This is stated in an internal message that has been sent out to a number of departments in the Armed Forces, and which VG has read. Problems with the shirt were already discovered last summer, without the cause being determined. In April, what the report describes as extensive tests were carried out at the Norwegian Armed Forces College/War College. The tests showed that the fabric on the upper body "loses its ability to hold together" when it becomes soaked with sweat, the email states.

well, good thing soldiering isn't a physically strenuous activity at all!

“This is considered such a serious defect in the garment that it is not suitable for use within the intended area of ​​use of the combat shirt”, the message sent on May 28th further states. The Norwegian Armed Forces have now blocked both the issuance and use of the M/23 combat shirt. Personnel who have been issued the garment will later be informed of how to return the shirt to the nearest depot, the statement said.

Part of new uniform

The combat shirt is part of the Norwegian Armed Forces' new uniform. In January last year, the first soldiers were issued with the new uniform, M23, also known as the Nordic Combat Uniform (NCU). The uniform is a joint Nordic uniform project between Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. The new uniform costs 15,000 kroner per soldier, but there have still been several defects with the uniforms, wrote Forsvarets Forum last fall. The magazine reported that the lightweight uniform trousers for use in camps tore easily, and that the uniform faded quickly. Defence Materiel Agency (FMA) will not state the unit price of a combat shirt. “This is business-sensitive information”, says senior advisor Jofrid Egeland at the FMA in an email to VG.

What tests were done before approval?

“In collaboration with Finland, Sweden and Denmark, several soldiers conducted extensive user tests in various geographical locations. Tests were also conducted in a climate chamber and other focus tests”, the advisor writes.

Why wasn't the error discovered until after the shirts were delivered?

“There are probably several reasons why the challenges with the combat shirt were not discovered in the user test. That test was done on an entire clothing system from the inside out, and included a great many garments with different properties”, writes the advisor.

Surprised

FMA states that it has been particularly important to test the new uniform this winter to ensure that the system protects in cold and harsh conditions. “The feedback from the soldiers in the Finnmark Brigade, who are now using the NCU, is that the system protects very well against cold and Arctic climate conditions”, writes the FMA advisor.

Does the FMA believe that their own quality assurance has functioned satisfactorily?

“Given the strict functional requirements we have set for the combat uniform system as a whole, the description of current scenarios in different climate zones, combined with an extensive testing regime and requirements for the supplier's own quality control, we are surprised by the results we are now seeing on the combat shirts”, writes the communications advisor.

She states that the FMA will consider changes in the way testing is done, which can reveal such weaknesses to a greater extent before soldiers use the garments. “It is crucial that soldiers have clothing that works and provides optimal protection, functionality and comfort at all times”, writes Egeland. The advisor states that the FMA is working with the supplier Oskar Pedersen AS to find a solution to the problem. “There is a daily dialogue between the supplier and the FMA, and the cooperation is good”, writes the senior advisor at the FMA in the email to VG. The FMA states that the supplier has delivered test shirts in an alternative textile that is now being tested by the Armed Forces to assess whether the new textile can be approved for production.

Won billion-dollar contract

Managing Director Truls Oskar Pedersen of Oskar Pedersen AS confirms that the fabric in the combat shirt loses its strength when it becomes soaked with sweat. He states that the textile chosen for the shirt is used by many NATO countries and is in use throughout Europe today. The NCU contract is described as a deal worth around four billion kroner for the Nordic countries. At the same time, several quality problems have been reported with various parts of the uniform system.

How does Oskar Pedersen AS explain that such errors occur in a project of this size, and do you think that the quality assurance has been good enough?

“Overall, the feedback we receive from the soldiers and the Armed Forces is that they are very satisfied with the new system, and that it has given them a better combat capability than they have previously had.”

Concerned with Ukraine’s ability to protect itself from the onslaught of Russian missile and drone attacks, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is demanding to know if the Pentagon can increase deliveries of Patriot air defense system interceptors to that war-torn nation. This comes against the backdrop of extreme U.S. and allied demand on dwindling supplies of these weapons. As we have previously noted, between U.S. usage in recent Middle East conflicts and commitments to Ukraine and nearly 20 other nations, there have long been concerns about the supply of Patriot interceptors. Still, the Pentagon has maintained that it has sufficient supplies.

