrade Iranian ballistic missile capabilities.” At a March 5 press briefing at CENTCOM headquarters, Cooper said that America’s bomber force had struck nearly 200 targets deep inside Iran, including around Tehran, in the preceding 72 hours.

The forward deployment comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that strikes on Iran are “about to surge dramatically.”

On March 4, Hegseth said that the U.S. had gained control of Iranian airspace and was shifting from advanced stand-off weapons to gravity bombs. Basing bombers at Fairford significantly shortens turnaround times compared to flying round-trip missions from the continental United States.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer authorized U.S. use of British bases on March 1 for what he described as a “specific and limited defensive purpose” of destroying Iran’s missiles “at source,” following initial resistance to a request from President Trump. RAF Fairford is the U.S. Air Force’s only dedicated forward operating location for heavy bombers in Europe.

Three B-52H Stratofortress bombers from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, arrived at Fairford on March 9, the BBC reported, joining the B-1Bs already at the base.

U.S. Air Force Europe declined to confirm or deny the deployments.

The warplanes were sent as part of a phased approach to enhancing security in light of recent developments in the region, the Ministry of Defense wrote in an announcement.

According to footage shared by Turkish Radio and Television Corporation, the aircraft will operate from Ercan International Airport, west of the capital Nicosia.

Based on the armaments visible in the video, the planes appear to be equipped to conduct combat air patrol and air defense missions over the Eastern Mediterranean.

The ministry also stated that, if necessary, additional measures may be taken depending on future developments.

This deployment follows last week’s deployment of four F-16 fighter aircraft and two frigates from Greece to Cyprus, following the Iranian attack on the British RAF Akrotiri air base on the southern part of the island.

Last week France announced that it would dispatch an aircraft carrier strike group to Cyprus to help bolster the country’s aerial defenses, along with additional land-based anti-drone and anti-missile systems.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis are expected to visit the island today.

Designated GT 255, the launch was scheduled years in advance and was not in response to current world events, according to an official AFGSC release.

The test, which occurred at 11:01 p.m. PST from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, is one of more than 300 conducted under a decades-long evaluation program aimed at confirming the weapon system’s reliability and performance.

The missile’s two reentry vehicles, designed to increase the missile’s effectiveness against defended targets, traveled thousands of miles before reaching a predetermined target at Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, according to the release.

“GT 255 allowed us to assess the performance of individual components of the missile system,”said Lt. Col. Karrie Wray, commander of the 576th Flight Test Squadron. “By continually assessing varying mission profiles, we are able to enhance the performance of the entire ICBM fleet, ensuring the maximum level of readiness for the land-based leg of the nation’s nuclear triad.”

“It is critical to test all aspects of our ICBM force, including our ability to deliver multiple, independently targeted payloads with absolute precision,” said Gen. S.L. Davis, AFGSC commander. “This test validates the intricate synchronization of the weapon system, from the initial launch sequence to the flawless deployment of each reentry vehicle.”

Engineers and weapons experts from the 377th Test and Evaluation Group collected data on the missile’s accuracy and reliability during the test. That data is provided to the Defense Department, the Department of Energy and U.S. Strategic Command for force development evaluation, according to the release.

“Test launches are the most visible and vital way we verify our capabilities and validate the performance of our systems. ... These tests confirm their unmatched ability to support this critical mission and provide crucial data that ensures our systems remain ready and reliable,” said Col.Dustin Harmon, 377th Test and Evaluation Group commander.

Sentinel ICBM program hit by software delays, Minuteman extension risks: GAO

The launch required months of preparation. Maintenance support came from Airmen assigned to the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, while operators from all three missile wings participated in executing the launch.“

The data we gather ensures our long-range strike capabilities are not just a theoretical concept,but a proven, reliable, and lethal force, ready to defend the nation at a moment’s notice,” Davis added.

The Air Force is moving forward with the development of the LGM-35A Sentinel, the successor to the Minuteman III, as part of its efforts to modernize its land-based nuclear deterrent. Due to delays in the Sentinel program, the Air Force is evaluating options to keep the Minuteman III operational through 2050, more than a decade beyond its originally planned service life.

The command dispatched two U.S. Air Force F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft, two F-22 Raptors, four KC-135 Stratotankers, one E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft, two Canadian CF-18 Hornets and one CC-150 Polaris tanker to positively identify, monitor and intercept the Russian aircraft, according to a NORAD release.

