The A-10 pilot was subsequently rescued, two U.S. officials told The New York Times.

Iranian state media stated the A-10 was targeted in southern waters near the strait.

Reports of the A-10 going down Friday followed confirmation that a U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle had been shot down by enemy fire.

One of two F-15E crew members had reportedly been rescued as of Friday afternoon. A search for the second crew member was ongoing.

Search-and-rescue efforts were launched in the immediate aftermath of the fighter jet crash, with videos circulating on social media appearing to show a low-flying U.S. Air Force HC-130 refueling a pair of HH-60G Pave Hawks over Iran.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Friday told Military Times “the president has been briefed” on the downed U.S. F-15E fighter jet.

The Pentagon and U.S. Central Command have not yet responded to requests for comment.

Iranian state media on Friday shared images of aircraft debris alongside claims that Iran had downed a U.S. F-35 fighter jet.

However, images of the aircraft’s tailfin, specifically the red stripe on its vertical stabilizer, are consistent with markings used by the 494th Fighter Squadron, 48th Fighter Wing, based at RAF Lakenheath.

Iran also shared an image of an Advanced Concept Ejection Seat allegedly from the shot down F-15E.

The shoot-down of the F-15E marks the first time during Operation Epic Fury that a manned U.S. aircraft has been brought down by enemy fire.

A U.S. F-35 fighter jet was reportedly hit by enemy fire during a combat mission over Iran on March 19, but was able to make an emergency landing at a U.S. air base in the region.

Six U.S. airmen were killed on March 12 when their KC-135 refueling aircraft crashed in western Iraq during combat operations.

On March 1, three U.S. F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets were shot down by a Kuwaiti F/A-18 in a friendly fire incident. All six F-15 crew members ejected and were safely recovered.

The A-10, meanwhile, has seen an increased role since the start of the Iran war. The attack aircraft has joined maritime interdiction operations, among other missions, along the southern edges of the conflict, targeting Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fast-attack watercraft in the Strait of Hormuz, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said last month.

Military Times reporter Michael Scanlon contributed to this report.

The recent approvals represent a push to strengthen the country’s air defensive and offensive capabilities to bolster its preparedness for new-age warfare in which air power is taking center stage, according to analysts. New Delhi faces adversaries China and Pakistan along its northern and western borders. Its long frontier with Myanmar on the country’s eastern flank is also unstable.

The decision to acquire five additional S-400 Triumf air defense systems from Russia is among the key approvals by the Defense Acquisition Council headed by Defense Minister Rajnath Singh. These will be on top of five S-400’s India ordered in 2018 — three are deployed along its northern and western borders, while two are scheduled to be delivered this year.

India boosts Southeast Asia military ties, Indo-Pacific role

The ten systems will eventually become the linchpin of India’s long range air defense. The additional platforms aim to plug coverage gaps when they are fully deployed.

The approval for the S-400’s comes nearly a year after the system, which can engage aerial threats including aircraft, drones and cruise missiles at extended ranges, played a crucial role during the brief India-Pakistan conflict last year, reinforcing confidence in its capabilities. Missile strikes and drones were extensively deployed during the four day hostilities.

“The S-400’s have proven their worth by intercepting aerial threats and bringing down some of the missiles fired by Islamabad, so now India knows it works well,” said Dinakar Peri, a fellow in the Security Studies program at Carnegie India. “By getting more of these systems, India will widen the perimeter of its air defense.”

Meanwhile, India’s decision to buy 60 more remotely piloted strike aircraft to strengthen its offensive capabilities signals the growing emphasis on unmanned operations in warfare, say experts. Undertaking strikes without putting pilots at risk, they have played a key role during recent conflicts.

“There is a fundamental shift in warfare. While you have your frontline platforms such as bombers and submarines, you also need to factor in the huge part played by drones in battlefield tactics,” said Peri. “That is the lesson military planners have learned from recent conflicts. In fact the Russia-Ukraine war in a sense prepared India for its own conflict with Pakistan last year – it demonstrated the importance of drones and air defenses.”

India and US maintain momentum in defense ties

The defense ministry said in a statement that the approvals are intended to strengthen both offensive and defensive air capabilities. “The S-400 system will counter enemy long-range air vectors targeting vital areas, while remotely piloted strike aircraft will enable offensive counter and coordinated air operations, along with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance roles.”

India recently signed a $47 million contract for procurement of the Tunguska air defense missile system from Russia to fill a gap in short-range air defense. These aim to protect ground forces from low-altitude threats such as helicopters, drones and cruise missiles.

A chunk of the new funding package will be directed towards acquiring 60 new multirole transport aircraft that will replace the country’s aging fleet. From high mountains to strategic islands that lie far away from the mainland, Indian troops are deployed across a varied geography. The likely contenders for these could be Brazil’s Embraer, US-based Lockheed Martin and Russia’s Ilyushin aircraft, according to media reports.

Experts say the recent budget approvals demonstrate that despite Russia’s share of Indian defense imports declining, as New Delhi also begins to buy equipment from countries like France, Israel and the United States, Moscow remains a key supplier of military equipment.

“There are several reasons for this. For one, Russian equipment is relatively cheaper and it is very hardy. You can operate it anywhere from the minus temperatures in the mountains to hot deserts,” said Rahul Bedi, a defense analyst in New Delhi. “Also, the Indian military is very familiar with Russian equipment.”

The recent $25 billion military acquisition approvals reflect a record surge in defense spending, coming six weeks after India also cleared the purchase of 114 Rafale fighter jets estimated to be worth around $40 billion.

While many of the planned acquisitions were pending for years, the new emphasis on air power in conflicts has injected a sense of urgency amid intensifying global uncertainties.

“There is a marked reluctance on part of countries to put boots on the ground, and fight land wars. Although this is inescapable to some extent, the tendency is to avoid that to the extent possible, so that is where air warfare becomes important,” according to Amit Cowshish, a former financial adviser for acquisition for India’s Defence Ministry.

Although India is the world’s fifth-largest military spender and second-largest arms importer after Ukraine, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, modernizing its armed forces still represents a challenge.

A United States F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet has been shot down by enemy fire over Iran, U.S. officials confirmed.

One of the aircraft’s two crew members has been rescued, Israeli media first reported. U.S. officials confirmed the reports in statements to CBS News and Axios.

A search for the second crew member is ongoing.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Military Times “the president has been briefed” on the downed fighter jet.

The Pentagon and U.S. Central Command did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Officials in Iran, meanwhile, called for the search and capture of any surviving crew members of the jet, according to reports by the semi-official ISNA news agency and the Young Journalists Club.

The governor of one of the Islamic Republic’s provinces stated that anyone who captures or kills the crew would receive a special commendation.

Video circulating on social media appeared to show a low-flying U.S. Air Force HC-130 refueling a pair of HH-60G Pave Hawks over Iran while conducting a search for the downed crew.

Iranian state media on Friday shared images of aircraft debris alongside claims that Iran had downed a U.S. F-35 fighter jet.

However, images of the aircraft’s tailfin, specifically the red stripe on its vertical stabilizer, are consistent with markings used by the 494th Fighter Squadron, 48th Fighter Wing, based at RAF Lakenheath.

Iran also shared an image of an Advanced Concept Ejection Seat allegedly from the shot down F-15E.

The search-and-rescue effort inside Iran during an ongoing conflict greatly raises the stakes for the United States.

U.S. Central Command on Tuesday issued a statement denying claims that “Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps downed an ‘enemy’ fighter jet over Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz.”

“All U.S. fighter aircraft are accounted for,” the CENTCOM statement read. “Iran’s IRGC has made the same false claim at least half a dozen times.”

The location of the downed jet has not yet been confirmed.