It is hard to say precisely how many Patriot interceptors remain in Ukraine’s stockpile, The New York Times recently noted. “The number is classified. At the end of June last year, there were as few as 16 in Ukraine’s arsenal,” the publication stated. Given the low supplies and constant Russian bombardment, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has frequently requested additional interceptors from the U.S. and allies. SASC said it “recognizes the importance of Patriot air defense systems and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors in supporting Ukraine’s self-defense and notes continued concerns regarding interceptor availability, production capacity, and the impact of transfers on United States military readiness.” “Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than October 1, 2026, assessing the feasibility of increasing deliveries of PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine,” its directive states. We have reached out to the committee to find out which variant of the PAC-3 they are referring to. Lockheed Martin is boosting production of the more advanced current-generation Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors and it is unclear how many of the other variants are still being made or are in U.S. stockpiles.

SASC wants the following information from the Pentagon:

• “An assessment of current and projected Ukrainian requirements for PAC-3 interceptors over the next 12 months;”
• “An assessment of the availability of PAC-3 interceptors from existing Department of Defense inventories for transfer to Ukraine and the impact of such transfers on United States military readiness and operational plans;”
• “An evaluation of options to accelerate production of PAC-3 interceptors, including through multiyear procurement authorities, advance procurement, expanded supplier capacity, and other industrial-base investments;”
• “An assessment of the feasibility of increasing annual PAC-3 interceptor production and the anticipated timeline for achieving such increases;”
• “An identification of any statutory, regulatory, contractual, or supply-chain barriers to increasing interceptor deliveries to Ukraine;”
• “An assessment of opportunities for allied and partner nations operating Patriot systems to contribute additional PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine, including options for United States backfill arrangements;” and
• “Recommendations for legislative or administrative actions that would enable increased interceptor deliveries to Ukraine while maintaining acceptable levels of U.S. military readiness.”

In addition, the committee said the secretary should “brief the congressional defense committees on the findings of the report, not later than 15 days after its submission.” The Pentagon on Wednesday declined comment on the committee’s report, how many interceptors it has provided to Ukraine or whether it has the ability to increase that supply. We have reached out to Lockheed Martin as well and are awaiting a response. TWZ recently addressed the supply of these munitions in a story about a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The report, on the severity of the depletion of U.S. advanced weapons stockpiles, found that current production PAC-3 MSE “is around the baseline rate of 650 interceptors per year, with half the deliveries going to the United States and the rest to allies and partners.” Under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot annual production to 2,000. “Because U.S. procurement in the last decade has averaged 225 missiles per year, deliveries from prior years will not be enough to fully replace expenditures,” CSIS cautioned. “For that, the United States will need to wait for the 3,203 Patriot missiles requested in the Army’s FY 2027 budget. These are projected to start delivery in May 2029.”

As we noted earlier in this story, in addition to the Patriot interceptors already provided to Ukraine, the U.S. used a large amount during the conflict with Iran defending its assets, as well as those of allies. The CSIS report found that at the start of the war with Iran, “there were about 2,500 Patriot interceptors in the U.S. inventory,” though its accompanying chart does not specify which variant. “During the course of the conflict, between 1,060 and 1,430 Patriots were fired.” We don’t know what that tally includes, but we do know that PAC-2 and PAC-3 series interceptors have been employed in the latest conflict with Iran. Adding to questions about the ability to supply Ukraine with more Patriots, a top official from Lockheed Martin recently warned that the company cannot give U.S. allies any certainty over when they will receive interceptors despite plans to triple capacity, according to Financial Times. Brian Dunn, vice president for strategy and business development of missiles and fire control, recently said that the company was working hard to scale up production of critical PAC-3 interceptor missiles amid a supply crunch exacerbated by the war in Iran.

But in remarks to journalists at the ILA Berlin Air Show, “he sent a sobering message to American allies including Germany, Japan, Poland, the UAE and Saudi Arabia that operate the Patriot air defense system,” the publication reported. Dunn said the extra capacity “is obviously going to be able to satisfy multiple user requirements in a faster timeline.” However, he added that Lockheed Martin does not “control what the allocation of those missiles is going to be. We can’t tell anybody where you’re going to be on that [priority list].” “Obviously there’s a lot of rhetoric coming right now from the Department of War . . . about how they’re going to reorder, reorganize, who’s going to get missiles first,” he continued. “We don’t control any of that.” Dunn’s statements highlight concerns we raised long before and during Operation Epic Fury about the rapid expenditure of critical munitions and how that could affect a potential future fight against China. It also goes along with our reporting about the overall inadequacy of the U.S. Patriot force, an issue we have been highlighting for years.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, the influx of new Patriot interceptors cannot come soon enough. Two nights ago, for instance, Russian forces launched 70 missiles and over 600 drones in a mass assault, according to the Kyiv Independent. “Of the 34 ballistic missiles fired, 19 were aimed at the capital,” the publication noted. “Kyiv’s beleaguered Patriot batteries did a valiant job, intercepting 15 of them, along with five of the six 3M22 Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles launched in the attack,” the news outlet added. “Still, even layered defenses were stretched beyond the limit.”

