Lawmakers Urge Air Force, SOCOM to Collaborate on New Long-Range Surveillance Drones

Lawmakers Urge Air Force, SOCOM to Collaborate on New Long-Range Surveillance Drones

House lawmakers are encouraging the Air Force and U.S. Special Operations Command to work together as each pursues long-range, long-endurance reconnaissance drones.

Both entities are investing in unmanned assets that can slip into highly defended areas, loiter over a particularly valuable target for days at a time, and traverse multiple continents or the vast Pacific with little logistical footprint as part of their broader push for more dispersed operations. Members of Congress are sweetening the pot by offering the Air Force $15 million to explore possible solutions that could meet the needs of both organizations. 

“While the requirements between the two organizations are not completely aligned, the Committee believes closer cooperation is critical to fielding a capable and cost-effective platform,” lawmakers wrote in a report accompanying the House Appropriations Committee’s version of the 2026 defense spending bill.

While the report doesn’t specify which programs the Air Force and SOCOM should consider merging, the Air Force last month contracted with dronemaker General Atomics to design a stealthy, autonomous aircraft dubbed “GHOST” that can fly ultra-long distances for reconnaissance and strike missions. 

GHOST may become a next-generation option to replace mainstays of the Air Force’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance enterprise that are slated for retirement:

  • The U-2 Dragon Lady spy plane, whose pilots have captured photos of sensitive military sites since the 1950s.
  • The RQ-4 Global Hawk, the long-endurance surveillance drone that was set to take over the U-2 mission but is now being phased out.
  • The MQ-9 Reaper, the Air Force’s workhorse hunter-killer drone that redefined combat in the Global War on Terror.

The Air Force Research Laboratory is also exploring long-range drones through its ULTRA project, short for Unmanned Long-Endurance Tactical Reconnaissance Aircraft. The program has produced a drone that can fly for more than three days straight while carrying over 400 pounds of surveillance equipment. ULTRA, a commercial sport glider outfitted for military use by DZYNE Technologies, was photographed on the flight line at Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates last year.

An Air Force spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine neither the service nor Air Force Special Operations Command “have any background” on the House provision.

SOCOM operates its own shadowy long-endurance aircraft program, comprised of the Air Force’s MQ-9, the Army’s MQ-1C Gray Eagle drone, and an unmanned version of the Pipistrel Sinus powered glider. 

The Long-Endurance Aircraft family of systems “employs relatively low-cost, long-endurance unmanned aircraft operated in austere and permissive environments” to provide intelligence to the special operations community, SOCOM spokesperson Lt. Cmdr. Kassie Collins said in an email.

In 2021, The War Zone reported the command had worked with the Air Force Research Lab to convert Sinus aircraft into unmanned aerial systems. The drones, operated by the Virginia-based technology company TSC, offer a maximum endurance of over 40 hours in flight up to 17,000 feet, according to TSC’s website.

“SOCOM has been assessing this platform as an option as we work with our military services and industry partners to identify low-cost, high endurance airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance solutions,” the command told the publication at the time.

SOCOM piggybacks on acquisition programs run by the services but also pursues its own equipment as needed. In 2020, the command launched its own search for an armed overwatch plane after the Air Force’s nearly three-year effort to procure a similar light attack aircraft ended short of a full buy.

Lawmakers also told the Air Force in that case to coordinate with SOCOM on its light attack experiments while encouraging it to transfer some of the project’s funding to special operations. Air Force Special Operations Command went on to buy a modified crop duster to serve as the new OA-1K Skyraider II, envisioned to fly counterterror missions in regions without advanced air defenses that could down the plane.

House appropriators are also calling for Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink and SOCOM boss Gen. Bryan P. Fenton to provide an update on their efforts to develop unmanned long-endurance platforms, those program requirements, and whether pursuing a common aircraft might be more efficient. That briefing is due within 90 days after the appropriations bill is enacted.

F-15EX and Its Electronic Warfare Suite Both Face Supply Chain Issues: Watchdog

F-15EX and Its Electronic Warfare Suite Both Face Supply Chain Issues: Watchdog

Supply chain issues are causing headaches for the Air Force’s new F-15EX fighter and its accompanying electronic warfare suite, the Government Accountability Office said in a recent report—even as Congress plans to pump an extra $3 billion into the program.

In its annual review of major weapons programs released June 11, the GAO acknowledged that the F-15EX—an advanced version of the F-15E fighter—has achieved full-rate production and initial operational capability. But the watchdog noted that risks remain, including parts shortages and previous quality deficiencies, as well as questions about whether the fighter will have the necessary cyber resiliency.

Separately, the GAO looked at the Eagle Passive/Active Warning and Survivability System, the electronic warfare suite that will equip all F-15EXs and retained F-15Es, and concluded that it is suffering from vanishing vendor syndrome supply issues and difficulty installing the system on legacy aircraft.   

The Air Force originally planned to buy 144 F-15EXs but has reduced that figure—first to 104 in the fiscal 2023 budget request, then to 98 in the 2025 budget request. In the reconciliation bill now pending in Congress, lawmakers have proposed adding $3.1 billion for F-15EX procurement, without specifying a number of units. That amount would buy around 25 aircraft—likely a full squadron—based on previous lot prices.

F-15EX costs have come down; the GAO noted that the overall program has declined eight percent, from $13.3 billion to $12.3 billion, and unit costs have declined two percent, from $128.1 to $125.4 million. Those numbers are based on the 98-aircraft plan.