The Russian aircraft remained in international airspace and did not enter American or Canadian sovereign airspace.

“This Russian activity in the Alaskan and Canadian ADIZ occurs regularly and is not seen as a threat,” NORAD stated in the release.

The Tu-142 is a long-range Russian maritime patrol and antisubmarine warfare aircraft developed by the Soviet Union and operated by the Russian Navy, capable of conducting extended overwater missions.

An ADIZ begins where sovereign airspace ends and extends into international airspace, requiring identification of approaching aircraft in the interest of national security, according to NORAD.

The intercept follows a similar event last month, when on Feb. 19, NORAD tracked five Russian military aircraft, including two Tu-95 bombers, two Su-35 fighters and an A-50 early warning aircraft, operating near Alaska’s ADIZ. Two U.S. F-16s and two F-35s, supported by one E-3 and four KC-135s, escorted the formation until it left the area. All aircraft remained in international airspace and were not considered a threat, NORAD stated.

NORAD, headquartered at Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado, employs a layered defense network of satellites, ground-based and airborne radars and fighter aircraft to detect and track aircraft and determine appropriate responses.

Over the capital, the new class of interceptors is even more effective. Drones were credited with more than 70% of Shahed downings in February, Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi announced on Tuesday.

The math tells the story: A single Patriot interceptor costs over $3 million, a NASAMS round slightly over $1 million — and each Shahed costs Russia as little as $35,000 to manufacture, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

That puts Ukraine on the wrong side of an approximately 85-to-1 cost exchange every time it uses a Patriot to defend against a drone.

But at $3,000 to $5,000 apiece and an average success rate over 60%, interceptors are now changing the calculus of war, Zelenskyy told Fox News late last year.

These drones, a weapons category that barely existed a few years ago, have become the fastest-growing layer of Ukraine’s air defense.

“We are the first in the world to have a system of destroying drones with drones in the air,” Col. Yuriy Cherevashenko, deputy commander of UAVs for air defense of the Ukrainian Air Force, said in a video marking the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Facing an unrelenting adversary whose economy dwarfs its own by nearly tenfold, Ukraine had no choice but to outthink rather than outspend, and interceptor drones — mobile, cheap and scalable enough to answer Russian mass production with Ukrainian ingenuity — have emerged as their biggest bet.

Now, what began as battlefield improvisation has become a deliberate war strategy.

“Drones now occupy a wide segment of the air defense system,” Cherevashenko said. “In the future, they will be perhaps the most numerous means of destroying aerial targets.”

Their rapid development over the last year tracked Russia’s escalating use of Iranian-designed Shahed attack drones, which by mid-2025 were arriving in record-breaking waves that overwhelmed Ukraine’s missile-based air defenses faster than Western allies could resupply them.

“We needed to supply a lot of interceptors this year, because without them, the winter would have been even harder for Ukraine,” Alona Zhuzha, director of digitalization at Ukraine’s newly established Defense Procurement Agency, told Military Times.

The National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) said the country produced 100,000 interceptor drones in 2025 and reported that production capacity has grown eightfold compared to the prior period.

Frontline units received an average of over 1,500 interceptor drones per day in December and January — up from about 1,000 per day during the previous period, the MOD said at the beginning of the year.

That supply is translating into operational tempo: Last month, interceptor drones flew approximately 6,300 sorties and destroyed more than 1,500 Russian UAVs of various types, Syrskyi said.

Interceptors are now a top priority on the DOT-Chain Defence marketplace, the digital platform through which units order directly from manufacturers.

“They are very critical for our defense,” Zhuzha said.

Russian tech continues to evolve, too.

Moscow’s drones have been equipped with rear-facing infrared spotlights designed to blind interceptor pilots, and some have been armed with air-to-air missiles to shoot back, Serhii “Flash” Beskrestnov, a radio expert and early advocate of interceptor tech who was recently appointed as an adviser to the Ministry of Defence, wrote on Telegram in January.

Russia has also expanded its use of decoy drones — foam-and-plywood models including the Gerbera and Parody — which now constitute roughly one-third of all Russian mass attacks, specifically designed to exhaust interceptors and overload the detection layer, according to Defence-UA.

Ukraine now flies several distinct classes of interceptors: cheap FPV airframes built for last-kilometer kills — the kind that catch a Shahed before it reaches a substation or apartment block — and faster pursuit systems tied to forward drone lines, designed to launch immediately upon detection, climb fast, and intercept before the threat crosses into civilian airspace, according to the NSDC.