The shoot-down marks the first time during Operation Epic Fury that a manned U.S. aircraft has been brought down by enemy fire.

A U.S. F-35 fighter jet was reportedly hit by enemy fire during a combat mission over Iran on March 19, but was able to make an emergency landing at a U.S. air base in the region.

Six U.S. airmen were killed on March 12 when their KC-135 refueling aircraft crashed in western Iraq during combat operations.

On March 1, three U.S. F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets were shot down by a Kuwaiti F/A-18 in a friendly fire incident. All six F-15 crew members ejected and were safely recovered.

A total of 13 U.S. service members have been killed during combat actions against Iran.

As of March 31, 348 U.S. personnel have been wounded, Navy Capt. Tim Hawkins, U.S. Central Command spokesperson, told DefenseScoop. Of those injured, the majority have since returned to duty. Six remain seriously wounded.

Reuters contributed to this report.

The fifth vessel ordered at the end of March will be delivered in 2032, the French Armed Forces Ministry said in a statement late Thursday. France ordered the fourth vessel in the class in December, and both units will be built at Naval Group’s site in Lorient in western France, according to the company.

“The Ministry of the Armed Forces renews its confidence in us to complete the series of defense and intervention frigates,” Naval Group Chief Executive Officer Pierre Éric Pommellet said in a statement. “We are thus fully mobilized to provide the French Navy with the means to achieve naval superiority, in the service of France’s sovereignty.”

Delivery of the last FDI will complete France’s program for a fleet of 15 first-rate frigates, a number that French Navy commander Adm. Nicolas Vaujour has said was dictated by budgetary constraints. Vaujour has maintained his force needs 18 frigates for a “coherent format,” and some lawmakers have been calling to increase the latest FDI order to eight vessels.

The program for the five FDI frigates was budgeted at €4.28 billion ($4.9 billion), according to France’s 2019 accounts. The fifth vessel will be handed over three years later than the original 2029 schedule, in part due to industrial difficulties for the first unit, the Covid-19 pandemic, delays with weapon integration, and reallocation of production slots to accommodate an order by Greece.

The first frigate in the class, the Amiral Ronarc’h, was delivered in October, and is currently on a long-term deployment. The frigate joined the carrier strike group around the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in the north Atlantic in February to test its radars, electronic warfare suite and combat system in a tactical environment.

Naval Group said the FDI can handle rough seas, with the crew of Amiral Ronarc’h “able to observe its aptitude” during trials in Sea State 6 in the Atlantic Ocean. That sea state corresponds to “very rough” conditions with waves of 4 to 6 meters, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

With a length of 122 meters and displacement of around 4,500 tons, the FDI is smaller than new-generation frigates being built or planned in the U.K., Spain, Italy and Germany. The FDIs are designed for high-intensity combat, armed with Exocet anti-ship missiles, Aster air-defense missiles, MU90 torpedoes and a 76 mm cannon, and equipped with a Thales Sea Fire radar with four fixed panels.

Naval Group’s FDI is in competition for a Swedish order for four frigates, with a decision expected in coming months. France has touted its ability to supply a fully equipped and armed frigate in 2030, the target set by the Swedish government for first deliveries, with Naval Group saying in October the yard is able to produce two FDI frigates a year.

Norway in August last year picked the United Kingdom’s Type 26 frigate, primarily manufactured by BAE Systems, over the smaller French design.

Greece in November exercised an option for a fourth FDI frigate, on top of three vessels previously ordered, and in March sent the frigate Kimon, its first vessel in the class, to Cyprus.

While the first two French vessels in the class will be equipped with 16 vertical launch cells due to previously made budget decisions, numbers three to five are to be equipped with 32 cells, similar to the configuration for Greece. The first two frigates will be upgraded to double the number of launch cells at a later stage, according to the government.

France describes the frigate as fully digital, equipped with “significant computer power” to process the information gathered by the vessel’s onboard sensors, as well as a redundant data center.

Trump said he viewed U.S. membership in the defense pact as not merely up for debate but “beyond reconsideration.” However, he cannot withdraw unilaterally; doing so would require a two-thirds Senate majority or an act of Congress. Neither option, senators say, is likely to materialize.

“Any President that contemplates attempting to withdraw from NATO is not only fulfilling Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping’s greatest dreams but would be undermining America’s own national security interests,” Senators Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., co-chairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group, said in a statement.

“Let us be clear, Congress will not allow the United States to withdraw from NATO,” they continued. “Congress and the American people know we are stronger when we stand with our allies. This is a basic fact and one that we ignore only to our own detriment.”

The president’s ire at European allies stems from what he describes as lackluster backing for the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran. From the other side of the Atlantic, many governments attribute their reluctance to Trump’s failure to consult them before launching the operation — and to the perception that it was a war of choice.

Trump has repeatedly called on allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a critical waterway that typically carries a quarter of the world’s oil — which Iran has effectively blocked in retaliation for the war. NATO, so far, has demurred.

Trump has since dismissed the alliance as a “paper tiger,” but Shaheen and Tillis argue this is belied by NATO’s response after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Roughly 3,500 American and allied troops died over the subsequent 20-year war in Afghanistan.

Trump threatens to walk away from NATO

Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Senator Chris Coons, D-Del., also issued a joint statement on Wednesday underscoring NATO’s fight alongside American forces.

“The only time NATO has gone to war has been in response to an attack on America,” McConnell and Coons wrote. “The United States must not take this sacrifice — nor our allies’ commitment to make it again — lightly.“

The senators added: “Alliance disputes are as old as the alliance itself. Americans are safer when NATO is strong and united. It is in our interest for all allies to tend this unity with care.”

French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday warned that the tension between Trump and NATO, and the U.S. president’s constant “chatter,” could fundamentally weaken the alliance.

“Alliances like NATO are valued from the unspoken — meaning the trust behind them," Macron said during a state visit to South Korea. “If you create daily doubt about your commitment, you hollow it out.”

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.”

Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur confirmed last week that an agreement had been reached with an unnamed manufacturer to construct a large-caliber ammunition plant at the Põhja-Kiviõli defense industry park, with the investor committing at least €300 million ($346 million) to the project. The plant will produce short-, medium- and long-range munitions.

According to Estonia’s public broadcaster ERR, the company is Swedish. That narrows the field significantly: The main company in question would likely be BAE Systems’ subfirm Bofors, a storied Swedish artillery and ammunition producer. Bofors was split around the turn of the century between its artillery branch, which ultimately went to BAE, and the missile section, which went to Saab.

When contacted by ERR, BAE Systems spokesperson Matthew Knowles declined to confirm or deny the company’s involvement, saying only that Estonia is an important partner to the company and directing questions to the government.

Pevkur said the company had been promised confidentiality until contracts are formally signed, which is expected to happen in mid-April. He confirmed the firm is neither South Korea’s Hanwha Aerospace nor the U.S. giant Lockheed Martin.

The planned factory at Põhja-Kiviõli is one piece of a broader and rapidly expanding Estonian defense industry effort. The Ermistu defense industry park in Pärnumaa is already set to host four companies − including U.K.-linked Odin Defence and Estonian explosives maker Nitrotol − with production expected to begin as early as 2027. Separately, Tallinn has set up a state-owned company, Hexest AS, to produce RDX explosives, a key component in 155mm shell filling, with that facility expected to be in action by 2028.

The push is a consequence of both Russia’s war in Ukraine and the persistent ammunition shortages that have exposed the risks of over-reliance on a handful of producers. Estonia, which borders Russia and has among the highest defense spending as a share of GDP in NATO, is betting that sovereign production capacity is worth the price tag.

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.

Two weeks earlier, on March 13, five KC-135 Stratotanker refueling aircraft were damaged on the flight line, two U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal, as reported by Military Times.

