In the first days of the Cold War, America had a big question: how could its bombers get far into land held by the foe, beat off quick enemy jets, long-range missiles, and the big fear of a nuclear war hanging above all? One answer they came up with was the “penetration fighter”—a jet that goes with the bombers, clears the skies of threats, and then flies back home.

Lockheed’s response to this issue was the XF-90, designed at the Skunk Works legend by Kelly Johnson and Willis Hawkins.

Taking a lesson from the P-80 Shooting Star, the XF-90 was state-of-the-art in drawings: 35-degree swept wings, Fowler flaps, leading-edge slats, and a swept wings-afterburners-tip tanks combination novel to home production.

Its tail surfaces were adjustable in both directions, another innovative step forward.

But engineering superiority had its price. The XF-90’s airframe was constructed from 75ST aluminum—stronger by far than the more conventional 24ST—but also considerably heavier.

The consequence was an aircraft that would endure incredible forces, such as nuclear shock waves, but whose two Westinghouse J34 turbojets simply could not generate enough power. Though the plane theoretically achieved 665 mph, with a range of 2,300 miles and a ceiling of 39,000 feet, it fell behind Air Force requirements and its competition.

Flight testing exposed its deficiencies. The XF-90 was able to break the sound barrier only in a dive, and even takeoff needed rocket-assisted boosters. It was compared unfavorably with competitors such as the McDonnell XF-88 and North American YF-93, as it was slow, clumsy, and underpowered.

When the Air Force chose the XF-88 as its favored aircraft, the penetration fighter idea lost momentum as strategic needs changed and appropriations ended.

But the XF-90 became oddly famous due to its unparalleled durability. One of the prototypes was subjected to stress tests at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, and the second one was shipped to the Nevada Test Site for nuclear weapons tests.

The tests yielded surprising results: a one-kiloton explosion produced minor fractures only, a 33-kiloton explosion crumpled the nose but did not suffer catastrophic structural damage, and even a 19-kiloton explosion that ripped off the tail left the plane mostly intact.

Amazingly, engineers assessed that it would only take 106 hours to return the plane to airworthiness after the initial explosion.

Years later, the radiation-stained pieces of the XF-90 were unearthed, restored, and put on exhibit at the United States Air Force National Museum in Dayton, Ohio—a rare reminder of a jet that withstood three nuclear explosions.

Though it never saw active duty and failed to fulfill its intended mission, the XF-90 influenced future designs like the F-104 Starfighter. Its story demonstrates that even “failed” aircraft can push technological boundaries and that some machines are built tough enough to endure both battlefield stress and atomic fire.

Not many planes reach the fame of the B-52 Stratofortress. When folks think of strong signs of U.S. air power, the B-52 often comes up—a big force from the Cold War that kept doing well despite new tech, plans, and risks. How can a plane first made in the 1950s still be key in 2025, and maybe even fly until the 2050s? The answer is in its strong build, constant upgrades, and great worth in war plans. The B-52’s story starts after World War II, when the U.S.

The Army Air Forces needed an intercontinental bomber to deliver nuclear bombs far into enemy lines. Boeing’s 1946 contract design produced a jet-propelled beast with 185-foot and 160-foot wingspan and length, respectively, and eight engines on four twin pods. The first B-52A flew in 1954, and 744 aircraft were built in eight different versions by 1962. It soon became the Strategic Air Command workhorse capable of carrying nuclear as well as conventional loads worldwide. What truly sets the B-52 apart, though, is its adaptability.

Throughout the decades, it has been adapted for thousands of missions: strategic bombing, close air support, sea patrol, mine laying, and even serving as a launch platform for test aircraft. Its gigantic airframe lends itself perfectly to being upgraded constantly—new avionics, weapons, sensors, and defense systems—making it relevant even as the character of warfare changes.

Its carrying capacity is enormous, able to move up to 70,000 pounds of bombs, missiles, and guided munitions. Together with in-flight refueling, its reach is virtually unlimited, constituting a global strike capability. The operational record of the B-52 is that of an American military dynasty. From bombing sorties over Vietnam to precision bombing during the Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and against ISIL, the aircraft has operated flawlessly.