UPDATE: 6:57 PM EDT –

Lockheed Martin responded to our questions:

Lockheed Martin is accelerating production and increasing capacity to deliver a record number of interceptors to American and global customers, and stands ready to support any U.S. government decision on Foreign Military Sales deliveries. Additional questions should be directed to the U.S. government. The PAC-3 MSE is the only variant currently in production. We closed our PAC-3 CRI production line in 2023.

What "do practical things for the people" established was a principle that local people's congress representatives should have a direct say in how local public money got spent. Over time, this evolved into a formal voting system where representatives vote on proposed government projects. They just exercised this power in a major way: the Huangyan District People's Congress (黄岩区人大) in Taizhou, Zhejiang voted on 16 major government investment projects for 2026 but killed two of them on the spot - a sports center and an irrigation megaproject, totaling over a billion yuan - with roughly 80% voting against. This doesn't mean these 2 projects are dead forever but they're sent back to the drawing board. The responsible departments have to address whatever concerns representatives raised, bring in experts for further review, and resubmit when they're ready.

This is a level of local democracy that many people will probably be surprised exists in China: it's genuine democratic oversight, they can actually block government spending, and the executive has to go back and try again. It's also - and this is where China is complex - something that surprised many people in China. As I mentioned above, not all people's congresses have this sort of power and the story generated a lot of national interest - with many national outlets writing about it, such as Guancha (https://guancha.cn/ChengShi/2026_06_10_820005.shtml) or The Paper (https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_33345743). So much so that the Zhejiang People's Congress deleted their original WeChat post about it. We don't know why - the story wasn't suppressed since so many state media outlets carried it - but the Zhejiang People's Congress probably didn't love being the face of a national debate about why other provinces aren't doing this too, as it amounts to throwing shade on their peers. I genuinely don't know, just a hypothesis.

Anyhow, that's China in all its complexity and why sweeping narratives about it are always wrong: a country where elected local representatives can genuinely exercise oversight power over the government thanks to reforms initiated by Xi Jinping himself, and where mainstream media boast about it, but where the provincial organ that broke the story would rather avoid the publicity.

Interviewer: But your channel is very close to him, correct?

Riklin: Yeah, but you in the media must understand that if somebody thinks that Netanyahu goes to the management of the channel and dictates what we think, that’s nonsense. My hour, for example, criticizes Trump. The hour before me does not. They say, You have to wait, relax. So, most of the time, we do support the line of Netanyahu, but my loyalty is to ideas, and when I think he does wrong things I say so. I say what I think.

Interviewer: What do you think Netanyahu will do now with an election coming up?

Riklin: I think he is in shock. In shock. In all the years that I have known him, he has never been in shock like now. Not with Obama. No one has caused a shock like Trump. And it’s because you couldn’t predict it.

Interviewer: The unpredictable nature of Trump turning on you is what makes it so sad.

Riklin: True. You are right. In a few months, we have an election, and one of the most important parts of his campaign was going to be his friendship with Trump. Now what is he going to say? It’s a problem.

Interviewer: Listening to you, it sounds very personal.

Riklin: It is. You are right. I was in the Oval Office with the Prime Minister several times. I don’t know Trump personally, but I was there when we visited Washington. You are right that it is personal. We are best friends. We are friends. What happened? What happened? We succeeded. Everything we said would happen happened, even more quickly and acutely than we thought.

Interviewer: Except for the strait being closed and the Iranian government not falling. Except for those things, right?

Riklin: No, no. You keep saying it, and that’s your privilege. That wasn’t a surprise. But we thought a blockade to their blockade was genius. And they were really close to a collapse.

99% OF BLOCKADES STOP RIGHT BEFORE COLLAPSING THE ENEMY!

Interviewer: It was close to succeeding, and then you guys were stabbed in the back.