For the F-15EX aircraft itself, the GAO outlined three risks:

  • Boeing will have to double its production rate “from one to two aircraft per month by April 2026 to meet its future delivery requirements.”
  • “Parts shortages—including display screens, a gun system, ejection seat propellant devices, and titanium components—remain a production risk,” the report states.
  • The F-15EX “may not meet” Air Force cybersecurity requirements because the aircraft was originally designed for Qatar, which did not have such a requirement, and was adapted to USAF use.

The watchdog agency noted that Boeing “experienced quality deficiencies” on early F-15EX fuselages “which required time-consuming rework.” However, the report said Boeing has “taken steps” to mitigate the problem—which had to do with improperly drilled holes—and reduced rework from 25 percent in August 2023 to eight percent a year later. Still, the program office told GAO that “further reductions are needed.”

The program office also told the agency that it continues to engage with suppliers to negotiate “prioritization” of F-15EX parts orders and the purchase of remaining supply stocks.

Meanwhile, cyber vulnerability testing has begun and is set to continue this year “to further characterize and mitigate this risk.” A plan is being developed to assess the aircraft for cyber resiliency, the GAO said.

“The cyber survivability evaluation will continue with Lot 2 aircraft due to planned changes in the fielding configuration and will be included” in follow-on test and evaluation,” GAO reported. The office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation is “currently analyzing the results of the survivability studies” and will report on its findings in mid-2025.

One of the chief differences between the F-15EX and a similar version offered for export is its electronic warfare suite, the EPAWSS. The Air Force awarded a $616 million contract for full-rate production in January.

The EPAWSS “continues to experience installation schedule and supply risks,” the GAO said. The program reported that Boeing “made improvements to address delays installing EPAWSS modifications on F-15E aircraft, but it faces bottlenecks in the process due to workforce issues and legacy aircraft issues discovered during the modification process.” The program is now “challenged” to achieve a “predictable installation schedule.”

The Air Force started installing EPAWSS during F-15E depot maintenance last year, but the program suffers from “diminishing manufacturing sources” problems. The program office told GAO it is dealing with that issue in part by planning to use a modular open systems approach for the EPAWSS signal processor, which should streamline upgrades.

 The program office told GAO that “due to legacy maintenance issues and poor contractor performance” there will be a new delivery schedule for eight F-15Es being fitted with EPAWSS.

“Another two aircraft are proceeding on or ahead of their modification schedules, with the first delivery expected in spring 2025,” the GAO said.

Technical Sergeant Promotions Surge in 2025, to 1 in 4

Technical Sergeant Promotions Surge in 2025, to 1 in 4

Competition eased considerably for Airmen looking to make technical sergeant in 2025, as about 1 in 4 eligible staff sergeants were picked for promotion.

The Air Force selected 7,884 individuals for promotion out of 30,776 eligible staff sergeants, a rate of 25.62 percent, the Air Force Personnel Center said in a June 23 announcement. The rate is a big step up from the 19.57 percent selection rate of the 2024 cycle, when far more Airmen were eligible (35,328) and fewer were selected (6,914).

The 6.05 percent jump is the biggest year-over-year increase in promotion rates for E-6 since 2016-2017. It also marks the second year in a row of increased promotion rates since the historically tough 2023 cycle, which set a 27-year low: 5,354 selected for 14.5 percent.

The technical sergeant list will be posted on the Air Force Personnel Center public website on June 26 at 8 a.m. CDT. Senior raters, the Airmen who assess their colleagues for promotion, will receive access on June 24.

E-6s are the latest rank to enjoy an improvement in promotion rates this year. The rate of selectees for master sergeant ticked up from 18.65 percent in 2024 to 23.42 percent in 2025, while the rate for senior master sergeant rose slightly from 11.44 percent to 11.64 percent.

The across-the-board jumps reflect that the force has changed since 2021 and 2022, when the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic drove a surge in retention and tough competition for career advancement. The Air Force also slowed down promotions at the time because officials warned the branch had too many noncommissioned officers without enough experience. 

Lt. Gen. Caroline M. Miller, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel, and services, told lawmakers last year that retention had returned to pre-pandemic levels. Miller said in April the Air Force was keeping 90 percent of Airmen overall this year, thanks to slight increases in both officer and enlisted retention—93 and 89 percent, respectively.

Airmen usually serve between 10 to 12 years before becoming eligible for the rank of technical sergeant, the last stop before Airmen enter the ranks of senior noncommissioned officers. E-6s are technical experts capable of “fostering a positive culture of trust within the organization,” according to Air University. 

YEARSELECTEDELIGIBLERATE
20257,88430,77625.62
20246,91435,32819.57
20235,35436,91314.5
20225,43033,93516
20219,42234,97326.94
20208,24628,35829.08
20199,46729,32832.28
20188,41627,55530.54
20178,16725,55231.96
20167,50133,56922.35
20158,44635,86323.55
20146,68438,34417.43
20135,65437,60815.03
20128,51837,40222.77
Sources: Air Force news releases, Air Force Times
Dual-Use Military and Civil Airports Face Cyber Threats—and Policy Challenges

Dual-Use Military and Civil Airports Face Cyber Threats—and Policy Challenges

To deploy during wartime, the U.S. military will rely on civilian infrastructure that’s vulnerable to cyberattack by America’s adversaries, current and former Air Force officials and other speakers told an airport cybersecurity conference last week. 