Higher-speed interceptors designed for targets like the jet-powered Geran-3 variants, where the old FPV chase math breaks, are emerging now too, according to Ukrainska Pravda.

And networked defense systems are beginning to link interceptor nodes across sectors, sharing tracks so a single incoming target can be handed off from one crew to the next as it crosses boundaries.

One unit trying to push forward the development and use of interceptors is Lazar’s Group — a drone formation within the National Guard’s 27th Pechersk Brigade known as one of the most effective interceptor units in the country.

Phoenix, who commands the group’s drone operations, told Military Times that the group has destroyed more than $15 billion in Russian military equipment since the full-scale invasion — part of Ukraine’s broader shift away from infantry warfare. Military Times agreed to refer to all active duty soldiers by their nom de guerre for operational security.

Strike drones, not interceptors — still account for “60 to 70% of confirmed hits” on Russian equipment and personnel across the battle zone. “Interceptors take out most of the rest.”

Lazar’s Group utilizes both. Fixed-wing strike models can engage deep targets and conduct reconnaissance well beyond the battle’s edge, while interceptors are optimized for counter-UAV work at shorter ranges and higher closing speeds.

For example: Ukraine’s Wild Hornets “Sting” interceptor — a quad-rotor designed to chase and collide with enemy drones — is reported to reach speeds over 300 km/h and operate out to roughly 25 kilometers in interception missions, with altitude service up to several thousand feet, while fixed-wing interceptor variants such as the VB140 Flamingo are designed with extended pursuit profiles that can engage reconnaissance drones at ranges up to 50 km.

The real challenge slowing interceptor innovation now? Sensors.

“We just need better radar,” Phoenix said. “It allows you to see your enemy and your plane. You understand where you are and where your enemy is, and you can fly to that position.”

Ukraine’s most common intercepts still start with cueing: radar tracks, acoustic spotters and stitched feeds from Ukraine’s master “Mission Control” battlefield management system that put a pilot in the right place at the right time.

“Without good radar — durable sensors, strong [electronic warfare] defense, etc. — it’s very difficult,” he told Military Times.

To counter Russian electronic warfare, another persistent problem, the unit builds its own interceptor drones with proprietary remote control and video transmitter systems designed to resist jamming.

“We create our own models because we understand the technical specifications that we need,” Phoenix said. “So they’re not immediately jammed or located.”

Illustrating the problem, SpaceX cut off Russian forces’ contraband Starlink terminals at Ukraine’s request last month — but the disruption also knocked out feeds for Ukrainian units sharing the same network, leaving parts of the front without connectivity or intercept capability, according to CNN.

Artificial intelligence has not yet come to dominate interception missions — today it is still manual ramming or close-in detonation.

“Our pilots mostly operate manually,” Phoenix told Military Times. “Because AI features are nice, but sometimes they just aren’t working.”

Finding solutions to the other common hurdles beyond radar — like battery endurance in freezing conditions or operator fatigue on overnight shifts — tends to be simpler, Phoenix said.

“After that, they just keep flying.”

Lazar’s Group’s strategy has become a national model for how to institutionalize a new layer of air defense into the existing military structure, both in Ukraine and abroad.

The 1,700-strong group is helping construct the country’s Drone Line — an unmanned kill zone stretching 15-kilometers deep across the front, announced by Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense a year ago.

In Brussels, officials have been pushing their own version of a drone wall to bolster defenses along Europe’s eastern flank, but the effort has run into political and technical hurdles, according to Reuters.

Kyiv has taken note, and begun leveraging its country’s battlefield tech, skills and data as a major benefit of remaining its staunch ally as peace trilateral negotiations to end the war continue between Ukraine, Russia and the United States.

“As we work together to protect lives in Ukraine, we are building a new system – a new security and response architecture, new approaches – to protect lives in any European country when needed,” Zelenskyy told his counterparts at the Munich Security Conference in February.

“Our wall of drones is your wall of drones.”

“If Airbus maintains its position of not wanting to work with Dassault, the matter is dead,” Dassault Aviation Chief Executive Officer Eric Trappier said at a press conference outside Paris on Wednesday, where he showed a slide on FCAS with only a question mark, saying, “I don’t know.’’

French President Emmanuel Macron and then-Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the future air combat project in 2017, and work has been split up in several so-called pillars, including a new engine, drones and a combat data cloud. Dassault and Airbus, the partners for the next-generation fighter in FCAS, have been bickering for years over project authority and work share.