Riklin: Exactly. And we don’t understand why. You understand that they are Nazis. What happened to you? ♦

man, this interviewer's good. just really pulled it out of him

I recently spoke by phone with Shimon Riklin, one of the anchors of Israel’s Channel 14, which is famous for its right-wing slant and strong pro-Netanyahu line. Riklin was long known for founding Israeli settlements; he eventually became a close ally of Netanyahu’s. He has condemned Trump’s Iran deal, calling it “total surrender.” During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed why he believes that Trump betrayed Israel, his contention that Iran is the modern world’s Nazi Germany, and whether the war should ever have been undertaken in the first place.

Interviewer: How are you feeling about the emerging deal between the United States and Iran?

Riklin: Totally shook. Totally shook. Unacceptable. Amazing. Nobody understands this. Listen, we have a couple of reasons that Israel and America waged war against Iran. One was to prevent nuclear weapons. One was to prevent the development of missiles that could hit, in the future, not only Israel but also Europe and the United States. What Iran tried to do is encircle Israel with fire, with enemies. So there were a lot of reasons. But why did we go into the war if this is what Trump was going to give Iran?

Interviewer: It’s a good question.

Riklin: Listen, we are really grateful, in Israel, for what Donald Trump did for Israel. He gives us a lot of weapons. He gives us space to fight, in terms of the political resistance we face in the world. And then he joins us in understanding the importance of the war against Iran. This is modern-day Germany, Nazi Germany. They are crazy! For us, Iran is Nazi Germany. They want to rule the world. They say, If you don’t become Muslim, we will kill you! After October 7th, we tried to gain back deterrence, so that our enemies around us were afraid. We wanted to break the Axis of Resistance around us. Now what is Trump doing? Everything, or anything that Iran says, he obeys. Trump said to stop the war in Lebanon. Today, an Israeli soldier was killed by Hezbollah. They are allowed to fire on us, but we are not allowed to fire on them.

how the fuck are you supposed to take this shit seriously when Nazi Germany, a country which murdered literally millions of jews, is somehow equivalent to Iran?

Interviewer: Some people might say that Trump and Netanyahu started this war. They bombed Iran, they failed to dislodge the Iranian regime, and Iran decided to hold the entire global economy hostage, which has led to horrific effects all across the world. And so they had to make a deal.

Riklin: Aren’t you supposed to have planned for something like this? If this is what you are going to do, don’t start the war. Don’t do it.

Interviewer: I think a lot of Americans would agree with that.

Riklin: But please listen a little bit. It’s even worse. There is—not was, is—a very good plan to replace the regime. Not one hundred per cent. Not eighty per cent. But most likely.

Interviewer: So, like, ninety per cent, maybe?

Riklin: Let’s be honest. No one can say if it is seventy per cent or eighty per cent.

Interviewer: O.K., but it’s in that ballpark?

Riklin: I can tell you that I speak with people of a very high rank in Israeli defense, and they speak of a seventy- or eighty-per-cent chance to replace the Iranian regime if Trump allows the militias from Iraq to invade Iran.

Interviewer: These are Kurdish militias you’re talking about?

Riklin: Not only. Israel can provide them with weapons. This was part of the plan. And then, to our amazement, Trump said the Kurds didn’t want to fight. But, really, Trump is the one who forbade them from fighting, because Erdoğan put pressure on him not to do it. Israel had a brilliant plan and spent a lot of money, and shocked the Iranians in the beginning of the war. But you prevented the militias from acting, and now you ask why the regime didn’t fall. Because you didn’t give us the chance. In Gaza. In Lebanon. In Syria. In Iran. Everything we wanted to do, you prevented us from doing it.

LITERALLY WHAT IS A SINGLE THING THAT THE US PREVENTED YOU FROM DOING!?

If you go to war, and you define the goal of the war, do it. If not, don’t do it. It’s not only that you don’t do it, but you falsely blame the Kurds and the Israelis. And you give in to all the demands of Iran. And they won’t stop. Tomorrow, they might say, If you don’t close the Embassy in Jerusalem, we will close the strait. Then what do you do?

Interviewer: You said that Israel had this brilliant plan. What did you make of the reports that Netanyahu told Trump that Iran would not close the strait?