Dozens of airports host both civilian and military flights, and that mingling of facilities can create technical vulnerabilities and policy gaps enemy hackers could exploit, speakers told the “Defend the Airport” event on June 18.  

Just a few days later, that threat was underscored when the Department of Homeland Security issued a National Terrorism Advisory System alert, warning of possible Iranian cyberattacks in retaliation for U.S. bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear program.     

Iran isn’t the only concern. U.S. intelligence agencies have publicly accused the Chinese military of hacking into the IT systems of American power companies and other critical utilities providers. Their aim is “pre-positioning”—lurking undetected in the quiet corners of a computer network, so they can interrupt electricity, water, and other vital supplies in the event of a war. 

“The adversary doesn’t care if it’s the federal government. It doesn’t care if it’s a commercial property. It doesn’t care,” Department of the Air Force Principal Cyber Advisor Wanda Jones-Heath said. 

Yet those trying to defend aviation infrastructure against foreign hackers have to care who owns it, and the issue highlights a policy challenge. Private or civil-owned and -operated domestic infrastructure, like airports, will be key to how the military deploys and operates in a future war—so how should the U.S. protect it from enemy cyberattacks during peacetime? 

Dual-Use Infrastructure 

In a major conflict with China, the U.S. would have to move tens of thousands of troops—not to mention vehicles and aircraft—quickly to ports and airports for deployment to the Pacific. The sheer scale would require the military to rely on civilian aviation, explained retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, the director of CSC 2.0, a nonprofit that continues the work of the congressionally chartered Cyberspace Solarium Commission.  

“For moving the numbers [of troops] that we’ll need to fight a major war, we’re going to use our commercial rail, port, and aviation systems for 90-plus percent,” said Montgomery, a former staffer for Sen. John McCain and executive director of the original CSC.  

This reliance makes the civil aviation system a potential target for an enemy sneak attack. “U.S. adversaries know that compromising this critical infrastructure through cyber and physical attacks would impede America’s ability to deploy, supply, and sustain large forces,” a recent report from CSC 2.0 warns.

A ransomware infection at Seattle-Tacoma Airport last year showed the level of disruption possible from a single, partially successful cyberattack. On Aug. 24, “unauthorized activity” was detected in the IT network of the Port of Seattle, the municipal agency which runs the airport, according to congressional testimony from Lance Lyttle, the airport’d aviation managing director. 

The hackers’ malware, and “responsive actions” from the network’s security team, impacted services like baggage label printing and reading, shared check-in and ticketing, public WiFi, airport information display boards, and the airport website. The Transportation Security Administration’s separate network, and those of major airlines with their own IT infrastructure, were unaffected.   

Nonetheless, operations at the airport did not return completely to normal for three weeks, according to the Seattle Times, and thousands of passengers were separated from their luggage, which had to be labeled and sorted by hand. More than 170 flights were delayed following the incident, local TV station FOX 13 reported.

Caption: Airline employees at Seattle Tacoma International Airport had to resort to labelling and sorting baggage by hand last year after a ransomware cyberattack disabled label printers and readers. Photo courtesy Port of Seattle via X

IT vs. Operational Tech

There’s another target beyond the IT and computer networks at airports, said Eric Bowerman, assistant vice president for cybersecurity at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. Increasingly, airport managers are worried about hackers targeting operational technology—think baggage conveyor belts, building access control systems, and lighting systems for the terminal and the runways. 

Part of the issue, Bowerman said, is that the IT department often has little visibility into OT deployments. He joked that he sometimes only discovered new OT systems by noticing that they had been installed. “Whenever I walk through the terminals, there’s always a new blinking light somewhere that I have to worry about securing,” he said. 

As well as being managed separately from IT, OT systems have to be 100 percent reliable and often employ technology that is years or even decades old and can’t always be protected by conventional cybersecurity tools.  

Both IT and OT systems can be critical to flight operations and have to be protected from hackers, said Anthony DiPietro, the technical director for defense critical infrastructure in the NSA’s Cybersecurity Division. NSA, in addition to its signals intelligence role, has a second mission—defending national security-critical systems from foreign cyber warriors and online spies. That includes military airfields, DiPietro explained. 

“If the Air Force or the Navy has an airfield, those systems that are necessary to conduct flight operations on that field would be candidates for concern by our teams,” he said, because without them, “that unit could not effectively execute the tasks that it has been ordered to do.”  

Not all mission critical systems are obvious, DiPietro pointed out. For example, a hack on the weather reporting and forecasting data system “could … impede flight operations,” he suggested. “So all of those systems are candidates” for NSA protection. 

Outside the Fence Line 

The NSA’s operational cybersecurity role is limited to military bases, “inside the fence line,” as DiPietro said, but there are critical systems outside too.  

Local power companies BGE and Exelon “supply power to numerous [military] bases around the area,” he pointed out. ”If they go away, what does that mean for those bases?” he asked. The NSA is seeking partnerships with vital service providers to address those “outside the fence line” issues, he said. 

“You have to take state, local, and tribal governments in play too, because the entities that control the local utility providers, you have to work with them to then protect their systems so that the resiliency of the ‘inside the fence line’ unit is maintained,” he added. 

One attendee at the conference, a retired Air Force C-5 pilot who is now a visiting professor at the National Defense University’s College of Information and Cyberspace, pushed back against the idea that a cyberattack could easily stop military flight operations at any airport. 