Since Feb. 28, Iran has struck radar systems, satellite communications and mission-critical aircraft at at least seven U.S. bases across Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The attacks have focused on infrastructure that U.S. forces depend on to detect threats, refuel aircraft and direct air operations in the region.

By late March, Iranian missile and drone launches had dropped more than 90% since the conflict began, according to U.S. Central Command. Meanwhile, the attacks that persist have zeroed in on radar sites, SATCOM terminals, tankers and now an AWACS.

Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, said the pattern points to deliberate targeting, rather than opportunism. The strikes are systematic and target three “distinct functional categories,” she said, including radar and communications infrastructure, aerial refueling tankers and now the AWACS.

“Each is a critical enabler of U.S. air operations,” Grieco told Defense News. “That’s not random. That’s a target set derived from an understanding of how U.S. airpower functions and where it is most exposed. The pattern suggests deliberate doctrine, or something close enough to it, not opportunism.”

Joe Costa, director of the Atlantic Council’s Forward Defense program and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for plans and posture, said Iran’s targeting approach makes tactical sense.

“It’s much easier to hit stationary infrastructure on the ground than planes flying in the air,” Costa said. “The U.S. has a dynamic process to quickly reallocate global resources to mitigate risks to troops and the mission, but the real cost is the cumulative impacts this operation will have on long-term readiness for other U.S. priorities.

“The more assets we use and lose now, the less will be available later until maintenance cycles, repairs and new purchases are complete.”

Strikes on communications, missile defense infrastructure

Iran’s retaliatory campaign targeted communications infrastructure from the opening hours of the conflict.

On Feb. 28, an Iranian drone struck Naval Support Activity Bahrain, home of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet. Satellite imagery later obtained by The New York Times showed damage to large SATCOM terminals at the installation.

Satellite imagery also confirmed damage to the AN/FPS-132 phased array early warning radar in Qatar, with at least one of the system’s three arrays struck in the opening days of the conflict, according to Planet Labs imagery obtained by the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. Similar strikes hit radar facilities at Al Ruwais and Al Sader in the UAE, according to satellite imagery reported by The War Zone.

Qatar purchased the AN/FPS-132 radar system from the U.S. in 2013 for $1.1 billion. The Iranian drones used to strike it cost an estimated $20,000 to $60,000 per unit.

CENTCOM and Space Force Public Affairs directed Defense News to previously released operational updates and declined to comment further about the strikes.

The targeting also extended to missile defense infrastructure.

Satellite imagery confirmed the AN/TPY-2 radar for a U.S. THAAD battery at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan was struck and apparently destroyed in the opening days of the conflict, later confirmed by a U.S. official. The AN/TPY-2 is the primary sensor for the THAAD system. Without it, a THAAD battery cannot independently search for or track targets.

An already waning E-3 fleet

The damage to the Prince Sultan E-3 on March 27 comes at a time when the fleet is already stretched thin. The Air Force’s E-3 inventory has dwindled to 16 aircraft, the last delivered by Boeing in 1992.

In fiscal 2024, the fleet posted a mission-capable rate of 55.68%, according to Air Force data reported by Air & Space Forces Magazine, meaning fewer than nine aircraft were operationally available on any given day.

As of March 26, the Atlantic Council’s Forward Defense program, which tracks U.S. military assets committed to Operation Epic Fury, estimated that between 66% and 75% of the available E-3 fleet was deployed to the theater.

Air & Space Forces Magazine, which reviewed imagery of the damaged aircraft, reported the extent of the damage likely renders the E-3 unrepairable.

Grieco said the near-term impact is real, but manageable. Prior to the damage, six aircraft were forward-deployed, and the theater was operating “at the margins of what continuous battle management coverage requires,” she told Defense News.

“Five aircraft means accepting either a single continuous orbit or periodic gaps when a second cannot be regularly sustained. In those gaps, the air picture degrades, air battle management is less effective and the theater’s ability to coordinate a complex, multi-aircraft operation becomes significantly more constrained,” she said.

“The United States could send another E-3 to the theater,” Grieco added, “but there are only 15 left in the entire fleet — and every one deployed to the Middle East is one less available everywhere else.”

Philip Sheers, an associate fellow in the Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security, said the loss emphasizes the burden on the airborne battle management fleet. About half of the 16-aircraft E-3 fleet is mission capable, he said, and with six in the Middle East, only two or three remain for other needs.

“There is very little slack remaining for flexibility and adjustment, and that places a huge burden on the remaining fleet as well as other systems to fill in the gaps, potentially at the expense of other priorities,” Sheers said.

A ‘massive alarm bell’ for air defense

A March 2026 report by the Center for a New American Security warned that proposed alternatives to dedicated airborne battle management aircraft, including space-based sensors and fighter-based networks, are either longer-term technological prospects, unproven at battle management or highly vulnerable, and should be treated as complements rather than substitutes.

Replacing the airborne capability will take time.

The Pentagon moved to cancel the E-7 Wedgetail program in its fiscal 2026 budget request, citing cost growth, from $588 million to $724 million per aircraft, as well as survivability concerns in contested airspace. Congress reversed the decision, preserving the program in the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act and blocking further E-3 retirements until enough Wedgetails are in service.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the E-7’s first flight has slipped to May 2027, with full operational capability now projected for the early 2030s. Space-based systems proposed by the Pentagon as a longer-term alternative face a similar timeline, according to Space Force officials.

Near-term, Sheers said the loss will increase operational strain on the remaining E-3s and could result in increased dependence on carrier-based E-2 Hawkeyes and the Australian E-7 Wedgetail.

“The demand for airborne sensing to manage cruise missile and drone threats is not going anywhere,” he told Defense News. “Medium and long-term, this all bodes very poorly for E-3 readiness and highlights the need for DoD and Congress to resource a real solution to the shrinking and aging E-3 fleet.”

The KC-135 tanker fleet faces parallel pressures. Already cannibalizing parts from the boneyard, the Cold War-era jets have absorbed repeated strikes.

In addition to the five KC-135s damaged at Prince Sultan on March 13, multiple refueling aircraft were also hit in the March 27 strike, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Costa pointed to broader implications that outlast the current conflict.

“The continued use and possible reallocation of high-demand, low-density assets like air defense systems will impact readiness for other U.S. global priorities,” Costa said. “That’s the real strategic tradeoff.”

Sheers said the conflict should serve as a warning well beyond the Middle East.

“The entirety of this conflict should be a massive alarm bell on the need for passive defenses, not just for U.S. forces in the Middle East, but over the homeland where drone incursions are increasingly frequent, and especially in the Indo-Pacific, where the Chinese missile threat is orders of magnitude larger and more difficult to suppress,” he told Defense News.

“Airbase vulnerability has been an issue for decades, and the drumbeat of independent analysis on this issue could not be louder,” he added. “If DoD doesn’t take these events as a wake-up call, we are setting ourselves up for disaster in a future great power conflict.”

Grieco suggested the effects may already be rippling through the campaign in ways that don’t show up in publicly available strike counts.

Those “less visible metrics” include tanker availability, AWACS coverage gaps and stockpile constraints, she said.

“If Iran’s strikes on radar and communications infrastructure are compressing warning times and creating gaps in the missile defense network, that’s operationally significant even if no additional aircraft are destroyed,” she said.

“The threshold for material degradation isn’t a single dramatic loss. It’s the accumulation of constraints that make the campaign more expensive, less flexible and less effective over time. We may already be past it in ways that won’t be visible until the campaign’s operational history is written.”