Riklin: This is absolutely nonsense. What? What? Not only is that nonsense, but Israel took this into account. I speak with high-ranking people in the military and politics. We are a small country, and we are very careful. Everyone in Israel knew this was a possibility. If you want to win in Iran, it isn’t enough to stop the nuclear program or missiles. You need to change the regime. And Israel brought planning to do it. But we missed the opportunity. The Iranians were in shock at the beginning. Israeli intelligence knew everything.

uh huh

Interviewer: They did close the strait and hold the global economy hostage, though, right?

Riklin: Right, but, but, O.K. O.K. So, it’s your money or your life? Let’s make peace with Hitler, because the goal of the world is money? Even in Israel, we thought it would be a hundred and fifty dollars per barrel of gas. It isn’t. But it’s not good. But, listen, it’s not all about money. It’s not all about money in our life. Money is very important. It enables a good life. Wonderful.

Interviewer: But when you’re fighting a new Hitler, you don’t just focus on money?

Riklin: This is what we think. Somebody will need to deal with this. They speak loudly and clearly. The missiles will wind up in Europe or the United States.

Interviewer: Putting aside the merits of this war, do you think people such as yourself and the Prime Minister misjudged Donald Trump? I know you said a joyful prayer on the air when he was elected in 2024. You must have had some sense of who this guy is—that he isn’t loyal to anyone, that he had no real core values—

Riklin: Listen, I was really happy when he was elected. I admit it. I think it was good for Israel. And, in the beginning, it was. But today I don’t know what to think. I am really in shock.

Interviewer: It’s hard to fathom.

Riklin: I don’t have a lot of moments like this. I don’t remember someone in modern history who would go with you and do wonderful things, and then suddenly disappear and go against you. So now I am the bad guy? I supported you! I was the good guy! How did I become the bad guy, and the Ayatollah is the good guy?

Interviewer: This is why I was wondering whether you had ever observed Donald Trump.

Riklin: I don’t know what motivated him. You know he is a Gemini? Geminis are not really ones to say the same things a lot. They change their minds. You know Geminis?

brother what is even going on in this interviewer, the fuck

Interviewer: Yeah, I’m a Gemini, so don’t be too mean.

Riklin: I’m a Gemini, too. But not like this. I don’t do it to my friends. I must clarify to you how I am feeling: for three years, we have fought to bring back deterrence. And now he is giving Iran what it wants. I feel sorry for him and for us. He has put us at huge risk. And, if we are being honest, I will tell you this: if you compare the agreement Obama did with Iran to this, what’s the difference? In some ways, Obama was more serious.

Interviewer: But you feel like, at first, when Trump came back to office in 2025, for a while, it was actually better? A year ago, the Gaza war was still going on, there was a total cutoff of humanitarian aid, and Trump was presiding over it all. So you think those were better days?

Riklin: Right. In the past, it was really better days. Israel changed their borders with their enemies.

Interviewer: You control seventy per cent of Gaza now, too.

Riklin: It’s more like sixty per cent, but I don’t care. I wish it was seventy. It’s not enough.

Interviewer: Have faith in the future.

Riklin: They promised us that there would be emigration from Gaza. What happened to this?

huh... this concentration camp we've built doesn't have anyone exiting from it!

Interviewer: Who promised that?

Riklin: Trump. And Netanyahu.

Interviewer: Do you speak to the Prime Minister?

Riklin: I used to speak to him a lot, yes.

Interviewer: Why not anymore?

Riklin: If you want to know, then I can tell you. Sometimes, when I think something is going bad, I say what I think, so now we talk less.

There are so many questions to be answered about what led to yesterday’s fatal mishap involving a B-52H bomber at Edwards Air Force Base. The crash was tragic on a level the base, which sits at the center of America’s flight testing ecosystem, has not experienced, at least to our knowledge, for 75 years. The human impact here is just hard to quantify at this time. At the same time, there will be a major developmental impact, too, especially when it comes to work that is being done to modernize the B-52. This is a constellation of programs that are seen as vital to U.S. national security, and are also already running far behind schedule and over budget. At this time, we do know that the aircraft in question was being used to support the Radar Modernization Program (RMP), and its loss will have ramifications for that effort. The RMP has already suffered years of delays and major cost growth, the latter of which triggered a deep, legally mandated review. However, in the past year, the U.S. Air Force has been talking more positively about progress on this critical upgrade, as well as other parts of a larger B-52 modernization effort that have faced their own hurdles. “It was a B-52 that was on initial takeoff, supporting the Radar Modernization Program,” Air Force Col. James Hayes, Deputy Commander of the 412th Test Wing at Edwards, said at a brief press conference yesterday. “It was a local test sortie. It took off, and immediately after takeoff, crashed and burst into flames.”