“If I’m at war with China,” retired Col. Robert Richardson told the conference, “you’d be surprised how little I need” to safely land a massive C-5 cargo plane. “I need a clear runway, and someone on the ground to tell me where to park and take care of my cargo. That’s it.” 

“This is a real issue and it’s important,” he told Air & Space Forces Magazine on the sidelines, “but it’s important not to get it overblown.” 

The major hubs used by military flights, like DFW, are large enterprises that take cybersecurity seriously, he said. “These aren’t mom-and-pop operations. If something needs fixing, it gets fixed.”   

Moreover, aviation enjoys the advantage of a technological culture that prioritizes safety, valued redundancy, and rigorous rule-following in critical functions, Richardson said: “The cyber guys would drool to have the kind of culture [in IT] that we have in aviation,” he said. 

Shared Responsibility 

The job of protecting vital civilian infrastructure so that it is available for military use in wartime is a shared responsibility between the private sector and federal, state, and local governments, especially when it comes to cybersecurity, explained Brian Scott, deputy assistant national cyber director for cyber policy and programs at the White House Office of the National Cyber Director.  

“There is a wide range of folks that have responsibilities” for cybersecurity, he said, adding the owners and operators of critical infrastructure have the “primary responsibility for self-defense” day to day, and doing what he called “due diligence” on their IT infrastructure.  

“However, we don’t expect, and we can’t expect, every critical structure owner/operator to defend itself against nation state actors,” he added. “The federal government has responsibilities for defending the nation, obviously. So we have core responsibilities relative to that, but a lot of these things need to be done in a collaborative way with shared responsibilities.”

The military had done well inside the fence line, Montgomery said. He joked that critical infrastructure on military bases “is like Noah’s Ark—there’s two of everything.” By contrast, he believes the Pentagon’s efforts to secure dual-use civilian infrastructure are inadequate and siloed off from the broader efforts of the federal government to protect the nation from cyberattack. 

The problem is especially critical because the U.S. civil and military air transportation systems are closely intertwined, even in peacetime, and would only be woven more closely together in a war. 

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. has 21 joint-use airports—military airfields also used with permission by commercial flights, and housing passenger terminals and other civilian infrastructure. The Air Force has 10 of these, including mid-sized regional airports like Charleston, the busiest airport in South Carolina. There are also 65 shared-use airports—owned by the federal government, usually DOD, but with a civilian airport also on site and sharing use of the runways and other facilities. Shared-use facilities include international terminals like Bangor, Maine, and Burlington, Vt. Finally, the Air National Guard has agreements in place to use a dozen more civilian airports including large regional centers like Jacksonville, Fla.; Pittsburgh; and Minneapolis.

Strategic Small Airports

All of these dual-use facilities are among the 520 U.S. airports certified by the FAA to service scheduled flights by commercial passenger aircraft carrying more than nine people. But there are more than 5,000 public airfields with paved runways across the U.S., noted retired Lt. Gen. Mary O‘Brien, a former deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations and cyber effects.  

Many of these small non-certified airports are a lifeline for their local community, explained O’Brien, providing a landing strip for emergency medical services like organ transplant transportation, crop dusters, flight schools, and hobbyists.

Yet they also could be valuable for DOD. Many are converted military landing strips with runways as long as 10,000-15,000 feet—long enough to land the largest military and civilian aircraft. “Small does not equal the size of the runway,” she said. “They can become very strategic if we need them.” 

Iran Launches Missile Attack at Al Udeid

Iran Launches Missile Attack at Al Udeid

Iran launched a missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, June 23 in retaliation for U.S. strikes on three of its nuclear facilities the previous day.

Images and videos online showed numerous explosions in the skies over the Qatari capital of Doha, which appeared to be interceptions of incoming missiles by Patriot interceptors at Al Udeid, which is located 20 miles outside of Doha. Iran claimed responsibility for the attack.

Qatari and U.S. officials said there were no reported casualties.

“U.S. Central Command successfully defended against the attack,” a defense official said. “There are no injuries to U.S. personnel. We will continue to take all necessary measures to protect and defend U.S. personnel, partners, and allies in the region.”

In a statement, CENTCOM confirmed the attack was defeated by American and Qatari Patriot batteries. Al Udeid has a large array of Patriot launchers, the U.S. military’s key ballistic missile defense system.

The attacks came from “short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles originating from Iran,” a second defense official added.

In a post on Truth Social, President Donald Trump wrote that 13 missiles were intercepted and one missile was “set free” because it was not deemed a threat. “I am pleased to report that, in addition to no Americans being killed or wounded, very importantly, there have also been no Qataris killed or wounded,” Trump stated.

The attack was a “very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered,” Trump wrote.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said the number of missiles launched was the same number of bombs that were dropped by U.S. warplanes on Iran’s nuclear facilities: 14. The Iranian government gave advance warning to Qatar and the U.S. in advance of the incoming attack, according to Trump.

“The base had been evacuated earlier, following established security and precautionary measures, given the tensions in the region,” a Qatari foreign ministry spokesman wrote on X. “All necessary steps were taken to ensure the safety of personnel at the base, including Qatari Armed Forces members, friendly forces, and others. We confirm that no injuries or human casualties resulted from the attack.”

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said in a statement that Iran targeted Al Udeid with a “devastating and powerful missile attack.”

“This base is the headquarters of the Air Force and the largest strategic asset of the U.S. terrorist army in the West Asia region,” the IRGC wrote in a statement.