France was designated as the lead nation for the combat aircraft at the start of the project, with Dassault Aviation assigned the leader of the pillar, based on a joint decision by the partner countries, according to Trappier. “Not everyone is happy with this, but I believe that in order to develop combat aircraft of this level for the future, we need a leader.”

The CEO said an effective program requires “a real leader” who decides on whether subcontractors are performing, on the shape of the aircraft, and who will take responsibility for getting the aircraft to fly. He said Airbus would like to reduce Dassault Aviation’s role as part of a “co-co-co construction, on which I don’t agree.”

Dassault is abiding to the letter of its contract, and Airbus is not sticking to the “intial equation,” according to Trappier, who said it’s now up to the governments to arbitrate. He declined to speculate when or what France and Germany might decide on the future of the project.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said in an interview last month his country doesn’t currently need the same aircraft as France, which requires a fighter able to operate from an aircraft carrier and deploy nuclear weapons to ensure sovereign capabilities. Trappier said that while he hasn’t spoken to Merz, he was assured by French authorities there is agreement on operational requirements.

Trappier said Airbus is not looking to resolve its dispute with Dassault, and accused Airbus of communicating via labor union IG Metall and the German Aerospace Industries Association BDLI rather than “saying it loud and clear.” IG Metall in December said it would no longer work with Dassault Aviation, while the BDLI said on Feb. 6 it favored a “two-aircraft solution” for FCAS.

Airbus would support a two-fighter solution to break the deadlock, and is “committed to playing a leading role in such a reorganized FCAS,” Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury said during a press conference in February.

Trappier said neither Dassault Aviation nor France back the idea of having two aircraft as part of FCAS, in comments on the sidelines of the press conference, though “if France asked me to develop a combat aircraft, I would do it,” Trappier said.

Airbus declined to comment.

Dassault Aviation would be able to develop a next-generation aircraft by itself, and would be able to do so for “well below” a budget of €50 billion, Trappier said.

Trappier said Airbus does not have the skill set of Dassault Aviation in building combat jets, just like his company doesn’t build commercial jets. The executive said that while Dassault is always being accused of arrogance, “where is the arrogance today?”

The Dassault CEO said the German partner for the next-generation fighter is Airbus Germany, which he suggested may want a program setup for FCAS similar to the Eurofighter rather being in a subcontractor position.

Trappier said he demanded “clear leadership” from the start, and the organization was agreed that way. With one company in the team “better than the other,” the other partner has a legitimate demand to gain expertise, “but just because you’re learning doesn’t mean you have to be a co-leader right away,” Trappier said.

Trappier said while work on phase 1 of the FCAS fighter is being finalized, negotiations on phase 2 haven’t started yet due to “a certain number of difficulties.” That had delayed development of a demonstrator, according to the Dassault Aviation CEO, who said unresolved questions include who would lead the test-flight program.

Meanwhile, the company expects to negotiate a contract with India for 114 Rafale jets this year, and will continue to work on a combat aircraft for the post-Rafale era, “which is to say well after the 2040s.”

Dassault Aviation expects the F5 standard of the Rafale, which will included an unmanned stealthy loyal wingman drone, to enter service around 2035.

U.S. forces have hit 2,000 targets in Iran since the opening salvos of Operation Epic Fury on Feb. 28, adding the B-1 Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress bombers to the air attacks, U.S. Central Command reported Tuesday morning.

The long-range, heavy bomber has the potential to become the first military aircraft to remain in service for a century.

As of Sunday night, U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers conducted long-range strikes deep inside Iran. Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters Monday at the Pentagon that the strikes targeting ballistic missile facilities and command-and-control infrastructure resulted in “the establishment of local air superiority.”

“This air superiority will not only enhance the protection of our forces but also allow them to continue the work over Iran,” Caine said.

B-1B Lancers conduct deep strikes in Iran as part of Operation Epic Fury

On Tuesday, U.S. Central Command confirmed on X that an armada of B-52s, nicknamed “Stratosaurus” for its advanced years, was used in a strike against “ballistic missile and commander control posts.”

The B-52H is capable of flying at high subsonic speeds at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet. It can carry nuclear or precision-guided conventional ordnance, and it has a payload of approximately 70,000 pounds of mixed ordnance-bombs, mines and missiles, according to the Air Force.

First flown on April 15, 1952, the prototype YB-52 Stratofortress was America’s first all jet-engine intercontinental strategic bomber, according to historian Carl O. Schuster.

