The U.S. Navy’s newest Mobile Ship Target has arrived at Port Hueneme, California, where it will be prepared for use in future weapons testing, according to the service.
The vessel, designated MST 2301 and known as MST-2, reached the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division site on 14 January. Navy officials said the ship will now undergo outfitting work ahead of supporting advanced live-fire and sensor evaluation activities. Built by Gunderson Marine, the 260-foot vessel was launched in Portland, Oregon, in July 2025 and completed builder’s sea trials before being delivered to the Navy. It is intended to provide a realistic and reusable surface target for maritime weapons testing.
At Port Hueneme, teams from the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division will install systems required for operational use. This includes a government-developed remote-control capability being fitted by the Threat Target Systems Department’s seaborne engineering team, allowing the vessel to be operated without a crew during live-fire events.
Commenting on the programme, Kevin Gross, Director of the Threat Target Systems Department, said: “Once complete, the MST will give us a safe, repeatable way to run some of the toughest weapons tests the fleet depends on.”
Unlike smaller or expendable targets, MST-2 has been designed for repeated long-term use. According to the Navy, planned missions include sensor and tracking trials as well as live-fire testing involving weapons launched from ships and aircraft. The service said the vessel’s size, speed and reconfigurable layout provide flexibility for evaluating future naval capabilities.
MST-2 is intended to replace the earlier Mobile Ship Target, MST 9301, also known as MST-1, which is being removed from government ownership after decades supporting fleet and maritime testing.
Rear Admiral Keith Hash, Commander of the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, said: “This is about giving Sailors and Marines confidence. When they go into harm’s way, they need to trust their systems completely. The MST lets us prove that trust under the most realistic conditions possible.”
The U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division said MST 2301 is expected to complete outfitting and begin supporting weapons testing operations in early 2026.
This is interesting enough but several NATO countries have deployed small numbers to Greenland (including UK in some reports) … I think that it is odd we’ve not had a piece here on UKDJ. As the youff say, just saying 😉 Maybe not enough info yet?
I don’t know why there hasn’t been an article, as it’s pretty big defence news. I’ve been following it as I find it interesting, so here’s a summary.
On Wed 14 Jan, Denmark, Greenland, and the US held a high-level diplomatic meeting in Washington. The discussions focused on US interest in Greenland and broader security concerns. According to officials, the meeting did not go well, with Denmark and Greenland reaffirming that Greenland is not for sale and emphasising their sovereignty. No agreements were reached, and tensions remained high. However, both sides agreed to establish a working group to continue discussions, with further talks expected on a roughly two- to three-week cycle.
Later that day, European countries began announcing military personnel deployments to Greenland at Denmark’s request. These were small reconnaissance, liaison, and planning teams. The deployments were officially described as part of a training exercise, Operation Arctic Endurance, and not directly linked to the earlier US discussions. However, the timing, coming straight after the meeting, suggests to me that this was not the case.
Over the following days, additional nations joined, and we ended up with the following countries involved: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom (1 officer), the Netherlands, and Finland.
On Fri 17 Jan, President Trump announced tariffs on all eight European countries involved. A 10% tariff will take effect on 1 Feb, rising to 25% on 1 Jun, and will remain in place until Greenland is sold. Trump framed the tariffs as a reaction to the European deployments:
“Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown.”
Full tweet:
“We have subsidized Denmark, and all of the Countries of the European Union, and others, for many years by not charging them Tariffs, or any other forms of remuneration. Now, after Centuries, it is time for Denmark to give back — World Peace is at stake! China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it. They currently have two dogsleds as protection, one added recently. Only the United States of America, under PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, can play in this game, and very successfully, at that! Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake. On top of everything else, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown. This is a very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet. These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable. Therefore, it is imperative that, in order to protect Global Peace and Security, strong measures be taken so that this potentially perilous situation end quickly, and without question. Starting on February 1st, 2026, all of the above mentioned Countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland), will be charged a 10% Tariff on any and all goods sent to the United States of America. On June 1st, 2026, the Tariff will be increased to 25%. This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland. The United States has been trying to do this transaction for over 150 years. Many Presidents have tried, and for good reason, but Denmark has always refused. Now, because of The Golden Dome, and Modern Day Weapons Systems, both Offensive and Defensive, the need to ACQUIRE is especially important. Hundreds of Billions of Dollars are currently being spent on Security Programs having to do with “The Dome,” including for the possible protection of Canada, and this very brilliant, but highly complex system can only work at its maximum potential and efficiency, because of angles, metes, and bounds, if this Land is included in it. The United States of America is immediately open to negotiation with Denmark and/or any of these Countries that have put so much at risk, despite all that we have done for them, including maximum protection, over so many decades. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
With jokes about taking Iceland next, the US has become a political, economic and military threat to Europe. Yet the FVIY relationship stands. Nobody is talking about ditching AUKUS or Trident. There’s a weird lag between what the US leadership is doing and the way NATO functions on a day to day level.
Nobody is talking about what happens if NATO becomes unusable for the European powers. Will the EU create the nucleus for a new anti-Trump alliance, and will France attempt to price the UK out of that alliance as we were priced out of SAFE?