In Operation Desert Storm, for instance, B-52s dropped around 40 percent of coalition bombs. Its ability to loiter on the battlefield and provide close air support with precision munitions has been a blessing in modern warfare.

According to most criteria, the B-52 should have long since been pensioned off. So why is it not? The twin explanations are technical flexibility and strategic caution. The bomber was engineered to last, with a configuration that allows it to be upgraded by a few competitors. Its adaptability, range, and carrying capacity have enabled it to be a reliable workhorse for over six decades—a role that’s only being supported by the most ambitious modernization effort in its life. At the center of this endeavor is the substitution of the 1950s-built Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines with new Rolls-Royce F130 engines.

The new engines offer better performance, higher fuel efficiency, and lower maintenance needs—a big reason for maintaining the B-52’s affordability compared to more modern, new bombers. Using high-tech digital mapping and 3D modeling, the engines were successfully positioned into installed nacelles, giving a smoother, more reliable upgrade that will extend the operating life of the aircraft right through to the 2050s.

Modernization does not stop with engines. The B-52 is being equipped with new radar, advanced communications, enhanced navigation gear, and enhanced weapons integration. Targeting pods like the Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod give the bomber the ability to detect and target with even greater precision, regardless of weather. These upgrades assure the B-52 as a central part of the U.S. Air Force inventory for generations.

Strategically, the worth of the B-52 stands clear. Its flexibility allows it to carry conventional and nuclear payloads, making it a keystone of the nuclear triad and a successful conventional deterrent capability. Its presence sends a global message of resolve and readiness. There is no other airplane that can compete with the range, payload, and flexibility of the B-52.

Even with the inclusion of newer aircraft like the B-21 Raider into operations, the B-52’s unparalleled versatility sustains it. The Air Force’s continued investment and commitment to updates have rendered it a modern platform that can be readily reconfigured, modified with new weaponry, and based out of a wide range of bases. Its ability to loiter for hours, carry massive ordnance, and adapt with advancing technology makes it a powerful deterrent against any would-be threat.

Ultimately, however, the B-52 Stratofortress is more than an aircraft—it’s a symbol of American determination and innovation. Coming close to its hundredth year of operation, the B-52 still astounds, showing us that with the right engineering, upgrades, and vision, even the most veteran warhorses can remain at the forefront of military power.

President Donald Trump’s recent call to build a twin-engine variant of the F-35, which he would call the F-55, has caused the defense community to buzz, bringing back to life the questions about the future of American airpower.

In a roundtable with business leaders in Doha, Trump called the concept a “super upgrade” of the F-35, questioning the usefulness of single-engine fighters and hailing the importance of redundancy in safety. He also spoke of a possible “F-22 Super,” a future Raptor variant, indicating his desire to upset long-standing U.S. fighter development strategy.

Trump’s F-55 idea would basically mean placing a second engine on the F-35 airframe, something he contends would greatly enhance the plane’s capability. His argument is straightforward: no engine is bulletproof, and having multiple engines enhances survivability. Trump even used the four engines of a Boeing 747 as an example of redundancy in the aerospace industry.

The response from the defense and aerospace community has been guarded, if not skeptical. Former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall called the proposal “mystifying” since a twin-engine version of the F-35 would nearly need to be redesigned.

Aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia was more direct, calling the proposal “not feasible” and likening it to a child’s drawing instead of an actual engineering proposal. Putting in a second engine basically would create a whole new plane, with all the expenses and engineering challenges that come along with it.

Technological challenges are very real. As J.J. Gertler of the Teal Group explains, the F-35’s existing airframe does not have space for a second engine. Redesigning it would involve a greater, stronger frame, new wings, tail, and air intakes, in effect building an entirely different airplane with minimal connection to the original.

Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security further noted that stealth would be especially difficult to maintain, as even slight alterations in the airframe’s shape or material would destroy low observability.

Strategically, the timing and logic of the proposal are questionable. The Air Force already chose the F-47 as its sixth-generation fighter, built from the ground up to replace future operational requirements. Building a twin-engine F-35 may duplicate the mission profile of the F-47, risking redundancy in terms of size, cost, and capabilities.