By building a remarkably light yet simple and durable airframe with an enormous volume of internal space, Boeing’s design has allowed for continual upgrades well into the 21st century.

The B-52D was the most numerous version in service when Stratofortress planes were ordered to support the Vietnam War in 1965, becoming the backbone of America’s strategic bomber force.

The B-52’s most prominent missions over Vietnam were part of Operation Linebacker II, when the bombers were unleashed for 11 days in December 1972 to crush Hanoi and the seaport of Haiphong, according to historian Stephen Wilkinson. The devastation they wrought convinced the North Vietnamese to return to the negotiating table.

The plane has been in continuous use since then.

During a Pentagon press briefing Wednesday on Operation Epic Fury, Caine, alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, noted that, to date, the U.S. has hit over 2,000 total targets across Iran and destroyed more than 20 of the Islamic Republic’s naval vessels.

Israel’s announcement comes amid the ongoing “Epic Fury” military operation, a joint U.S.-Israeli strike against military targets in Iran.

In another first, the U.K. reported that its Royal Air Force’s F-35B jets had intercepted Iranian drones above Jordan as part of a defensive mission alongside “Epic Fury,” marking the first targets destroyed by the British warplane type.

The Israeli Version of the F-35 is called “Adir,” which means mighty in Hebrew, and is a fifth-generation stealth fighter jet manufactured by the American defense company Lockheed Martin.

Israel upgraded the jet to its own specifications, including domestically made electronics systems and adjustments to carry and launch Israeli armaments such as the Python 5 air-to-air missile and Rafael’s SPICE bomb.

Israel began receiving its first F-35 aircraft at the end of 2016 — four years after the British received theirs — and currently possesses two dedicated squadrons, totaling at approximately 50 aircraft. In July 2023, Israel placed an order for 25 more to build a third F-35 squadron.

The F-35I has participated in several Israeli military campaigns such as operations “Guardian of the Walls” in June 2021, “Rising Lion” last June and the current military campaign in Iran under its Israeli name, “Roaring Lion.” Since that operation began on Feb. 28, the Israeli Air Force reported that it has dropped about 4,000 munitions so far in about 1,600 raids into Iran.

The Yak-130 aircraft that was shot down by the Israeli Air Force over Teheran is Russian-made and is also used by the Iranian Air Force for reconnaissance purposes.

The type can reportedly be armed with short-range air-to-air missiles. It commonly operates alongside Iranian MiG-29, mainly to intercept drones. The Israeli Air Force notes that the Yak-130 kill is the first time since 1985 that an Israeli fighter jet has shot down an enemy warplane.

The development comes as Warsaw considers using a loan to select the Airbus A330 MRTT aircraft over Boeing’s KC-46 for the Polish Air Force.

Under the EU’s Security Action For Europe (SAFE) scheme, the Polish defense budget is to absorb additional funds of around €43.7 billion ($50.7 billion) in low-cost loans. The program is to enable member states to bolster their defense capabilities amid Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, and Poland is set to receive the largest share of the funds.

On Feb. 27, the Polish parliament approved the draft legislation to implement SAFE loans, and President Karol Nawrocki will need to decide this month whether he wants to sign the bill, veto it, or refer it to the country’s Constitutional Tribunal.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk, whose centrist government regularly clashes with right-wing Nawrocki who backs the opposition, is a major proponent of the loan program.

Tusk has claimed the majority of the funds will be injected into the Polish defense sector, with a focus on procurements of innovative gear for the country’s military.

“Significantly more than 80 percent, and these are the opinions of experts, generals and state institutions, will serve Poland and our companies,” Tusk said at a Feb. 27 press briefing. “It will be one of the breakthrough impulses for the development of the Polish economy. The development of the most modern technologies, so satellites, space, cyber, drones and anti-drone systems, will capture 36 percent” of the loans’ value, he said.

Tusk also stated that Poland will continue to purchase weapons from U.S. companies.

“We will be an even better ally thanks to the SAFE program. And those more than 100 billion [dollars] that we intended to spend on equipment and technological capabilities that come from the United States, they will be spent anyway,” the prime minister said.

This year, the Polish government has earmarked around PLN 200.1 billion ($54.2 billion) for defense, up from PLN 186.6 billion budgeted in 2025. This means the nation’s military expenditure could exceed 4.8% of its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2026.

Poland’s expanding defense budget has driven a shopping spree for new gear, including procurements of tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, missiles and rocket launchers bought from the United States.