*FVEY (Five Eyes)
We live interesting times. 🙁 Not helped by the vast amount of pseudo science bandied about… see other posts on this thread! A little learning is a dangerous thing as the Bard wrote.
No, sorry, not this thread – the Scottish independence one!
And the Bard didn’t say it.
Well spotted, that man.. but then I never said which Bard;) Alexander Pope.
I don’t think you can have anything other than pseudo science when you are talking politics and geopolitics, even geostrategy is in the end nothing more or less than opinion and educated guess.. science is about how our environment and bodies work not about how politics works.. nobody has figured the science of that.. even if a few people think they have figured the maths.
We need to look at options other than the US for critical things like the nuclear deterrant. It matters not if saner leadership may follow Trump, there is no guarantee it will, it could even be worse! Even if it does Trump has laid bare serious flaws in the US constitution in that one man has far too much power and the system is ripe for hijacking. The US can never again be counted as a trustworthy ally or friend.
Europe needs to have its own defence agreement outside of NATO, possibly including the likes of Canada, NATO without the US in effect. I can’t see anyone blocking the UK given its strategic location for controlling the North Atlantic and the nuclear umbrella it would contribute (assuming the reliance on US Trident is resolved)
Sadly it seems our leadership have their heads in the sand trying to pretend we aren’t in the position that we are in.
I’d punt that that is really current affairs, and changing too fast for UKDJ editorial resources.
Here ir would be a summary piece with links to other resources (maybe to useful expert commentators), or dive in and step-by-step, which would swallow editorial time.
Fair comment… but Scottish Ferries? Shipbuilding capacity I suppose.
Ferries are important national infrastructure. As an example China takes is ferries very seriously and it’s no joke to say every one is military asset.
I agree. It’s just there are many other UK places with Ferries – Wales to Republic of Ireland with 2 important routes for instance… because whether they (or we) like it or not Eire is a strategic place. Then cross Channel and North Sea… never hear about them, that’s my point. WKDJ is, sometimes, understandably “Albanacentric” to coin a phrase. Which is fine as far as it goes.
Scottish faeries?
Mind the Kelpies!
@George
This looks worth following up as it relates to defence manufacturing + Scotland + FSSS etc
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/18/royal-navy-shipbuilder-liberty-steel-dalzell-gupta
Reflecting, I’d welcome a piece by someone with background on how a changed European setup could work. Maybe one of these, or others:
What would NATO minus the USA look like?
How could European forces effectively bring Greenland within the European military sphere of influence? eg Arctic Training.
What can be done practically joint with Canada?
What are the prospects for the North-West passage, and the US claims to it as an international waterway?
And so on.
All valid questions
I will give you what I know about the viability of a North West passage.
It’s not really viable and has no even medium term chance of being a viable de route eve in the medium term. Longer term if we get the more catastrophic end of man made climate change ( 3 degrees ) then you may see it open in the 22c.
As it is it gets far more multi year artic ice than the north east passage and as a lot more narrow choke points created by islands.. and sea ice grows from land, so these islands and narrow choke points ice up and block, unlike the NW passage which does not have these numerous narrows..
So the NW passage is to be honest not a geostrategic consideration for probably 3 generations… the NE passage is a now issue.
In regards to Europe without a US lead NATO.. that is harder because it’s a political question and who knows with politics. From a Pure military and economic power point of view a unified Europe is perfectly able to be the third equal power pole in the world alongside China and the US.. but the big question that is unknown is will it be able to unify in such a way as to become that 3rd pole.. or will it fracture into small client states of the US and Russia ( allowing Russia to become the third pole).
At present both the US and Russia are exerting power to see Europe to fracture as they don’t want Europe ( specifically the EU) to become that 3rd pole. You can see this in how the US…
1) gave the UK preference treatment over the EU.
2) singled out 4 EU nations most likely to leave for special consideration
3) support for nationalist parties in Europe
4) removal of support for Ukraine against Russia
5) high tariffs on the EU
6) political attacks on the EU and European governments
7) picking a fight with Denmark over Greenland and then targeting and tariffing the European nations that actively supported Denmark.
So the big what will a post NATO Europe look like will essentially depend on EU political unity and how successful the US and Russia are in destroying that..
But this all opens one hell of a big question for the small number of independent European countries in three zones.
1) The Euro Atlantic and high north ( UK, Norway, Iceland ) as both the US and EU will want them in their zone of control and fence sitting will be a problem as Russia will also want to neutralise these nations.
2) The Balkan states.. these are a bit of a cancer in the centre of the EU and the EU would need to ensure control.
3) Eastern European independence states.. Russia will come for these it needs to develop itself into a pole in the new order
So the question is not about military and economic power as Europe has bags of that.. it’s about either political unity and creating a pole or fracturing and becoming a more wealthy version of Africa ( a continent of powerless nations that do the bidding of others).. and what either of those means to an independent sovereign UK ( I’m not really seeing a path I particularly like.. I think either way the UK is going to end up swallowing a pile of sick).
Good comments, with which I largely agree.
Thank you, that all makes good sense.