Cold War-era fighter jets F-4 Phantoms could launch satellites for US firm
The skies above the Kennedy Space Center have long echoed with the roar of privately flown F-104 Starfighters. Now, a new chapter is unfolding, one that promises to reshape access to space.
Starfighters International, a company with a long history in research and test flights, is working on the acquisition of retired F-4 Phantoms from South Korea.
The War Zone reported that these iconic Cold War fighters could play a crucial role in ambitious space launch operations.
The company aims to give small satellite operators quick access to low Earth orbit (LEO) and also provide suborbital opportunities.
Due to persistent tensions with North Korea, South Korea's Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) began operating F-4 Phantoms in the late 1960s. After 55 years of distinguished service, the ROKAF formally retired its last operational F-4s on June 7, 2024.
Reportedly, the sleek F-104 Starfighter excels at high-speed stratospheric climbs, but it has limitations. For larger payloads requiring significant thrust to reach Low Earth Orbit, the F-4 Phantom may present an effective answer.
The market for getting to space is booming, with small satellites leading the charge. Take CubeSats, for example – these shoebox-sized satellites are simpler and cheaper to create and get into space.
CubeSats are designed for a wide array of users, enabling them to pursue scientific research, test novel technologies, and build commercial services.
Currently, these smaller payloads are often beholden to the schedules of larger launches, tying customers to timelines that can span years. Simply put, these smaller satellites usually catch a ride on rockets already carrying larger payloads.
This new approach offers a revolutionary alternative. The use of F-4 Phantoms could potentially offer smaller customers quick, on-demand launches from optimal locations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SflKJhslJhc&pp=0gcJCbAJAYcqIYzv
This capability aligns perfectly with two major strategic goals: NASA's ongoing efforts to commercialize Low Earth Orbit (shifting towards purchasing services from private companies rather than solely operating its own infrastructure).
A second factor is the escalating U.S. military requirement for agile and responsive space access. Currently, satellite technology is becoming smaller and evolving at a faster pace. This trend is also making space a more contested domain.
While many launched space concepts have failed, Starfighters International stands out due to its long history.
The company's extensive operational experience with high-performance military fighter aircraft and 'deep roots in the spaceflight community' give them a unique and credible position.
Starfighters International currently employs its F-104 Starfighters for suborbital payload launches.
These missions are specifically designed for customers requiring access to a microgravity environment for experimentation, providing valuable minutes of weightlessness. The F-104s serve as the first stage for their Starlaunch 1 rocket, carrying it to altitude before release.
Looking ahead, the company plans to utilize the acquired F-4 Phantoms to carry the Starlaunch 2 rocket. This larger rocket is intended to provide access to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), and specifically to handle heavier payloads than what the F-104-based system can currently manage.
'A single rocket can carry one payload or over a dozen smaller ones,' the report stated.
Of course, acquiring capable military hardware is no simple feat. But Starfighters International has a plan. Should sourcing become an issue, other nations like Greece and Turkey, which are winding down their Phantom operations, could provide avenues for acquisition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
North Korea gets a weapons bonanza from Russia
Advertisement In return, Moscow has revived a Cold War-era treaty of mutual defense and cooperation with Pyongyang, supplying North Korea not only with fuel and food, but also with materials and technologies to modernize its military, according to South Korean officials and analysts. They warn that the growing expansion of military cooperation between Russia and North Korea, if left unchecked, could threaten a delicate military balance around the Korean Peninsula. The disintegration of the old Soviet bloc, and the subsequent collapse of North Korea's economy, created a yawning gap between North and South Korea in their conventional weapons abilities. To counter that, North Korea in recent decades dedicated its limited resources to developing nuclear warheads and their delivery missiles. Still, the North's conventional weaponry remained many years behind that of South Korea and the United States, which keeps 28,500 troops in the South. Advertisement Russia's war against Ukraine has brought Kim a military bonanza. It gave North Korea opportunities to test its weapons and troops and to gain valuable insights into modern warfare. Its conventional weapons industry has entered a renaissance, thanks to Russia's insatiable demand for its artillery shells and missiles and the military technology flowing the other way, South Korean analysts said. Kim now has greater ability to destabilize the East Asia region and more leverage should he sit down again with President Donald Trump or China's leader, Xi Jinping, they said. 