The air-defense interception rate has been steadily rising in recent months, according to data from Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, climbing to 89.9% in March from 85.6% in February and 80.2% in December. At the same time, Russian attacks increased to 6,600 last month from 5,345 in February, the ministry said in a social media post on Wednesday.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last week visited Middle Eastern countries facing Iranian drone attacks, offering to share the interception expertise Ukraine has built up over four years of Russian air war. With air-defense missiles in short supply and costly, Ukraine has turned to solutions ranging from AI-assisted machine guns on pickup trucks to electronic warfare and interceptor drones.

“The frequency of attacks is increasing but air defense performance is improving,” the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense said.

Russia is promoting its own air-defense successes, with TASS reporting on Tuesday that a so-called Donbass Dome is making Ukraine’s high-speed Skat drone ineffective, citing claims by the Russian Federal Security Service Directorate. The air-defense system is able to repel “virtually any drone of this type,” the state-owned news agency said.

Ukraine is building a multi-layered air defense system and stepping up production of interceptors in order to protect civilians and critical infrastructure, according to a war plan presented by Minister of Defense Mykhailo Fedorov in February. The goal is real-time detection of all aerial threats, and intercepting at least 95% of them.

The country could produce 2,000 drone interceptors a day, provided it has sufficient funding, Zelenskyy told Reuters in an interview in March. In the Kyiv region in February, more than 70% of Russian Shahed-type drones were destroyed by interceptor drones, according to Ukraine’s commander in chief Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi.

Recent Ukrainian interceptor-drone models include the JEDI Shahed Hunter, a multi-rotor drone that can hit speeds of more 350 kilometers per hour, and the winged Shvidun with a speed of more than 250 kilometers per hour and an operational range of more than 70 kilometers.

Beyond equipment innovation, Ukraine is also experimenting by allowing private companies to develop their own air-defense capabilities to protect infrastructure, while being part of the broader command-and-control system. One company already shot down several drones in Kharkiv Oblast, with another 13 firms authorized to set up air-defense groups, the Ministry of Defense said on Monday.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, Poland’s priority is to protect Polish skies, according to Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, the country’s deputy prime minister and national defense minister.

“Our Patriot batteries and their armament serve to secure the Polish skies and NATO’s eastern flank. Nothing is changing in this field, and we do not plan to move them anywhere,” Kosiniak-Kamysz said in a social media post on March 31. “Our allies know well and understand how important are our tasks here.”

In March 2018, Poland signed a deal to purchase two Configuration 3+ batteries for around $4.75 billion. The nation launched the second phase of its mid-range air-defense program in May 2022 by requesting the United States to supply a further six Patriot batteries with related gear. In December 2025, Poland declared the first two batteries reached full operational readiness.

Kosiniak-Kamysz’s statement followed reports of informal requests originating from the U.S. government for the deployment of one of Poland’s batteries to the Middle East. Washington has unofficially asked whether Warsaw could also supply some of the PAC-3 MSE interceptors from the Polish military’s stock to Middle Eastern nations whose supply is being depleted by Iran’s attacks, local daily Rzeczpospolita reported.

At a March 31 press conference, Adam Szłapka, a spokesperson for the Polish government, said the Patriot systems “are to serve Poland’s security” and did not answer a question whether the U.S. had in fact requested such a transfer.

Some of the operators of Patriot systems in the Gulf region include Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Armin Papperger made the remarks on Ukraine in an interview with The Atlantic, published March 27, conducted at Rheinmetall’s Unterlüß factory. Discussing Ukrainian drone manufacturers − including companies such as Fire Point and Skyfall, named by the interviewer − Papperger said the producers were “Ukrainian housewives” and described the work as “playing with Lego.”

“This is not the technology of Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics or Rheinmetall,” he said.

The backlash was swift and came from multiple directions. Within 48 hours, Rheinmetall’s own corporate communications published a statement saying the company “deeply respects the enormous efforts of the Ukrainian people in self-defense against Russian aggression” and called the Ukrainian “innovative strength and fighting spirit” a “source of inspiration.”

Papperger has been the company’s CEO since 2013.

Rheinmetall runs multiple joint ventures in Ukraine and has staked much of its rearmament narrative on being a trusted partner of Kyiv.

The Ukrainian drone industry, while heavily reliant on Chinese components, has developed battlefield capabilities, from one-way attack FPVs to long-range strike drones, that have demonstrably shaped the course of the war in ways no Western prime contractor has replicated at comparable speed or cost.

In October, Papperger had already called into question the importance of drones in the war in Ukraine, telling Handelsblatt, a German business publication, that modern wars are still fought primarily with tanks and missiles. “There are a lot of these narratives circulating right now that claim future wars will be fought exclusively with drones. I think that’s nonsense,” he was quoted as saying.

The timing of his latest remarks collided with unflattering news on Rheinmetall’s home turf. According to German news magazine Stern, reporting on March 31 based on sources in Bundeswehr and parliamentary circles, the Defense Ministry expects delivery of the first serial Skyranger 30 systems with a delay of at least 16 months. That pushes initial deliveries to 2027 at the earliest. The fully developed version would not reach the Bundeswehr until 2029, according to Stern.

Rheinmetall, when asked, said the delay amounts to five months.

The Skyranger 30 is a 30mm air-defense and counter-drone cannon mounted on a Boxer armored vehicle. Stern reported that the delay stems from technical problems integrating key turret components and a failure to incorporate a guided missile originally included in the system’s specification. Under contract terms reviewed by the magazine, Rheinmetall could face a penalty of up to €25 million ($29 million). Neither Rheinmetall nor the Defense Ministry confirmed this number, with the ministry citing trade secrets.

Rheinmetall had proposed an interim solution: a reduced-capability, truck-mounted variant, quoted at approximately €300 million ($348 million). Stern reported that both the ministry and the army rejected the offer after a shooting test deemed unsatisfactory.

Rheinmetall’s stock price remains around 15 times higher than it was before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The Bundeswehr is urgently rebuilding its short-range air defense capacity, largely gutted after the Cold War, at a moment when the war in Ukraine has made drone threats the most pressing tactical challenge on the European continent. Germany has framed its rearmament as a matter of strategic urgency, and Rheinmetall has been the central industrial beneficiary of that program.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called Papperger’s comments “strange” earlier this week, the Associated Press reported.

“If every Ukrainian housewife can really produce drones, then every Ukrainian housewife could also be the CEO of Rheinmetall,” he told reporters via voicemail on WhatsApp, AP reported. “I congratulate our defense-industrial complex on being at such a high level.”

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."

Military analysts point to several possibilities, including coastal assaults, nuclear site raids or operations deeper inside the country.

Any one of these missions could unfold alone or evolve into something more broad. But across each scenario, U.S. forces would enter an environment where Iranian missiles, drones and ground units could begin targeting them as soon as they arrive.

A battle for the waterway

One version of the fight would likely unfold along the water.

U.S. forces could be tasked with seizing islands or coastal positions to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a global shipping route that has been heavily disrupted by the war with Iran.

The mission could be a limited ground incursion, with Marines and airborne units deploying to seize important terrain, said Joe Costa, director of the Forward Defense program at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center.

President Donald Trump has publicly threatened Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export hub, which is located off the country’s coast.

In a Truth Social post on Monday, he said the U.S. would finish its “stay” in Iran, by “completely obliterating” Kharg Island.

Costa, a former senior Pentagon official who worked on U.S. war plans, including Iran, acknowledged speculation about Kharg, but also described a scenario in which U.S. forces would try to secure islands such as Abu Musa, Larak and the Tunbs, off Iran’s southern coast.

“This helps us take out Iranian reconnaissance units as we think of ways to reopen Hormuz. If you have the ability to secure some of the ports along the coast as well, you go a long way to supporting naval assets to start to open up the Strait,” Costa said, adding that the operation could rely on Marine units for the initial assault, with airborne forces supporting limited incursions and air assault operations — all under U.S. air superiority.