The sprawling air base is a joint U.S.-Qatari facility that serves as the largest and most important U.S. base in the Middle East and hosts the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command and U.S. Air Forces Central. It is home to the Combined Air Operations Center, the command center for airpower in the region. Al Udeid has some 10,000 military and civilian personnel. Iranian missiles, either fired directly from Iran or its proxy forces, have been a persistent concern for U.S. forces over the years, and Qatar is located directly across the Persian Gulf from Iran.

“I assess they know they are overmatched militarily and do not want another round of U.S. strikes,” retired Army Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the commander of CENTCOM from 2016-2019, told Air & Space Forces Magazine of the Iranian calculus, noting Trump’s June 21 warning to Iran not to strike back at the U.S.

In recent days, the U.S. military has taken steps to mitigate potential damage and injuries to troops should Iran attack U.S. forces in the region. At Al Udeid, the U.S. moved most planes away from the base, even as squadrons of fighters flowed to other American bases in the region and U.S. troops have been on heightened alert for a possible attack, U.S. officials have said.

“I think the U.S. leadership understood that Iran would have to respond in some manner and were hopeful that it would take a form similar to what it did—an attack that could be defeated easily and which did not pose an unacceptable level of risk,” Votel added. “I think the President’s comments on Saturday night reinforced the notion of strategic uncertainty and Iran had to take his words seriously. I also suspect there was a lot of behind-the-scenes communication taking place with partners and interlocutors to emphasize de-escalation.”

Shortly before the attack, the Qatari government closed its airspace while the U.S. Embassy in Qatar advised citizens to shelter in place.

“We affirm that Qatar reserves the right to respond directly in a manner equivalent with the nature and scale of this brazen aggression, in line with international law,” the Qatari foreign ministry spokesperson stated.

The governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, and other countries in the region condemned the attack. Iran said the attack was aimed at the U.S., not Qatar.

Trump signaled he wanted an end to hostilities between Iran and the U.S.

“Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their ‘system,’ and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE,” Trump wrote. “I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured.”

Trump later said he brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which was mediated by Qatar.

The attack on Al Udeid is similar to Iran’s response to the 2020 assassination by the U.S. of Qasem Soleimani, a key Iranian general and the head of the IRGC’s Quds Force, after which Iran engaged in a relatively limited response, attacking Al Asad Air Base in Iraq with missiles but not initiating a broader attack, which Trump also took as a sign of restraint.

“Iran is trying to find a way to avoid escalation with the United States, consistent with their perceived need to respond to the strike,” retired Marine Corps Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the commander of CENTCOM from 2019-2022, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. “They were going to do the absolute minimum they could do to satisfy the requirement to respond while not poking the bear.

A Patriot PAC-2 missile battery prepares to move into the firing position during an exercise at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. James Hodgman/Released

This article was updated June 24 with additional information.

The Weapons of Operation Midnight Hammer: MOPs, Tomahawks, and More

The Weapons of Operation Midnight Hammer: MOPs, Tomahawks, and More

When seven Air Force B-2 stealth bombers hit Iran’s deep-underground nuclear development sites on June 21, the tool of choice in “Operation Midnight Hammer” was a unique weapon conceived and designed two decades ago for exactly such a mission: the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

Built by Boeing, along with the Air Force and Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the MOP is a 30,000-pound, 20-foot-long behemoth that is 31.5 inches in diameter and includes a warhead weighing in at 5,740 pounds. The B-2s dropped 14 MOPs in the operation, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said was the first-ever operational use of the weapon.

Seven B-2 bombers—each with two MOPs—took part in the operation, while other B-2s flew in a decoy operation that gave the impression the U.S. was deploying its stealth bombers to Guam. This meant that virtually the entire flyable B-2 inventory—there are only 20 B-2s in all—took part in the operation.

Fourth- and fifth-generation Air Force fighter jets joined the B-2s in the operation as well. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine did not say which of those platforms were used.

In all, Caine said “more than 125” aircraft participated in the mission, including the B-2s, fighters, “dozens and dozens of air refueling tankers,” and a “full array” of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft. In addition, “hundreds of maintenance and operational professionals” supported the operation, he said.

A Navy submarine in the Arabian Sea launched “more than two dozen Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles against key surface infrastructure targets at Isfahan,” Caine said. He added the TLAMs were “the last to strike” after the B-2s left the area.

Besides being stealthy and able to carry a heavy payload, the B-2’s radar allows it to map the target area in three dimensions with high resolution, and deliver ordnance very precisely against very specific aimpoints, such as ventilation shafts or other apertures.

A former B-2 pilot said that, once over the target area, B-2 pilots can use the radar to generate target coordinates “usually even more precise than intel has provided.”

B-2s have a rated maximum weapon load of 40,000 pounds, requiring special considerations to carry two 30,000-pound MOPs. The former B-2 pilot said the bombers likely took off with “a very minimal fuel load” and then refueled almost immediately after getting airborne. He said the B-2’s computer systems manage the aircraft’s flight so that, when the extremely heavy weapons are released, the aircraft doesn’t pitch violently upward, which might risk exposing it to tracking radars.

The MOPs were likely dropped from as high as 30,000 feet, sources said. Footage of MOP test flights show the bombs rapidly point nearly straight down after release, meaning the B-2s had to be virtually directly above the targets when the MOPs were dropped.     