'North Korea appears to be entering a strategic golden age,' said Yang Uk, an expert on the North Korean military at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul. The alliance has benefited President Vladimir Putin of Russia, too. For months, Russian officials concealed the fact that North Korean troops were taking part in efforts to push Ukrainians out of the Kursk region, in western Russia. It was only at the end of April, when most of the Ukrainian-occupied area had been liberated, that the head of the Russian General Staff said during a public meeting with Putin that North Korean troops 'provided significant assistance' to the Russian army there. Perhaps more valuably, North Korea sent millions of artillery rounds, as well as many missiles, to Russia. South Korean officials said that North Korea was also cooperating with Russia to build drones for both nations. Russia's resurgence in the war has given Putin a stronger hand in any potential peace negotiations with Ukraine, and with Trump. The courtship between Kim and Putin deepened when they met in Russia's Far East in September 2023. Kim was shown around a Russian space-launch station, an aircraft manufacturing factory, and air force and naval bases, compiling what South Korean analysts called a 'bucket list' of Russian technologies he wanted to get his hands on. Advertisement Last June, Kim invited Putin to Pyongyang, the North's capital, to sign an alliance treaty. Soon, North Korean troops began streaming into Russia, numbering up to 15,000 in all, according to South Korean intelligence officials North Korean troops took part in recapturing two villages in the Kursk region, said Dmitri Kuznets, an analyst with the news outlet Meduza, which was outlawed by the Kremlin and operates from Latvia. But the true extent of the troops' contributions has been debated. Valery Shiryaev, an independent Russian military analyst, said in a post on Telegram, a popular messaging app, that the participation of Koreans in real battles was Kim's idea, so that he could test his army. 'All of them are getting an incredible experience now and will come back as real veterans,' Shiryaev said. 'There are no such people in the South Korean army, which undoubtedly fills Kim Jong Un with pride.' Analysts in South Korea and other Western powers have been tallying Kim's hardware gains. They have monitored aircraft and ships carrying what appeared to be Russian military technologies to North Korea. Kim's prioritizing of drones alone would help significantly narrow the gap with South Korea in conventional weapons, analysts said. In April, Kim and his daughter, Kim Ju Ae, widely believed to be his heir, attended the launching of the North's first naval destroyer, the Choe Hyon. He later watched the ship test-fire various missiles. One of them was called a supersonic cruise missile by North Korea, and it resembled the nuclear-capable Russian cruise missile 3M22 Zircon, said Hong Min, a military expert at the Korea Institute for National Unification in Seoul. Advertisement While launching the destroyer, Kim Jong Un reconfirmed that he was also building a nuclear-powered submarine. Multiple UN Security Council resolutions ban arms trading with North Korea. But military cooperation with Russia 'has proved a perfect route for the North to evade sanctions and overcome its technological limits,' said a report from the Institute for National Security Strategy in Seoul. There remains doubt over how much sensitive technology Russia is willing to share with North Korea. North Korea has repeatedly failed to launch military spy satellites. And to build a nuclear-powered submarine, the country would need a small nuclear reactor. Such a submarine, which would vastly improve its ability to cross the Pacific and launch a nuclear attack on the US mainland, was so politically risky that Moscow would be 'very, very cautious,' said Doo Jin-ho, a senior analyst at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses in Seoul. But the mere threat it could happen gives Kim more leverage, and North Korean state media has shown part of what it said was a nuclear-powered submarine under construction. 'It's the most dangerous weapon North Korea has unveiled so far,' said Hong, of the Korea Institute for National Unification. This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump fast-tracks Utah uranium mine, but industry revival may wait for higher prices