The USS Tripoli and embarked 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit arrived in the region’s waters last Friday, and the elements of the 82nd Airborne Division are deploying to the Middle East, the Pentagon confirmed last week.

An opening fight would not be in isolation, Costa said, and though there are mixed reports about Iranian military capacity right now, the country still appears to have functional command and control and is capable of attacks.

The first waves of U.S. ground troops would undoubtedly face Iranian fire, Costa warned.

“We have overwhelming force and would likely be successful in securing territory, but at that point every commander will face the daily decision of assuming risk to troops or risk to mission — force protection becomes paramount, especially if we start to see casualties mount up,” he said, adding, “There’s a high risk of that in this operation.”

Targeting nuclear sites

A different type of operation would focus on Iran’s nuclear program instead of territory.

Instead of seizing ground, U.S. forces could be tasked with entering fortified sites and securing material, likely under fire and deep within Iranian territory.

An operation aimed at seizing enriched uranium would likely involve special forces at a nuclear site in Isfahan, a populous city in the center of the country, said Nicole Grajewski, an expert on Iran’s missiles and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Excavating nuclear material would require a myriad of support, from construction equipment to Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear assets, Grajewski, a professor at Sciences Po, said.

Ground forces would likely have to dig deep underground to access the highly enriched uranium canisters “and then go in there, excavate it, then get out of the country,” she added.

An extraction team would likely be met with force. The area is heavily trafficked, and the nuclear site in Isfahan is located near numerous military and missile facilities, making it exceedingly risky.

Grajewski described the operation as likely “one that the U.S. military has not really done before,” and said experts could only speculate on how it would be accomplished.

“I’m not sure how they’re thinking about doing it,” she said, pondering if “they’re going to fly in there and do this quick extraction under the guise of night?”

Iran’s response

Even targeted operations like seizing an island or extracting nuclear materials carry the risk of evolving into something larger.

Dan Grazier, the director of the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center, said the challenges U.S. forces may face goes beyond securing land or items. It centers on how Iran chooses to fight once American soldiers are on its ground.

“The Iranians are going to do whatever they can to kill and capture as many Americans as they can,” said Grazier, who is also a Marine Corps veteran, “for the propaganda victory alone.”

Rather than seeking decisive engagement, Iranian forces would likely avoid conventional confrontation and stretch the conflict over time, he said. Instead of defeating U.S. forces, he added, Iran’s objective becomes making the conflict costly and prolonged, forcing leaders in Washington to decide whether the fight is worth continuing.

Any sustained ground operation would also risk widening the battlefield, as Iran could activate proxy groups across the region to further target U.S. forces and partners.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies in early March estimated that the first 100 hours of the war cost billions of dollars, and experts warn that critical air defense interceptors could be depleted faster than the rate of replacement.

The human cost has also risen as the war enters its second month. Thirteen American service members had been killed and over 300 injured as of late March. A survey earlier in March found that a majority of Americans thought the war had gone too far, and a separate poll showed diminished confidence in the president’s handling of it.

“The Iranians don’t stand any chance of defeating the United States on the ground, I don’t think,” Grazier said. “They do stand a chance of defeating the United States politically back home.”

Leavitt, asked at a news briefing whether Arab countries would step up to help pay for the war, said she would not get ahead of the Republican president but that it was an idea that Trump had.

“I think it’s something the President would be quite interested in calling them to do,” Leavitt said.

“It’s an idea that I know that he has and something that I think you’ll hear more from him on.”

Leavitt said that what Tehran says publicly differs from what it tells U.S. officials in private and that Iran had privately agreed to some of Washington’s points.

“Despite all of the public posturing you hear from the regime and false reporting, talks are continuing and going well. What is said publicly is, of course, much different than what’s being communicated to us privately,” Leavitt said.

Trump earlier on Monday warned that Iran’s energy plants and oil wells would be obliterated if it did not open the Strait of Hormuz, after Tehran described U.S. peace proposals as “unrealistic” and fired waves of missiles at Israel.

‘Regime change’

Trump has said that negotiations with Tehran were going well and suggested that “regime change” in Iran is complete.

“We’ve had regime change, if you look, already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed, they’re all dead. The next regime is mostly dead. And the third regime, we’re dealing with different people than anybody’s dealt with before. It’s a whole different group of people,” Trump told reporters on Sunday.

“So I would consider that regime change, and frankly, they’ve been very reasonable.”

But U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Good Morning America on Monday that while it would be good news if Iran had new leadership and people in charge “who have a more reasonable vision of the future,” the U.S. also had to “be prepared for the possibility, maybe even the probability, that that is not the case.”

Leavitt, asked on Monday how the U.S. will ensure it is making a deal with people who can implement it, warned that anything Iran says to Washington privately will be tested and that the U.S. would ensure that Tehran is held accountable.

“If they are not, the President has laid out the military consequences that the Iranian regime will see if they don’t hold true to the words that we are hearing privately behind the scenes,” she said.

The reusable Bird of Prey interceptor drone completed its first demonstration flight at a military training area in northern Germany in a “realistic mission scenario,” the companies said in a joint statement on Monday. The interceptor autonomously searched, detected and classified a medium-sized one-way attack drone, which it then engaged with Frankenburg’s Mark I air-to-air missile.

The war in Ukraine and conflicts in the Middle East have underscored the challenge of defending against relatively low-cost one-way munitions such as Iran’s Shahed drones, which can cost a fraction of the interceptors used to shoot them down, leaving Western militaries and defense firms scrambling to find affordable countermeasures rather than relying on scarce, high-end air-defense missiles.

“Defending against kamikaze drones is a tactical priority that urgently needs to be tackled,” said Mike Schoellhorn, the chief executive officer of Airbus Defence and Space, in a statement. He said the Airbus drone with Frankenburg’s affordable missiles is an “effective, cost-efficient interceptor, filling a crucial capability gap in today’s asymmetric conflict theaters.”

The Bird of Prey drone is based on the jet-powered Airbus Do-DT25 target drone, which has a published maximum speed of 300 knots, or 555 kilometers per hour.

The drone-missile combination makes large-scale interception economically viable, with a single reusable interceptor able to perform multiple air-to-air engagements, with an “order-of-magnitude reduction in cost per intercept,” Frankenburg said in a social-media post. Integration of its missile on the Airbus platform was completed in nine months, according to the startup.

Airbus & Frankenburg: Mark I missile engages kamikaze drone in first airborne intercept

Frankenburg’s Mark I guided interceptor missile has been successfully integrated for air-to-air launch with @AirbusDefence Bird of Prey uncrewed interceptor drone.

In a live demonstration,… pic.twitter.com/L6pmjxssJO

— Frankenburg Technologies (@FrankenburgTech) March 30, 2026

The interceptor-drone prototype has a wingspan of 2.5 meters (8.2 feet) and a maximum takeoff weight of 160 kilograms. The drone in the test was equipped with four of Frankenburg’s Mark 1 missiles, while the operational version will be able to carry eight of the missiles, the companies said.

“This is a defining step for modern air defense,” Frankenburg CEO Kusti Salm said. “It marks the first integration of a new class of low-cost, mass-manufacturable interceptor missiles onto a drone, creating a new cost curve for air defense and enabling defense against mass aerial threats at a fundamentally different scale.”

The Frankenburg Mark 1 missile is a high subsonic, fire-and-forget missile with an engagement range of up to 1.5 kilometers (0.9 mile), and its length of 65 centimeters and weight of less than 2 kilograms makes the Mark 1 the lightest guided interceptor developed to date, according to the companies. The missiles are equipped with a fragmentation warhead.

Airbus and Frankenburg plan more test flights in 2026 with a live warhead to move to “further operationalize” the system, and demonstrate its capabilities to potential customers. Bird of Prey is designed to fit into NATO’s integrated air-defense architecture via Airbus’s integrated battle-management system, the companies said.