Developed beginning in the late 1990s, the MOP was inspired by U.S. defense leaders’ concern that work on nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons could be conducted out of reach of existing weapons in hardened, deeply-buried facilities. North Korea and Iran were both building such underground bunkers. While low-yield nuclear weapons were initially considered, U.S. officials worried that employing nuclear weapons would be considered escalatory and provocative.

In 2004, the Air Force and DTRA set about designing a conventional weapon capable of penetrating through layers of solid rock, steel, concrete and other materials to reach laboratories and storage facilities buried 200 feet underground. The GBU-72, a 5,000-pound penetrator rushed into service for use against Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, could not reach those targets.

The MOP was designed with a hardened casing that, using gravity alone, would slice through protective layers of earth, rock, concrete, and steel. Inside the bomb, sensors can detect how many voids and layers it’s passing through and detonate at the chosen level.  

It’s not known exactly how many MOPs were built. Public records suggest 20 were purchased, but nearly that number has been expended in tests.

Although it was initially tested from a B-52, the MOP was always intended to equip the B-2 bomber since the heavily protected targets it was designed to hit were expected to be defended with top-tier air defense systems. Initial operational capability was achieved in 2011.

Test drops from B-2s were conducted in 2014-2016; four were tested in 2017 to validate enhancements. The most recent upgrade is the Large Penetrator Smart Fuse modification, which was tested in 2020 against a tunnel target. Three more tests were conducted between 2021 and 2022. Two full-scale tests were made in 2024 to verify B-2 integration work and lethality.

An Air Force fact sheet on the MOP describes integration activities for the weapon as “complete.” It said Boeing got the contract to complete integration of the MOP in 2009, which “entailed minor modifications to the MOP and to the aircraft.”

Other weapons likely employed in Midnight Hammer include:

ADM-160 MALD. Caine’s mention of  “decoys” may reference the Raytheon ADM-160 Miniature Air-Launched Decoy, or MALD. The MALD is a low-cost missile that emits signals mimicking those of fighters and other combat aircraft, meant to fool air defense systems into shooting them instead of the crewed airplanes. The weapon has no kinetic mission, but is available in a radar-jammer version as well as the basic decoy model. The MALD has a range of about 575 miles and is most frequently carried by F-16s. If it was used in Midnight Hammer, it would mark the first combat use of the weapon.

BGM-109 TLAM. The 3,300-pound Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, also built by Raytheon, is a ship- or submarine-launched, GPS-guided weapon with a 1,000-pound blast/fragmentary or unitary warhead. The “D” model TLAM is a submunitions dispenser. It’s capable of precision attack against fixed targets, but it can be reprogrammed in flight to strike other targets. TLAMs fly at subsonic speeds at low altitude, evading defender radars by hugging the terrain. More recent models have a camera that will allow TLAMs arriving after some have already struck to transmit imagery of battle damage back to their launch platform.

AGM-88 HARM or AARGM-ER: Caine did not specify which “high-speed” defense-suppression weapon was used against the defensive missiles and radars around the three nuclear sites, but the Air Force has two such weapons. The AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile, or HARM, was used to great effect in the 1991 Gulf War. It quickly detects a search or tracking radar, and when launched, follows the emissions at extreme velocity directly to the radar, destroying it. Iraqi radar operators quickly stopped turning on their air defense radars when it became clear that any emissions would result in an explosion a few seconds later. A defense official told Air & Space Forces Magazine numerous HARMs were used in the operation. The HARM’s successors are the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) and the AARGM Extended Range, both made by Northrop Grumman. Besides being less jammable, the AARGM can fly farther and faster, is stealthier to prevent it being shot down, and can better distinguish between targets. It will also be the basis of the Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW), which the Air Force expects will succeed the Joint Direct Attack Munition series of guided bombs.

Pentagon Editor Chris Gordon contributed reporting.

7 Air Force B-2s Drop 14 Bunker-Buster Bombs on Iran

7 Air Force B-2s Drop 14 Bunker-Buster Bombs on Iran

The U.S. military struck three Iranian nuclear sites in the early hours of June 22 local time in Operation Midnight Hammer, intended to shut down Iran’s nuclear program without harming the country’s leadership.

The Trump administration said the damage would substantially delay Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon. But Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said the Pentagon was still awaiting a definitive battle damage assessment. 

One key, open question is whether Iran had managed to divert enriched uranium and equipment to safe locations before the U.S. strike, or whether there are other, unknown sites where nuclear work can proceed. 

U.S. Air Force bombers and submarine-launched cruise missiles struck the three sites in the early hours of June 22, local time: the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities.

At an early morning Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Caine offered fresh details on the strikes, revealing that some 125 U.S. planes participated in the mission, 75 precision-guided munitions were expended, and both fourth- and fifth-generation fighters joined B-2 stealth bombers on the mission. 

The B-2s dropped 14 Massive Ordinance Penetrators on the Fordow and Natanz sites. It was the first operational use of the GBU-57 MOP, which was designed expressly for this kind of deeply buried targets. Each MOP weighs 30,000 pounds, and each B-2 can carry just two of the weapons, indicating that seven B-2s took part in the operation, an account confirmed by defense officials.

The mission was carefully calculated and its execution included intentional misdirection. Multiple B-2s headed West from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., on June 21, with a flight plan that indicated Guam was their destination. The ruse caught the attention of internet spotters and journalists, prompting reports that suggested the aircraft were positioning for a potential future fight. Meanwhile, the strike mission unfolded without notice: Seven B-2s headed east over the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea before crossing over the Middle East to strike Iran. 