In addition, the F-35 program itself is already being heavily modernized and upgraded in terms of sustainment. Multi-billion-dollar upgrades are in the pipeline for engines, thermal systems, and power systems, while the Block 4 upgrades offer increased combat capability. Lockheed Martin has also floated a “fifth-generation-plus” variant of the F-35, providing much of the F-47’s future capabilities at lower cost. Yet the program still leaves unanswered questions about sustainment, maintenance responsibility, supply chains, and intellectual property, highlighting the sheer complexity of such a bold fighter program.

For the defense sector, Trump’s remarks are a mixed message. An interest in purchasing and modernizing the F-35 and F-22 might prove helpful to Lockheed Martin and its partners. Yet the technology and strategic difference between the F-55 concept and current modernization plans means that the undertaking is not likely to go further than the concept phase. Aboulafia cautioned that firms pursuing such an effort without government support would be assuming giant, perilous expenses.

The F-55 debate emphasizes a key conflict in U.S. airpower strategy: reconciling the aspiration for aggressive, paradigm-shifting capabilities with technical constraints, cost, and strategic unity. As the Pentagon presses forward to modernize its fighter force and close the F-35’s sustainment issues for the long term, the F-55 reminds us that visionary concepts have to be anchored in technical possibility and workable planning.

These long-shot, smart missiles give Kyiv a way to hit past the front lines. They reach into both the taken land in Ukraine and now, for the first time, deep into Russia to strike at Russian army spots.

The U.S. saying yes to hit Russian land was a big shift in plans. In many past fights, U.S. leaders did not pick this path. They were scared that these strikes could make things blow up into bigger risks.

That equation changed after news emerged of North Korean soldiers fighting in conjunction with Russian forces in the Kursk province and amid increasing doubt regarding whether future American political power would continue to provide military support to Kyiv. As the BBC reported, the move was widely seen as aimed at bolstering Ukraine’s position before any potential shift in US policy.

Ukraine did not delay in testing its new range. Its initial confirmed ATACMS attack within Russia struck a missile storage facility near Karachev in the Bryansk province—about 70 miles from the border. The explosion obliterated huge caches of artillery shells, anti-aircraft missiles, and other ordnance, with drones said to have assisted the mission. Russia said most of the missiles were shot down, but video evidence indicated the facility took serious damage.

The attacks didn’t end there. Ukrainian troops subsequently struck Russian military targets in the Kursk region, including a battalion of S-400 surface-to-air missiles around Lotarevka—Russia’s most sophisticated air defense system and its response to the U.S. Patriot.

The Russian Defense Ministry acknowledged that two out of five incoming missiles penetrated the defenses, destroying a radar and causing casualties. Another attack was made on the Khalino air base, although Moscow played down the extent of the damage. For the Kremlin to publicly acknowledge any losses at all is unusual—and telling.

In Crimea, ATACMS have been equally disconcerting. A minimum of ten were employed to strike S-300 and S-400 sites throughout the peninsula, destroying or knocking out systems and killing operators. Independent satellite imagery verified the damage, including at the strategically significant node of Dzhankoy. The strikes compelled Russia to relocate its air defenses further from the front line, making it more difficult to resupply them and leaving some less defended.

Russia’s reply of punches has been both verbal and artillery. On the ground, it has heightened missile and drone strikes against Ukrainian cities, targeting energy infrastructure—a campaign Amnesty International has dubbed a war crime for deliberately targeting civilian essentials.

Politically, the Kremlin has cranked up its nuclear threats. Spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautioned that NATO-supplied missile attacks on Russian soil might qualify under Moscow’s new doctrine as nuclear retaliation targets, which now include attacks by non-nuclear nations supported by nuclear powers.

Strategically, ATACMS have disrupted Russia’s feeling of security. With a range of 300 kilometers, they place once “safe” targets—airfields, command centers, supply depots—firmly within reach. This has caused Moscow to spread equipment, push aircraft further into its own country, and increase air defenses. For Ukraine, the payoff on the battlefield is obvious: interdicting logistics, weakening defenses, and boosting morale at a time when combat in the east is particularly fierce.