While Nawrocki, who was elected president in May 2025 with the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party’s backing, is mulling whether to sign the SAFE bill, the government and the opposition are at odds over the program’s utility for Polish military modernization efforts.

Mariusz Błaszczak, Poland’s former Minister of National Defence who is a PiS lawmaker, told Defense News that, in its current form, SAFE poses risks to Warsaw’s decision-making sovereignty in the field of defense and to the stability of the state’s finances.

“Firstly, we are talking about a loan mechanism, meaning an increase in state debt in a formula that may be subject to additional political and procedural conditions imposed by EU institutions,” Błaszczak said.

“Law and Justice has always held the view that Poland’s security should be built on a strong nation-state, real military capabilities, and a strategic alliance with the United States within NATO, rather than through mechanisms that could restrict our freedom of acquisitions and equipment preferences,” he added.

In the politician’s view, there is also a risk that SAFE loans “will de facto reward specific manufacturers at the expense of the best available technologies. For Poland, the key criteria should be quality and interoperability with NATO, not political correctness in procurement.”

While the Ministry of National Defence has not released a full list of acquisitions that are to be bankrolled by SAFE loans, senior military officials have named the potential purchase of tanker aircraft as one of the key projects.

Maj. Gen. Ireneusz Nowak, the deputy general commander of the Polish Armed Forces, told local news site Defence24.pl at least two Airbus A330 MRTTs are to be purchased with the use of an EU loan. The aircraft is a direct competitor to Boeing’s KC-46 that the U.S. company has pitched to Poland’s Air Force.

Błaszczak said he believes the availability of SAFE loans should not tilt the ministry’s preference towards gear made in Europe if alternative U.S. products offer better capabilities and compatibility.

“We are talking about a choice between the European Airbus A330 MRTT and the American Boeing KC-46 Pegasus. In my opinion, three issues are key to such decisions: interoperability with NATO forces, industrial conditions, and a long-term alliance strategy,” said the opposition lawmaker.

“The Polish military today relies heavily on American equipment: from Patriot systems, through HIMARS, to the F-35. Therefore, the natural direction is maximum compatibility and logistical cohesion,” he added.

The Air Force wants to buy more armored transporters to replace the current Payload Transporter, or PT III. The Payload Transporter Replacement, or PTR, will replace “the existing legacy payload transporter fleet (PT III) due to parts obsolescence, fleet age, increasing sustainment costs, and inability to meet current security/asset protection requirements,” according to the Air Force’s Request for Information/Sources Sought notice, which is due March 12.

The Air Force is looking for five more PTRs. In 2019, Armorworks won a five-year contract in 2019 to deliver 25 PTRs.

Most of the documentation — including technical specifications — that accompanied the RFI is restricted. However, the basic PTR vehicle resembles a large tractor-trailer that wouldn’t look out of place rolling down a highway. It is made up of a “specially armored” tractor with an integrated auxiliary power unit towing a “specially armored” trailer, according to the description in the RFI.

“The PTR is the sole platform for the transport of Aerospace Vehicle Equipment (AVE) to/from host bases to ICBM launch facilities (LF), and the sole platform for conducting AVE remove and replace operations while positioned over the LF,” the document notes. “AVE consists of the Reentry System (RS), Missile Guidance Set (MGS), Propulsion System Rocket Engine (PSRE), and associated items.”

Armorworks has described the vehicle as having “an armored cab and a blast- and forced entry-resistant cargo containment system to inconspicuously transport nuclear missile cargo in a controlled environment on air-cushioned pallets.”

Contractors responding to the RFI should list their experience in designing military-grade ballistic armor, as well as shock and vibration testing. They should also indicate their “years of experience in development and production of nuclear certified designs, working with nuclear surety organizations to achieve nuclear design certification, and management of engineering changes that impact nuclear certified designs,” according to the notice.

Transport vehicles are just one of many problems afflicting America’s current fleet of 400 Minuteman III missiles, which were first deployed in 1970. A September 2025 Government Accountability Office report noted that the Minuteman III is experiences challenges related to parts obsolescence and aging infrastructure and facilities.

There have been several attempts to replace the Minuteman, including the MX Peacekeeper in the 1980s, and the current LGM-35A Sentinel. But the Sentinel program has run into numerous snags, including design issues and cost overruns. This means that Minuteman may have to remain America’s land-based ICBM until 2050, GAO warned.