Along with the decoys, the strike package also took off from Whiteman—where the entire B-2 fleet is based—just after midnight on the morning of June 21, refueled multiple times en route to Iran with dozens of U.S. tankers, and entered Iranian airspace at 6 p.m. Eastern Time later that day. They returned to the U.S. June 22.

Department of Defense handout

The sites bombed by the B-2s were Fordow, which is buried deep underground, and Natanz, defense officials told Air & Space Forces Magazine. Caine said 30 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles were fired from a submarine at the Isfahan site and impacted after the impacts of Massive Ordnance Penetrator bunker buster bombs on two sites.

“Every American involved in this operation performed flawlessly,” Hegseth said.

Caine said the B-2s were led into hostile territory by both fourth- and fifth-generation fighters, most likely F-16s and F-35s. Defense officials declined to identify the specific types or number of fighters, however, but Caine indicated their mission was to protect the bombers on their way into the territory.

“As the Operation Midnight Hammer strike package entered Iranian airspace, the U.S. employed several deception tactics, including decoys, as the fourth-and fifth-generation aircraft pushed out in front of the strike package at high altitude and high speed, sweeping in front of the package for enemy fighters and surface-to-air missile threats,” Caine said. The Chairman added that the U.S. did not believe Iranian forces—either fighters or air defense forces—fired on the U.S. aircraft.

Post-strike SkySat imagery of Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, June 22, 2025. Planet Labs PBC

A defense official told Air & Space Forces Magazine that numerous anti-radiation missiles, including HARMs, were fired by American aircraft to suppress enemy air defenses—the U.S. has Air Force F-16 Wild Weasel fighters and Navy EA-18 electronic attack planes in the region, but whether those aircraft were involved has not been confirmed.

“As the strike package approached Fordow and Natanz, the U.S. protection package employed high-speed suppression weapons to ensure safe passage of the strike package with fighter assets employing preemptive suppressing fires against any potential Iranian surface-to-air threats,” Caine said.

Among the 125 U.S. aircraft involved in the operation were Air Force tankers—the KC-46 Pegasus and KC-135 Stratotankers—at least two kinds of fighters, bombers, and more.

Israel had wiped out most Iranian air defenses in the eight days leading up to the June 21 attack, but without the munitions or bombers capable of destroying a site such as Fordow, Israel had asked for American help. Israel’s punishing air campaign, dubbed Operation Rising Lion, was launched June 12 with the intent of diminishing Iran’s ability to develop and use nuclear weapons. Israel also attacked Iran’s military leadership, killing numerous senior military leaders and systematically undermining Iran’s ability to defend itself.

“Israel had incredible military success,” Hegseth said, in response to a question from Air & Space Forces Magazine. He cited the Israeli Air Force’s success “in degrading Iranian capabilities, degrading Iranian [medium range ballistic missile] launchers,” and added: “It’s been incredible to watch what our ally Israel has been able to do. … But as it pertains to this strike, this was U.S.-operated, U.S.-led.”

Nevertheless, Caine said, Israel laid much of the groundwork for the U.S. strike’s success.

“We took advantage of some of the preparatory work that’s been done over the past week and a half in terms of access and approach,” he said.

What was left was to do the work that only the U.S. Air Force could accomplish, with its unique combination of bombers, bombs, and support capabilities. 

President Donald Trump, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the White House Situation Room during strikes on Iran, June 21, 2025. White House photo

President Donald Trump was exuberant in his appreciation of the apparently well-executed attack.  

“I want to congratulate the great American patriots who flew those magnificent machines tonight and all of the United States military on an operation the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades,” Trump said June 21. “Hopefully, we will no longer need their services in this capacity.”

What Iran does in response is still to be determined. On June 18, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed Trump’s call for Iran to “surrender” its nuclear program and warned that any U.S. military action against Iran would bring consequences to the U.S. 

In his late-night address to the nation, Trump said Iran’s belligerence “cannot continue.” 

“There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” he said. “Remember, there are many targets left—tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed, and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.”

The U.S. has taken steps to mitigate potential damage should Iran or its proxy forces attack U.S. forces in the region, moving larger planes away from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which is located directly across the Persian Gulf from Iran, and placing troops on heightened alert, U.S. officials have said.

In the United States, politicians lined up mostly on party lines in response to the attack. 

Republican lawmakers praised Trump’s decision to strike Iran.

“The President made the correct decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a statement. “Iran made the choice to continue its pursuit of a nuclear weapon and would only be stopped by force. It would be a grave mistake to attempt any retaliation against our forces or homeland.”

But some Democrats were critical, saying Trump rushed into the conflict without Congress’s authorization.

“The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former Vice Presidential candidate, wrote on social media. “And the Israeli Foreign Minister admitted yesterday that Israeli bombing had set the Iranian nuclear program back ‘at least two or three years.’ So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today? Horrible judgment. I will push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.”

House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the bombing raises the risk of further complications in the Middle East. “The risk of war has now dramatically increased,” he said. “President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force, and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.”

But Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), however, broke with his party colleagues, calling Trump’s decision to bomb Iran “the correct move.” 

B-2 Bombers Launch Westward as Trump Weighs Striking Iran

B-2 Bombers Launch Westward as Trump Weighs Striking Iran

Multiple U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bombers departed Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., June 21, Air & Space Forces Magazine has confirmed. The deployment comes as President Donald Trump considers whether to join Israel’s air campaign against Iran. U.S. officials declined to discuss the purpose of the flights.