Nevertheless, Western analysts warn against hyping the missiles’ effect too much. Ukraine’s ATACMS supply is limited, and Russia is already reshaping its tactics. The missiles will not determine the war by themselves, and U.S. political shifts can restrict future shipments.

Despite that, their deployment has redefined the limits of this war. The introduction of ATACMS demonstrated how a single change in military policy can remake strategy, change calculations of risk, and introduce new unpredictability into a conflict already anything but predictable.

More related images you may be interested in:

Boeing’s choice to construct the U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter—now formally named the F-47—represents a turning point in American air force history. For several years, air dominance has hung in the balance of fifth-generation fighter aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. But changing worldwide threats and technological advances have called the Air Force to step boldly forward with a sixth-generation fighter, offering a new age of air dominance.

A Generational Leap

The F-47 is not only another fighter plane—it’s a giant step forward in design and functionality. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin called it a platform designed to “outpace, outmaneuver, and outmatch any adversary.” The aircraft prioritizes modularity, versatility, and sustainability. Its stealth capabilities are designed to be the best its predecessors have had, with low-maintenance surfaces and an open-systems architecture that enables quick upgrades in sensors, software, and mission-specific gear.

Air Force drawings indicate a jet that breaks from traditional stealth designs. The F-47 has a flattened fuselage, upward-tilting wings, and canards—elements not found on the F-22 or F-35. They are designed to optimize range, maneuverability, and survivability, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, where operations of extended range are paramount. Officials have signaled two variants: one designed for the vast Pacific, and the other for shorter-range European missions.

Boeing Takes the NGAD Competition

The NGAD competition was a close one. Lockheed Martin, the F-22 and F-35 maker, lost by a hair, and Northrop Grumman had previously bowed out of the contest. Boeing’s victory is a good boost to the company, which has struggled with other defense contracts.

Steve Parker, the acting president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, noted that the company spent “the largest single investment in the history of our defense business” to prepare for the F-47 program.

Lockheed Martin, on the other hand, has gone the pragmatic route. Rather than challenging the decision, the company is shifting NGAD research efforts into the F-35 upgrade. CEO Jim Taiclet has put initiatives in motion to deliver “80% of sixth-generation capability at 50% of the cost” by combining advanced materials, sensor fusion, and countermeasures from NGAD to transform the F-35 into a budget-friendly “5th generation plus” option for U.S. military units and allies.

Strategic Implications

The F-47 project is not just a new fighter—it’s changing the way the United States is fighting in the air. The aircraft is designed to operate in concert with a grid of unmanned systems, including Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), that extend and enhance the reach of the fighter. This way of operating keeps the U.S. ahead of potential competitors, including China, which is still developing advanced stealth planes and swarms of drones.

Budget concerns are also at the core of the program. F-22 experience, which made the jet too expensive since production was limited, has informed an aggressive plan for a larger and sustainable F-47 fleet.

The Air Force allocated $2.7 billion in its 2025 budget request for NGAD, with projected spending of $19.6 billion over five years. Total cost to develop is expected to be over $20 billion, with the final program cost being hundreds of billions over the lifetime of the program.

Legacy Fighters Remain Critical

The F-22 and F-35 will also continue to serve along with the F-47. The F-22 is still an exceptional air superiority aircraft, and ongoing modernization efforts ensure that it stays relevant. The F-35, despite its complexity, will be modernized, which could well turn it into a formidable “5th generation plus” vehicle, offering many NGAD capabilities at a fraction of the price.

Looking Ahead

The F-47’s arrival marks a new era of U.S. airpower. Through the merging of cutting-edge manned fighters, unmanned drones, and premium digital technology, the Air Force is forging a future where agility, adaptability, and networked lethality make up dominance in the skies. As Gen. Allvin described it, the F-47 is “built to adapt,” placing American air superiority ahead of any potential competitor.