“After reviewing the footage of the crash, it was deemed that this was an unrecoverable crash and unsurvivable,” Col. Hayes added. The B-52 had “a mixed crew of military, government civilians, and government contractors supporting this test mission.” ... When reached by TWZ for comment today, Boeing reiterated a brief statement it made yesterday that confirmed two of its employees died in the crash. ... Boeing, the original manufacturer of the B-52, is serving as the prime integrator for the RMP. Raytheon is supplying the new AN/APQ-188 active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar, which is derived primarily from the AN/APG-79. In the United States, versions of the AN/APG-79 are in service today on U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and all EA-18G Growlers, as well as U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18A-D Hornets. The AN/APG-82 used on Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles and F-15EX Eagle IIs also builds on the AN/APG-79. The AN/APQ-188 will replace the mechanically-scanned AN/APQ-166 found on B-52s today.

The RMP is one of many major upgrades planned for the Air Force’s entire fleet of 76 B-52s in the coming years. The bombers are also set to get all-new engines, improved communication suites, and more. The changes will be so substantial inside and out that the designation of the bombers will switch from B-52H to B-52J in the process. “It is too early to tell,” a U.S. Air Force official told TWZ today when asked about potential impacts to the RMP. ... The publicly stated plan for the RMP has called for the integration of the AN/APQ-188 radar onto two B-52s to support initial testing. Modification of those bombers began in Fiscal Year 2023, and the first example with the new radar touched down at Edwards in December 2025. Air Force budget documents say the second radar test B-52 is expected to be ready some time in Fiscal Year 2026, which began on October 1, 2025. Whether that milestone has already been reached is unclear. It is also not known how many AN/APQ-188s may be available at all at present. “The remaining test-phase radars are expected to be delivered through the summer of 2024,” Raytheon said in a press release back in 2023.

As noted, the RMP has already suffered significant delays. Under the original program schedule, flight testing was expected to start in 2024. The initial goal was for AN/APQ-188-equipped B-52s to begin flying operational sorties in 2027. As it stands now, the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the program is expected to run into the middle of 2029, with initial operational capability then coming in 2030. These delays have also come along with substantial cost growth. In 2021, the estimated price tag for development of the AN/APQ-188 and integration of those radars onto the Air Force’s full fleet of 76 B-52s was pegged at nearly $2.4 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). By 2023, the RMP’s costs had risen by 12.6 percent, per GAO. The program was eventually subjected to an extensive legally required review of its requirements and cost targets, which led to a scaling back of planned capabilities, at least initially.

...

The AN/APQ-188 is still set to provide essential new capabilities, in part just by being a more modern AESA design. As TWZ has written in the past:

“In general, AESA radars offer greater range, fidelity, and resistance to countermeasures, as well as the ability to provide better overall general situational awareness, compared to mechanically scanned types. Increasingly advanced AESAs bring additional capabilities, including electronic warfare and communications support.” “For the B-52, any new multi-mode AESA will improve the bomber’s target acquisition and identification capabilities, including when used together with targeting pods available for the bombers now. New radars for the bombers will also be helpful when it comes to guiding networked weapons over long distances to their targets and could provide a secondary ground moving target indicator (GMTI) and synthetic aperture radar surveillance capabilities. The radar upgrade could help defend B-52s from air-to-air threats, including through improved detection of incoming hostile aircraft.”

“Boeing has already looked at some schedule improvement that we’ve seen,” Air Force Gen. Dale White, the service’s Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, also told TWZ and others more recently at a roundtable at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. White was speaking at the time collectively about progress on the RMP and the Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP) for the B-52 fleet. At that time, Gen. White also highlighted how the relatively small size of the B-52 fleet, combined with the operational demands placed on it, had created additional challenges for modernizing the bombers. The B-52s are in high demand to support conventional combat operations, as underscored by their heavy use in the recent conflict with Iran. A portion of the fleet is also a key element of the air leg of America’s nuclear deterrent triad, which imposes additional hard operational requirements for available aircraft. “The challenge with B-52 that I think everybody forgets, it’s such a small fleet that has such a tremendous requirement in terms of readiness,” White said. “You’ve got to have a certain number on the ramp. That’s a requirement.”