In an effort to export Ukrainian systems and know-how, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has criss-crossed the Gulf region this weekend to hash out deals with countries that have been targeted by waves of Iranian drone attacks this month.

“Ukraine is sharing expertise that is not available in the Middle East,” Zelenskyy told Reuters in an interview last week. “Expertise is not a drone, but a skill, a strategy, a system where a drone is one part of the defense.”

Indeed, Ukraine has signed framework cooperation deals with Saudi Arabia and Qatar in recent days, and has said one is in the works with the United Arab Emirates. Zelenskyy has stressed that arms sales must be decided at the government level, warning businesses against engaging with clients directly.

Ukraine’s drone sector is chomping at the bit.

“Everybody is sitting and waiting,” said Oleg Rogynskyy, CEO of UForce, a UK-headquartered Ukrainian military tech company which says its Magura sea drone has been the subject of intense commercial interest from the Middle East.

Several industry figures said the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran had underlined the potency of attack drones in modern warfare and exposed many countries’ vulnerabilities to their threat.

The conflict, some added, presented Ukraine with a unique opportunity to jumpstart exports and create a world-leading industry that could provide the backbone for post-war reconstruction and prosperity.

Wild Hornets and SkyFall, two other top Ukrainian interceptor drone makers, said they too had received inquiries from Middle Eastern countries but like UForce were not directly negotiating contracts before getting a green light from Kyiv.

Anastasiia Mishkina, executive director at Tech Force in UA, an association of nearly 100 Ukrainian defense companies, said some members had asked the government for permission to export and were waiting for a response.

“There is a risk of losing the moment because the international market does not wait,” she said.

The government did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether it risked moving too slowly on defense cooperation at a time of opportunity.

SEA DRONES MOUNTED WITH INTERCEPTORS

Ukraine has developed its technology and expertise over years of countering Russia’s drone attacks - a threat that Gulf states now face from Iran’s relatively cheap Shahed drones.

Hundreds of Russian drones are often fired at Ukraine in a single night, spurring an innovation race with the military and private firms developing interceptor drones to bring enemy craft down before they hit their targets.

These interceptors cost a few thousand dollars each, although they do not always succeed and Russia is constantly coming up with ways to get past them.

Ihor Fedirko, CEO of the Ukrainian Council of Defence Industry, a manufacturers’ association, estimated that Ukraine could export about $2 billion worth of weapons as a whole this year, excluding joint production ventures with allies.

He predicted that in a best-case scenario, annual defense exports could reach as much as $10 billion in five years.

Ukraine produced 40,000 interceptor drones in January, according to the government, which has made it clear the country will not export any weapons it needs to defend itself. Zelenskyy says that provided enough financing, Ukraine has the capacity to up its production to 2,000 interceptor drones a day and would only need 1,000 for itself, leaving plenty for export.

Rogynskyy, the UForce CEO, said the Magura sea drone produced by his company had obvious allure in the Gulf.

Ukraine initially used sea drones to attack and harry Russian warships in the Black Sea as an asymmetrical weapon to take on the dominant naval force. They have since become more sophisticated, with Rogynskyy saying they could be mounted with interceptor drones to combat aerial drones over water.

Ukraine’s military, he added, was already using the Magura off its southern coast to intercept Russian drones that pour into the port city of Odesa from across the Black Sea at night.

“It’s fully live, it’s tested,” he said.

Rogynskyy said stations equipped with Maguras carrying interceptors could be sited along the Gulf’s shoreline, operating on software that reduced the need for many personnel.

‘BETTER TO LEARN LATE THAN TOO LATE’

Zelenskyy has previously berated an unnamed Ukrainian-American company for selling interceptor drones without the government’s involvement.

That, he said, had ultimately tainted Ukraine’s reputation because the soldiers needed to train the clients to use the drones had not been available as that could only happen with government backing.

Halyna Yanchenko, a lawmaker close to Ukrainian defense manufacturers, told Reuters the government had moved very slowly to open up weapons exports, and manufacturers were still in dire need of capital to grow their operations.

She said state policy governing how weapons exports would function was still being formed. Like Mishkina at Tech Force in UA, she believed there was a major risk that Ukraine could miss the moment provided by the Iran war if it did not move quickly.

Even if agreements are struck, officials and drone operators said it could take months to set up drone-based air defenses and provide training.

Taras Tymochko, head of the interceptor drone program at Come Back Alive, a charitable foundation that has bought tens of thousands of interceptor drones for Ukraine’s military, said the sophisticated systems required a range of specialisms, from pilot training, combat experience and the know-how to safely arming warheads and fix technical malfunctions.

More important still, he said, was installing, configuring and correctly positioning radars to detect and track incoming drones and then to coordinate that work across different units.

He predicted the learning curve would be quicker for the Gulf states than for Ukraine, which had to forge ahead on its own while fighting for its survival.

“I’m confident that within a few months, some Gulf countries could form their own interceptor units and, a little later, begin demonstrating results,” Tymochko said.

“Unfortunately, in today’s reality, that time does not exist. But it is better to learn late than too late.”

This development marks a key shift in the country’s defense strategy. Japan committed to acquiring 400 Tomahawks last year to equip its eight Aegis destroyers as part of a larger standoff capability, which includes fielding upgraded Type 12 missiles in the southwest and deploying hyper velocity gliding projectile systems across the country.

The existing missile defense network may not be fully capable of responding to threats, Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi told reporters in a briefing on Friday.

“To prevent missiles flying through the missile defense network and to prevent further armed attacks, it is necessary to … have the ability to counterattack. Stand-off missiles can also be used for this counterattack ability,” Koizumi said.

Japan sprinkles fresh missiles across its islands to fend off would-be attackers

The destroyer’s launcher modification marks a landmark milestone in the country’s efforts to rapidly deploy stand-off capabilities and bolster deterrence measures, he added.

Stand-off weaponry describes a class of ams with ranges so long that operators can fire them from a safe distance, without fearing countermeasures capable of reaching them.

The defense ministry introduced stand-off capabilities in 2017, and it formed the core of the security strategy shift in 2020, which later expanded to additional policy documents, including a detailed buildup plan in the country’s southwest in 2022.

The Tomahawk cruise missiles can be launched from ships or submarines with a range of over 1,600km. The Japanese variant can be rerouted during flight, and advanced versions are capable of hitting moving targets.

The refitted JS Chokai can load and fire both the Block IV and V variants of the cruise missiles.

JS Chokai arrived at Naval Base San Diego, California, in October 2025 for renovations and crew training with the U.S. Third Fleet. Live-fire training is scheduled for August, before JS Chokai returns to its home port in Sasebo Naval Base in the southwestern Kyushu Island in September.

Japan is moving toward a “denial and limited strike” model by fast-tracking the implementation of its 2022 strategy, maritime security expert Benjamin Blandin told Defense News. Blandin is a research fellow at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taiwan.

“Japan is operationalizing a long overdue counterstrike capability, shifting from strict homeland defense to semi-regional deterrence by being able to strike ground and naval targets at up to 1000 km,” Blandin said.

Japan’s existing defense force, including its stand-off missile capability, is the “minimum necessary for self-defense,” Koizumi said, adding that these would only be used “in the event of an armed attack from another country … and it does not pose a threat to other countries.”

Analysts have raised worries that the U.S. Tomahawk stockpile may be strained after reports indicated that over 800 missiles were used in four weeks during Operation Epic Fury against Iran, and this might impact missile orders for allies, including Japan.

Blandin said Japan’s Tomahawk orders are unlikely to be affected immediately, but prolonged military campaigns in the Middle East could cause minor to moderate setbacks.