The Douglas A-1 Skyraider is a unique example of a tough, all-around attack plane that remains strong long after its time in military flying history. Even though it was built as World War II was ending and joined the ranks in the late 1940s, the Skyraider’s fame has only grown stronger over the years. Its tale is more than just numbers or battle stats; it’s about how this piston-driven fighter, lovingly named the “Spad,” exceeded expectations and left deep marks in the sky and in the hearts of those who piloted it.

The story of the Skyraider began when the U.S. Navy in World War II saw that their air groups on ships needed a new craft— a plane that could carry a lot of bombs but also move fast to match new fight plans. Ed Heinemann from Douglas Aircraft made the Skyraider with the strong Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone engine, the same one used in the B-29 Superfortress. Even though its first flight was in March 1945, the war ended before it could fight. Still, the Navy went on, and the AD-1 Skyraider was made in 1946, mixing big bomb loads with the quick moves of fighter jets—a weird but strong blend.

The Skyraider’s true claim to fame was its high payload and endurance. With fifteen hardpoints and the capability of delivering up to 8,000 pounds of rockets, guns, and bombs—more than a B-17 Flying Fortress—it was an airborne arsenal. Its 2,700-horsepower engine powered it to 322 mph and more than 1,300 miles, but more significant was its capacity to loiter near the battlefield for hours. Unlike the jets that needed to refuel continuously, the Skyraider could remain on station, providing continuous close air support. Pilots would sometimes characterize it as “surrounded by noise and vibration,” but it was also a machine that gained trust and respect.

The Korean War was where the Skyraider tested itself. It arrived in 1950 and soon became an indispensable asset to the Navy and Marine Corps, excelling in close air support and ground attack. Low and slow flight capability proved well-suited to Korea’s hilly and mountainous landscape and the enemy’s hit-and-run strategies. But navigating the mighty Skyraider was not an easy task to accomplish—its size and power made carrier landings tricky, and many were lost to crashes or enemy fire. By the end of the war, 128 Skyraiders had been lost, a sobering reminder of the risks involved.

Vietnam was the Skyraider’s defining chapter. Assigned to the 1st Air Commando Squadron starting in 1964, the plane was adapted for search and rescue missions and special operations along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Its long loiter time and heavy firepower meant it could protect rescue helicopters and suppress enemy fire for extended periods. The name “Sandy” was made into a legend that stood for pilots who flew into the face of heavy enemy fire to bail out others. The A-1’s staying power and constant covering fire often meant the difference between life and death.

The Skyraider’s ruggedness was the stuff of legend. There are countless tales of these aircraft coming back home with bullet holes all over the fuselage, wings missing, or canopies shot away, but still flying angrily. One good story involves Ensign John Higgins landing on the USS Antietam with a broken canopy and a five-inch fragment of shrapnel lodged in his headrest—a testament to the plane’s durability and the pilot’s ability.

Although slower than jets, the Skyraider was not an easy target to hit. In Vietnam, propeller Spads even shot down enemy MiG-17 fighter aircraft, much to their surprise, and the courage of their pilots. In addition to attack missions, the Skyraider was also used for electronic warfare, early warning, reconnaissance, and psychological operations, demonstrating its astounding versatility.

As jets evolved, the Skyraider slowly gave way to newer models such as the A-4 Skyhawk. Nevertheless, its fame did not wane. Numerous Skyraiders were transferred to the South Vietnamese Air Force, which operated them until the loss of Saigon. Other nations, including the UK, France, and Sweden, also operated the Skyraider, although in lesser quantities.

What sustains the legend of the Skyraider? It’s not just nostalgia or fond recollections from its aviator, although those are deep. Even years after retirement, many pilots of the aircraft feel it’s the greatest close air support aircraft ever built. As old Marine Captain William C. Smith used to say, “Even after all these years, I believe the AD is still the best airplane ever made for close-in attackBetterer than anything flying today.”

The history of the Skyraider is a tale of ruggedness, versatility, and sheer firepower. It held the line between generations, surviving many of its peers and cementing a place in the annals of military aviation history. Whether it is recalled as having made audacious rescue flights, its durability under fire, or its tremendous firepower, the Douglas A-1 Skyraider is, in many minds, the greatest attack aircraft ever constructed.