With the B-52 fleet expected to fly into the 2050s, it is extremely likely that the Air Force will move to regenerate a bomber from storage to replace the one lost yesterday, just to meet general operational demands. That is typically a weeks-long process, at best, for an aircraft of this type and size. Since 2015, the Air Force has returned two other B-52s to service to make up for losses. One of these aircraft replaced a B-52 that crashed and burned at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam in 2016. The other one took the place of a bomber that was totaled on the ground when an electrical fire broke out during routine maintenance at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana in 2015. Thankfully, there were no fatalities in either of those mishaps. With CERP and the other modernization efforts underway, there is high demand for resources to support B-52 test and evaluation work overall. This is reflected in a nearly tenfold year-over-year increase in the planned budgeting for B-52 test aircraft asset support at Edwards. The Air Force received just over $1.5 million to help pay for “the test aircraft, manpower, Bomber Modular Data Acquisition System (BMDAS), and facilities at the Air Force Test Center” in Fiscal Year 2026, according to official budget documents. The service is now seeking nearly $11 million in this same line item for the next fiscal cycle.

In the meantime, as mentioned, the Air Force has rightfully made clear that its immediate priorities following yesterday’s B-52 crash are engaging with the families of those who perished and working on the investigation, which could take months to complete. Edwards has also at least shut down flight operations today, primarily due to the state of the runway following the mishap. The full scale and scope of the impacts to the RMP from yesterday’s loss remain to be seen.

The UK’s most senior uniformed official gave a warning to lawmakers today that future military operations will be reduced if extra funding is not approved by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Treasury to support the Ministry of Defence. Richard Knighton, chief of the UK defense staff, told a House of Lords committee that he is “most concerned” about day-to-day operations budgeting, which falls under a Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (RDEL) account. “Without changes to the settlement that, as [former Defense Secretary] John Healey set out” then operations, training and exercising “will come under pressure,” Knighton said. Healey resigned from his post last week, amid a row over a defense funding plan, which he viewed as insufficient, and said “could make the country less safe.” When asked by George Robertson, chair of the Lords International Relations and Defence Committee, if the UK will have to reduce its capabilities as funding uncertainty persists, Knighton said, “We will have to dial back our activities and our exercise and operational activity if the level of resource funding that is available to us does not increase.” He further noted that the matter “is still to be debated and decided.”

It remains to be seen if Starmer and the Treasury will offer new UK Defense Secretary Dan Jarvis funding above £13.5 billion ($18.1 billion), a figure reportedly offered to Healey in a bid to stem a £18 billion gap to support big ticket acquisitions. The alleged budget is reportedly set to be partly funded by cutting other departments’ capital budgets by 1 percent. The new funding is set to be included in the UK’s forthcoming Defence Investment Plan (DIP), billed to outline major equipment investments and cuts over the next decade. After months of delay, the document is expected to be published before the NATO Summit in Ankara next month. “What we need is a clear path” to meet NATO’s core defense spending target of 3.5 percent GDP, Knighton said today. “We will need to settle what that trajectory is, because it’s that which gives us the ability to plan, and industry the ability to know what to expect.” The UK committed at the NATO Summit in the Hague last year to hit the new alliance target by 2035. Starmer is proposing spending of 2.68 percent GDP by 2030, up from 2.3 percent spent in 2025.

Knighton revealed, however, that cuts are on the way near term. “In the [2025] Strategic Defence Review … the plan was for some capabilities to be removed from service, because they could be modernized, they could be delivered in more effective ways,” as the UK took heed of lessons from wars in Ukraine, Nagorno-Karabakh and the Middle East, he outlined. He pushed back on any sense that the UK’s credibility in the eyes of NATO allies has been adversely affected by the DIP delay. Since taking up the post of chief of the defense staff last year, “One of the things that has struck me is just how valued the UK’s leadership is in NATO,” he noted. Knighton pointed to two joint British-French missions, as examples of deployments where “other nations look to us to lead.” The European partners are committed to leading the coalition of the willing in Ukraine, and the maritime multinational mission in the Strait of Hormuz, once peace is restored in Kyiv and the troubled waterway.

"we're committed to going in after all the trouble's over"

The UK “may soon have to put our money where our mouth is” to adequately support those planned international operations, “but where’s the money?” Paul Taylor, senior visiting fellow at the Belgian-based, European Policy Centre think tank, told Breaking Defense today. “There is an enduring mismatch between the UK wanting to exert leadership in NATO on defense” and its available resources, added the analyst.