Local observers spotted B-2s from Whiteman taking off overnight, and flight tracking and voice communications indicate multiple bombers operating under the callsigns MYTEE11 and MYTEE21. The MYTEE callsign is used by American strategic bombers, both B-2s and B-52s. 

It is unclear whether the bombers intend to land at a forward operating base or what their final destination is.

The Pentagon referred questions about the mission to the White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Israel’s punishing air campaign against Iran, dubbed Operation Rising Lion and begun June 12, has sought to diminish Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons and to decapitate the heads of Iran’s military forces. Israel has systematically reduced Iran’s ability to defend against air attacks, achieving air superiority over Iran. But Israel lacks the heavy bombers and bunker-penetrating ordnance needed to destroy Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities.

Were Trump to launch strikes, a likely target is Iran’s Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, which is buried in a mountain and so heavily defended that many experts believe the U.S. is the only country that has the military tools to destroy it.

A U.S. attack would likely be executed by multiple B-2s carrying 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators, enormous bunker-busting bombs designed for deeply buried targets.

According to open-source flight tracking and radio communications, the bombers launched on June 21 were refueled off the U.S. Pacific Coast by Air Force tankers using HIFI callsigns, which are commonly associated with bomber missions.

Trump called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” June 17, but Iran’s leadership scoffed in response. The President subsequently said he would make a decision on whether to join Israel in combat operations within the next two weeks—giving Iran what Trump later said is time “to come to their senses.”

“We’re ready, willing, and able,” Trump told reporters June 20. “We’ve been speaking to Iran. We’ll see what happens.”

The U.S. has some 40,000 troops in the Middle East, and U.S. officials say that additional U.S. deployments to the region are purely defensive.

So far, the U.S. military mission has been limited to protecting Israel and U.S. forces. U.S. fighter aircraft have helped shoot down Iranian drones, and U.S. THAAD batteries and Aegis-equipped ships have also defended Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said June 16. 

The U.S. has moved more ballistic missile defense destroyers to the eastern Mediterranean in recent days, and has deployed more than two dozen tankers to Europe and additional Air Force fighters to the Middle East. The Pentagon has also dispatched the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier to the region under U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East. The Nimitz will join the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, which is already operating in the region.

It is unclear how many bombers are in flight, but there appear to be multiple formations of more than one bomber. In March, the Air Force deployed six B-2s to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, where the bombers engaged in a bombing campaign against Houthi militants in Yemen until early May, when the U.S. reached a ceasefire with the group. Four B-52 Stratofortress bombers replaced the B-2s on Diego Garcia and remain on station there.

“We’re the only ones that have the capability to do it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to do it,” Trump said, in response to a question about bombing Fordow June 18. “These are incredible planes and weapons.”

The U.S. has taken steps to mitigate potential damage should Iran or its proxy forces attack U.S. forces in the region, moving larger planes away from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which is located directly across the Persian Gulf from Iran, U.S. officials said. 

A spokesperson for Air Forces Central, which is responsible for the U.S. military’s Middle East air component, declined to comment on the moves, referring questions to U.S. Central Command, which also declined to comment.

Since Israel began its air war against Iran June 12, the Pentagon has ordered additional air assets into the region, including F-16 and F-35 multi-role fighters. F-22 air superiority fighters are likely to arrive in the coming days. USAF squadrons of F-15E Strike Eagles, A-10 Thunderbolt II attack planes, and F-16s were already in place in the Middle East.

Marine Tapped to Lead F-35 Joint Program Office

Marine Tapped to Lead F-35 Joint Program Office

President Donald Trump has nominated Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory L. Masiello to lead the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the Pentagon announced June 20. If confirmed by the Senate, he would succeed Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Schmidt, who has led the program since 2022.

Masiello, who now heads the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), is a former enlisted Marine and a naval aviator who flew the UH-1N and VH-3 presidential transports, and spent time as the V-22 Joint Program Manager. From 2013-2014, he was the senior military deputy to Frank Kendall, who at the time was undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. He then moved on to become the F-35 Joint Program Director for Follow-On development. Before taking charge at DCMA, he was program executive officer for the Navy’s airborne anti-submarine warfare programs.

DCMA is responsible for contract complince and manages testing and acceptance, roles that involve oversight of F-35’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, and its engine provider, Pratt & Whitney.

Under the Joint Strike Fighter program’s structure, which alternates roles for the Department of the Navy and Department of the Air Force, the JPO will now report to the Air Force acquisition executive. In the past, the deputy program manager was also of the same service as the service acquisition executive, but that practice was abandoned several years ago, in favor of a civilian in that position.  

Masiello would be the first naval officer to lead the program in several years. Schmidt was the second consecutive USAF officer to run the JPO, succeeding Lt. Gen. Eric Fick. That was the first time in the program’s history when officers from the same service followed each other in the position.

During Schmidt’s tenure, the F-35 program wrestled with the transition from the basic fighter to the initial stages of the Block 4 upgraded version. He presided over the start of the engine core upgrade program—chosen after lengthy debate about using new adaptive engines—and the Tech Refresh 3, which is the hardware and software basis for the 80 or so improvements that will come with Block 4. He also negotiated the Lot 18 and 19 contracts—not yet definitized—and managed the program through a yearlong hold on deliveries as Lockheed Martin and the test enterprise labored to clear the TR-3.