American manufacturer RTX, in a Feb. 4 press release, said it had signed five agreements with the U.S. Department of Defense to boost production and expedite deliveries of Land Attack and Maritime Strike variants of the Tomahawk cruise missiles, with annual production expected to increase to more than 1,000.

“No major impact expected in regards to Iran, as deliveries will not take place all at once but probably over the course of a few years,” Blandin said. “In any case, the U.S. will likely prioritize Japan as a key Indo-Pacific ally.”

The gap between what Europe should be doing for defense and its actual capabilities undermines deterrence, risking Russian aggression if Moscow concludes Europe or NATO are too weak to resist attack, Vandier said at the Paris Defense & Strategy Forum on March 25.

Ensuring Europe’s safety in the next decade requires “a dramatic increase of credibility of our deterrence,” he said.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sparked a technology race, with Ukraine innovating to make up for its smaller force and Russia adapting in response. The result is a war unlike any NATO has faced, with thousands of drones used each day on a battlefield saturated by electronic warfare, where constant surveillance makes movement deadly and unmanned systems destroy tanks and warships.

“A shock is a period where you need to invent a new world, a new way of doing things,” Vandier said. “It’s what you see in Ukraine. Short of everything but the enemy, they have to invent a new war. And this is coming. And our enemies are doing the same, they are inventing the next war.”

While the evolution of warfare in Ukraine and now the Middle East signals an “era of shocks,” Europe remains in crisis-management mode, according to Vandier. He said countries need to start delivering, because “we are weak, the stockpile is not very big, the enemy knows that.”

The challenge is not to simply continue along the same lines, but to evaluate what is needed to maintain security in a “totally different world,” Vandier said. The return of mass is one of the key challenges for allies not organized for that kind of warfare, with many Western systems that can’t be mass produced.

“How do we deal with mass?” Vandier asked. “And as far as I can see, it’s the same problem on the other side of the Atlantic. If we do more of the same, we will not answer the question.”

Vandier said Russia and Iran produce hundreds of Shahed drones for every single AIM-120 or AIM-9 interceptor, and doubling or tripling output won’t close that gap. Protecting Europe with Patriot air-defense batteries would require ten times as many, but with a seven-year lead time, “you will not be protected by Patriots in the next five years.”

“You have far more targets than weapons to kill it,” Vandier said. “You need to invent something different. It’s what is going on in Ukraine.”

Vandier warned that simply spending more won’t be enough, noting how Gulf states have struggled to defend critical infrastructure against waves of relatively cheap Iranian drones and missiles despite vast resources. Western failure to prepare risks similar vulnerabilities, he said.

“It’s not a question of money, it’s a question of speed, it’s a question of making the right choices,” Vandier said. “More of the same will not save us.”

Speed of adaptation remains a core issue, with common-funded NATO projects taking years just to define requirements as countries seek to include their specifications, Vandier said. Meanwhile, Shahed drones have received five updates since a drone incursion in Poland in September, according to the NATO commander.

The Western defense industry needs “newcomers that will do the things at the speed of relevance,” Vandier said, even as NATO still relies on traditional manufacturers of major platforms such as fighter jets, aircraft carriers, submarines and battle tanks. But those systems must adapt quickly to new threats.

“Today, if you do not adapt your jammers, your tank will be destroyed in 10 minutes,” Vandier said. “If you don’t protect your frigate against drones, it will be sunk in 10 minutes.”

Vandier cited countries saying they’ll buy frigates first and address drones in 10 years, warning they may lose their frigates on the first night of a war. He said Russia has learned the lesson from Ukraine and knows the cost of not being protected against unmanned surface vehicles, and is reverse engineering Ukraine’s sea-going drones.

“I’m not saying you get rid of frigates, because to go in the middle of the Atlantic, to chase a Yasen-class submarine, we’ll not do that with drones today,” Vandier said. “But in the Baltic, your harbor may be overwhelmed by drones, as Ukraine did with the Russians.”

NATO needs to invent the next war rather than prepare for the last one, “because the last one, the Russians think they can win,” Vandier said. “But the next one, they don’t know.”

Vandier dismissed ideas that Ukraine is fighting a specific war because the country lacks modern air power, and that NATO would fight differently. “The enemy has changed,” he said. “Russia is no longer what it looked like four years ago. So we need to be prepared for a new enemy.”

Europe needs to deliver on deterrence to force the enemy to recalculate, and given sanctions on Russia and Europe’s pool of hundreds of thousands of engineers, “we need to demonstrate we can win it,” Vandier said.

The NATO commander said he’s confident Europe can deliver, but “there is an urgency. We need to do it now, tomorrow, and not in 10 years.”

NATO will organize a large-scale counter-drone exercise in Romania in April, and while all countries are invited, for now only 20 of the 32 member states are signed up, with 24 companies participating, according to Vandier.

The admiral says he’s bought €10 million ($11.5 million) worth of targets, and for more than a week, “six hours a day, we shoot and shoot and shoot. We’ll see who are the liars, who are the champions amongst the twenty.”

The exercise will give decision makers insight into who is delivering results rather than glossy presentations, Vandier said.

The defense industry also needs different key performance indicators, or KPIs, that reflect the new way of war, such as price per shot, scalability, interoperability and adaptability. He said vendor-lock-in systems where “you pay a million euros for a new line of code, this is finished. That will never work again.”

Vandier described visiting a concealed drone factory in a Kyiv neighborhood, where 1,000 workers led by a 30-year-old former childcare worker produce 3,000 drones a day while operating off-grid to evade detection.

“We need to avoid that,” Vandier said. “We need to be smarter. We need to invent the war that Russia will lose.”

“We need to make Russia wake up each morning, thinking to themselves: ‘Not today.’”

Citing multiple U.S. officials, the Post report suggested ground operations could involve both conventional infantry and special operations elements, but would not yet rise to the level of a full-scale invasion.

Decisions on whether or not to green light operations, which would put U.S. troops at substantially more risk to Iranian threats, now rest with President Donald Trump.

“It’s the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the commander in chief maximum optionality,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement provided to Military Times. “It does not mean the president has made a decision.”

The Post’s report comes as U.S. military assets continue to flood the region. On Friday, U.S. Marines and sailors assigned to the Tripoli Amphibious Ready Group arrived in U.S. Central Command waters.

The group, which is led by the America-class amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli and includes the embarked 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, departed earlier this month from its homeport of Sasebo, Japan.

The Pentagon has also confirmed elements from the 82nd Airborne Division headquarters and a brigade combat team are slated to deploy to the Middle East. Based out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the 82nd acts as the Army’s rapid-response force and is often among the first units sent to respond to emerging crises.

The report also comes on the heels of an Iranian missile and drone attack on Friday that injured a dozen U.S. service members at Prince Sultan Airbase in Saudi Arabia. Two of the 12 injuries are considered to be serious.

The strike also reportedly damaged multiple U.S. aircraft, including an E-3 Sentry AWACS and multiple KC-135 tankers.

Thirteen service members have been killed in action and nearly 300 wounded during Operation Epic Fury, a joint undertaking by U.S. and Israeli militaries against the Islamic Republic that began on Feb. 28.

The majority of the wounded have since returned to duty, according to U.S. Central Command.

Prior to Friday’s attack, 10 U.S. troops remained in serious condition.

The group, led by the America-class amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli, departed earlier this month from its homeport of Sasebo, Japan. Also included in the arriving force is the embarked 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit.

The Tripoli group began steaming toward the Middle East after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly approved a CENTCOM request for additional support to help curtail Iran’s regional attacks.

Announcement of the group’s arrival comes one day after a dozen U.S. service members were wounded in an Iranian missile and drone strike on Prince Sultan Airbase in Saudi Arabia, the Wall Street Journal first reported. Two of the 12 personnel are in serious condition.