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — In the southeastern Utah desert famous for red rock arches and canyon labyrinths, the long-dormant uranium mining industry is looking to revive under President Donald Trump. Hundreds of abandoned uranium mines dot the West's arid landscapes, hazardous reminders of the promise and peril of nuclear power during the Cold War. Now, one mine that the Trump administration fast-tracked for regulatory approval could reopen for the first time since the 1980s. Normally it would have taken months, if not years, for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to review plans to reopen a project like Anfield Energy's Velvet-Wood mine 35 miles (56 kilometers) south of Moab. But the bureau's regulators green-lit the project in just 11 days under a 'national energy emergency' Trump has declared that allows expedited environmental reviews for energy projects. More permits and approvals will be needed, plus site work to get the mine operating again. And the price of uranium would have to rise enough to make domestic production financially sustainable. If that happens, it would mean revival — and jobs — to an industry that locally has been moribund since the Ronald Reagan era. 'President Trump has made it clear that our energy security is national security," Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in announcing the fast-tracking policy in April. 'These emergency procedures reflect our unwavering commitment to protecting both.' More fast approvals appear likely. Trump's order also applies to oil, gas, coal, biofuel and hydropower projects — but not renewable energy — on federal lands. Conditions are ripe for more U.S. uranium mining Global uranium prices are double what they were at a low point seven years ago and, for the past year, the U.S. has banned uranium imports from Russia due to that country's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. More domestic mining would address a major imbalance. The U.S. imports about 98% of the uranium it uses to generate 30% of the world's nuclear energy. More than two-thirds of U.S. imports come from the world's top three uranium-mining countries: Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan. Less government regulation won't spur more U.S. uranium mining by itself. The market matters. And while spot-market prices are up from several years ago, they're down about a third from their recent high in early 2024. While some new uranium mining and processing projects have been announced, their number falls far short of a surge. That suggests prices need to rise — and stay there — for a true industry revival, said John Uhrie, a former uranium executive who now works in the cement industry. 'Until the price goes up dramatically, you're not going to be able to actually put these places into operation,' Uhrie said. 'You need significant capital on the ground.' Still, the industry is showing new life in the Southwest. Anfield Energy, a Canadian company, also looks to reopen the Shootaring Canyon uranium mill in southern Utah near Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. It closed in the early 1980s. A uranium mill turns raw ore into yellowcake, a powdery substance later processed elsewhere into nuclear fuel. Anfield officials did not return messages seeking comment on plans to reopen the mill and the Velvet-Wood mine. Energy Fuels, another Canadian company which ranks as the top U.S. uranium miner, opened the Pinyon Plain mine about 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the Grand Canyon in late 2023. And just off U.S. 191 in southeastern Utah is a hub of the industry, Uranium Fuels' White Mesa mill, the country's only uranium mill still in operation. In Moab, uranium has a long — and mixed — legacy These days, Moab is a desert tourism hot spot bustling with outdoor enthusiasts. But the town of 5,200 has a deeper history with uranium. Nods to Moab's post-World War II mining heyday can been spotted around town — the Atomic Hair Salon isn't just named for its blowout hairstyles. The biggest reminder is the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action project, a 480-acre (194-hectare) site just outside town. The decades-long, $1 billion U.S. Department of Energy effort to haul off toxic tailings that were leaching into the Colorado River upstream from the Grand Canyon and Lake Mead should wrap up within five more years. That mill's polluting legacy makes some Moab residents wary of restarting uranium mining and processing, especially after the Trump administration cut short their ability to weigh in on the Velvet-Wood mine plans. 'This was a process I would have been involved in,' said Sarah Fields, director of the local group Uranium Watch. 'They provided no opportunity for the public to say, 'You need to look at this, you need to look at that.'" Grand Canyon Trust, a group critical of the Pinyon Plain mine as a danger to groundwater, points out that the U.S. nuclear industry isn't at risk of losing access to uranium. 