That strike, which reportedly damaged multiple U.S. refueling aircraft, comes as the U.S. military continues to pour assets into the region.

The Pentagon on Wednesday confirmed elements from the 82nd Airborne Division headquarters and a brigade combat team are slated to deploy to the Middle East. Based out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the 82nd acts as the Army’s rapid-response force and is often among the first units sent to respond to emerging crises.

The 31st MEU, meanwhile, includes a ground combat element, which features a battalion landing team — an infantry battalion and combat support elements — of around 1,100 Marines and sailors.

Also included is the MEU’s aviation combat element, which features tiltrotor and fixed-wing aircraft, transport and attack helicopters, ground support assets and air defense teams.

A combat logistics battalion with equipment and personnel capable of sustaining a MEU in austere environments for up to 15 days will also join the effort.

The 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, part of the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group, has also been rumored to serve as a potential reinforcement. The group deployed in recent weeks and is currently operating in the U.S. 3rd Fleet area of operations in the eastern Pacific.

The U.S. military on Saturday also announced that the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, which had been deployed in U.S.-Israeli operations against Iran, pulled into port in Split, Croatia, for maintenance.

Thirteen service members have been killed in action and nearly 300 wounded during Operation Epic Fury, a joint undertaking by U.S. and Israeli militaries against the Islamic Republic that began on Feb. 28.

The majority of the wounded have since returned to duty, according to U.S. Central Command. Prior to Friday’s attack, 10 U.S. troops reportedly remained in serious condition.

Military Times reporters Riley Ceder and Eve Sampson contributed to this report.

The Ford, America’s newest and the world’s largest carrier, was operating in the Red Sea in support of Operation Epic Fury when a non-combat fire broke out in its main laundry room on March 12, injuring three sailors.

Nearly 200 sailors were also treated for smoke-related issues, a U.S. official said at the time. The fire took hours to bring under control and had an impact on roughly 100 sleeping berths.

The warship has been deployed for nine ​months and also took part in operations against Venezuela in the Caribbean ⁠prior to arriving in the Middle East.

It has been plagued by plumbing problems during its deployment, affecting the nearly 650 toilets.

The Ford had temporarily stopped at Souda Bay on the Greek island ​of Crete. The government of Croatia, which is a NATO-ally of the U.S., approved its arrival earlier this week.

“During its visit, the USS Gerald R. Ford will host local officials and key leaders to reaffirm the strong and enduring alliance between the United States and Croatia,” the U.S. embassy to Croatia said in a statement.

The carrier, staffed by more than 5,000 sailors, has more than 75 military aircraft aboard, including fighter aircraft like the F-18 Super Hornet, and boasts a sophisticated radar system for ⁠air ​traffic control and navigation.

Qatar’s defense ministry said in a statement on Saturday that Doha and Kyiv have signed a defense cooperation agreement which includes the exchange of expertise in countering missiles and unmanned aerial systems.

Zelenskyy had earlier been to the UAE and met President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan as the two countries agreed to cooperate in the fields of security and defense.

“Our teams will finalize the details,” Zelenskyy said on the Telegram app with reference to the UAE discussions.

Ukraine, which now has years of experience shooting down Russian drones and missiles, was close to clinching several security agreements to counter Iranian attacks, its foreign minister Andrii Sybiha had told Reuters on Friday.

The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has killed more than 2,000 people, upended global markets and spurred Iranian retaliatory strikes that have effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz and targeted several countries across the Gulf with missiles and drones.

Zelenskyy had first arrived in Saudi Arabia on Thursday, where the two countries also signed an agreement on defense cooperation.

The idea is to move all basic training fully onto Ukrainian soil, while keeping more specialized courses abroad, Yevhen Mezhivikin, deputy chief of the General Staff’s Main Directorate of Doctrine and Training, told Militarnyi last week.

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, Adm. Pierre Vandier, explained the logic during his first visit to Ukraine last weekend, calling Ukraine’s warfighting adaptation “one of the strongest lessons” for the alliance back in February and acknowledging that Russia is outpacing NATO in absorbing those same lessons, per Ukrinform.

“Russia is very good at adapting, really, better than we are today,” Vandier said. “So we need to put oil in all the gears.”

The role reversal is already in motion.

Despite Russia launching a massive spring offensive this week, Ukraine has clawed back more territory in its counteroffensive than at any point since 2023. It’s also knocked out an estimated 40% of Russia’s oil export capacity with long-range strikes on its export terminals — and still had enough experts and drones to send 228 drone specialists to the Middle East to help allies intercept Iranian Shaheds that have attacked over a dozen countries.

In an interview last month, Deputy Minister of Defense Lt. Col. Yurii Myronenko, who was appointed on Wednesday as the Defense Ministry’s inspector general and who previously led the team behind the DELTA battlefield situational-awareness system, had already seen what was coming.

Ukraine needs “powerful partners” in NATO, he said, but it also has something to trade back, including “technological exchanges,” and the ability to make decisions “very close to the front line.”

Allied governments have been pushing for this reversal, too.

Britain was “the first country to propose moving all training to Ukraine and concentrating efforts on specific centers,” Mezhivikin had said.

This month, Kyiv sent a cadre of military advisers to Germany to teach drone warfare, counter-UAS tactics and electronic warfare integration — subjects NATO armies have studied in doctrine but never tested under persistent combat conditions. Germany is the first NATO member to formally invite Ukrainian trainers into its own army’s schools.

“We have high expectations,” Lt. Gen. Christian Freuding, head of the German army, told Reuters. “The Ukrainian military is currently the only one in the world with frontline experience against Russia.”

Overseas training “has not been cancelled,” military spokesperson Dmytro Lykhovii clarified three days after the original statement. It is simply scaling down, he said, according to Ukrainska Pravda.

Courses abroad will be “clustered and optimized,” Lykhovii said, with a short list of partner nations specializing in specific lanes. Weapons and equipment courses, commander-leader education and senior NCO training all continue outside Ukraine.

But the volume of troops sent abroad for basic training has “noticeably decreased over the past two years,” Lykhovii told RBC-Ukraine.

Basic training will continue to run in three EU countries with support from four NATO states through 2026, he said — down from the 18 EU member states that hosted Ukrainian brigade-level training of all types through late 2025, per RBC-Ukraine.

The shift has been twelve years in the making. Ukraine is now the one doing the teaching, exporting hard-won expertise in drone warfare, counter-UAS and electronic warfare to allied armies that have studied these subjects in doctrine but never tested them under fire.

Ukraine’s DELTA system — the battlefield operating picture its units use to fuse feeds, track activity and pass targeting data — has entered NATO’s own training exercises.

The Defense Ministry said DELTA served as the primary command platform for the Ukrainian “red team” during NATO’s REPMUS 2025 unmanned-systems exercise in Portugal, where the team won all five scenarios, coordinating more than 100 drones across maritime, air, ground and underwater domains, and simulating the destruction of a NATO frigate whose detection systems failed to spot the incoming Magura V7 naval drones in time.

And in Estonia, a small Ukrainian drone team playing opposing force during Exercise Hedgehog 2025 used drones and rapid-targeting analysis to render a mechanized NATO unit combat-ineffective in half a day, destroying 17 armored vehicles and roughly 30 additional targets, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The timeline for training across allied forces is tight. Western intelligence assessments put a possible large-scale Russian offensive against NATO as early as 2029.

“That’s almost the day after tomorrow,” he told Reuters. “We have no time — the enemy doesn’t wait for us to declare we’re ready.”

That’s why Ukraine keeps pushing the alliance forward and offering up its experience to help, officials say.

“Having very powerful partners from NATO countries,” Myronenko said, “we will all have a very good chance to always be ahead of the Russians.