'This is all being done under the assumption there is some energy emergency and that is just not true,' said Amber Reimondo, the group's energy director. Supply and demand will decide uranium mining's future Hundreds of miles to the north, other nuclear energy projects point to the U.S. industry's future. With Bill Gates' support, TerraPower is building a 345-megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor outside Kemmerer in western Wyoming that could, in theory, meet demand for carbon-free power at lower costs and with less construction time than conventional reactor units. Meanwhile, about 40% of uranium mined in the U.S. in 2024 came from four Wyoming 'in-situ' mines that use wells to dissolve uranium in underground deposits and pump it to the surface without having to dig big holes or send miners underground. Similar mines in Texas and Nebraska and stockpiled ore processed at White Mesa accounted for the rest. None — as yet — came from mines in Utah. Powering electric cars and computing technology will require more electricity in the years ahead. Nuclear power offers a zero-carbon, round-the-clock option. Meeting the demand for nuclear fuel domestically is another matter. With prices higher, almost 700,000 pounds of yellowcake was produced in the U.S. in 2024 — up more than a dozen-fold from the year before but still far short of the 32 million pounds imported into the U.S. Even if mining increases, it's not clear that U.S. capacity to turn the ore into fuel would keep pace, said Uhrie, the former uranium mining executive. "Re-establishing a viable uranium industry from soup to nuts — meaning from mining through processing to yellow cake production, to conversion, to enrichment to produce nuclear fuel — remains a huge lift," Uhrie said. ___ Gruver reported from Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Western hesitation continues to undermine Ukraine
On May 28, President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Germany and met with the country's new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz. There were high expectations that Berlin would finally authorize the delivery of Taurus long-range missiles — a long-standing request from Kyiv since the beginning of the Russian invasion. However, this demand had been systematically rejected by former Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who feared dragging Germany into a direct confrontation with Moscow. Instead of Taurus missiles, Merz announced a new 5 billion euro aid package and a commitment that Germany would support the production of long-range weapons on Ukrainian territory. Although these systems are not as sophisticated as the Taurus — whose operation would require months of training — the models to be co-produced by Berlin and Kyiv have the advantage of being easier to use, which could accelerate their integration into the Ukrainian Armed Forces. While investing in Ukraine's defense industry is necessary — something President Zelensky himself has emphasized in urging allies to strengthen the country's defensive capabilities — the fact that he returned from Germany without a Taurus delivery promise reveals a deeper issue. These missiles represent not only a powerful symbolic gesture, demonstrating that the West is truly committed to Ukraine's defense, but also an immediate and tangible impact on the battlefield. As recently highlighted by the Kyiv Independent, the Taurus missile can be programmed to detonate only after penetrating multiple layers of protection, making it especially effective against strategic targets like the Crimean Bridge. Beyond being an important symbol for Russian President Vladimir Putin, that bridge is a crucial logistical link between mainland Russia and the occupied peninsula — a target of both symbolic and operational significance. The absence of the Taurus in this package highlights a familiar blind spot: many Western governments still underestimate how much timing matters. In a war, it's not just about how much support is given, but how quickly it comes. Delays in key decisions don't just slow progress — they quietly erode Ukraine's position on the ground. Has the West become so focused on the latest headlines, diplomatic theater, and talks in Istanbul that it has forgotten to reflect on its own recent history and the decisions made over the past three years? Read also: If Germany sends Taurus missiles to Ukraine, Russia has a major Crimean Bridge problem The truth is that the West sabotages itself by delaying the release of essential resources — a hesitation systematically exploited by Russia. That was the case with the F-16 fighter jets: the U.S. and European countries, initially fearful of escalation, delayed their delivery by more than a year — only relenting after intense Ukrainian pressure and decisive support from countries like the Netherlands and Denmark. The same pattern occurred with the Leopard 2 tanks, delivered only in early 2023; with the UK's Challenger 2 tanks, which arrived in March 2023; and with the U.S. M1 Abrams, delivered only in September that year — a year and a half after the invasion. Even Patriot air defense systems, vital for intercepting Russian missiles, faced initial resistance due to escalation fears and were only delivered in early 2023. Storm Shadow cruise missiles likewise only began arriving in May 2023. Given all this, the inevitable question is: why so much hesitation, if in the end they give in anyway? Russia, unlike its Western counterparts, has shown no hesitation when it comes to speed — whether in advancing troops or manipulating diplomacy. Every so-called negotiation is just another stalling tactic, with the Kremlin expertly layering new steps, new demands, and new distractions to stretch the clock. After the first Istanbul round, came the promise of a 'memorandum', only to be followed by yet another 'new phase.' It's a script they've used repeatedly: feign interest, pretend flexibility, and use the time gained to recalibrate offensives. U.S. President Donald Trump, for his part, appears to have started losing patience with Putin — but that frustration hasn't translated into any concrete action. Instead, he ends up playing straight into Moscow's hands, a convenient figure in a Kremlin-scripted performance designed to drain Western resolve and dress delay up as diplomacy. The race faced by Ukraine and its European allies is, above all, a race against time — and many still don't seem to realize it. For Europeans, this race involves rebuilding strategic autonomy in defense — a process that should have begun over a decade ago, with the annexation of Crimea. At the very latest, the alarm bells should have rung in 2017, when Trump, then president, openly threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO and, on one occasion when asked about Russian election interference, said he trusted Putin over his own intelligence agencies. The signs were there, flashing red — but Europe chose to look away. Now, the cost of that complacency is becoming impossible to ignore. For Ukrainians, this race against time is even more literal: every day counts, and every delay can mean a new Russian offensive. At this very moment, Russia is mobilizing around 50,000 troops near the border with Sumy — potentially signaling not just an attempt to create the 'buffer zone' Putin has demanded, but preparations for a new large-scale military advance. None of this is to downplay the support Europe has already provided — it's been essential. But that doesn't mean it's been enough, or delivered with the urgency the moment demands. While Putin takes advantage of U.S. ambiguity, Europe often falls into the trap of responding with long-term commitments that, although important, have little immediate effect on the battlefield. Trump, despite his recent tough rhetoric, continues to offer Moscow concessions before they're even requested. In February 2025, he stated, 'I'd love to have them back. I think it was a mistake to throw them out,' referring to Russia's expulsion from the G8 after the annexation of Crimea. It's exactly the kind of signal that undermines Western unity and hands the Kremlin an unearned diplomatic win — no pressure needed. Meanwhile, Europe's delayed promises may look good on paper, but they don't change the reality on the ground, where time and resolve are the most decisive weapons. Gestures like promising Ukraine EU membership by 2030 are certainly meaningful. They send the right message — that Ukraine belongs in the European family and that a future of integration and reconstruction lies ahead. But these are not messages that deter the Kremlin. Because 2030 is five years away — and in a war where every month can redraw the front lines, that's a long time. Ukraine has stunned the world with its resilience, determination, and ability to adapt under extraordinary pressure. But even under U.S. President Joe Biden — a president who, despite his caution and delays, remained firmly committed to Kyiv — 20% of Ukraine's territory remains under illegal Russian occupation. The question now is: what will Ukraine's map look like in five years? Europe, out of fear of escalation, has too often treated Ukraine as a burden. But the truth is that Ukraine should be seen as an opportunity — for integration, for strengthening collective security, and for renewing the European project. Its Armed Forces, forged in the most demanding conditions, have accumulated real combat experience, developed homegrown technologies, created new drone models, and demonstrated a level of adaptability that many European militaries lack. More than that: Ukraine has kept its institutions functioning and its government operating under the pressure of war — something most European countries would struggle to do. Read also: Russia 'testing' Europe's capacity to help Ukraine by intensifying air attacks Ukraine is not just a country in need of help; it's a partner with valuable capabilities to offer. Europe must also understand that not every show of strength leads to escalation. The recent use of the Russian Oreshnik missile against Ukrainian territory — following the U.S. decision in November 2024, under Biden, to authorize Ukraine's use of ATACMS inside Russia — was a calculated, demonstrative move, not the start of a broader escalation. In contrast, the unprecedented attacks on Kyiv and other regions in recent days were deliberate Russian actions that didn't follow any 'Ukrainian provocation.' They were likely triggered by something else entirely: the West's visible hesitation to act more decisively. When deterrence is delayed or watered down, it doesn't prevent escalation — it invites it. The message Moscow will understand is not the one about promises for 2030 — but the one about deliveries tomorrow. Submit an Opinion Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent. We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
