CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

The Farnborough International Airshow is coming to a close in the UK, marking the end of one of the aerospace and defense industry's top gatherings. Institutional research desks have had boots on the ground, tracking commercial-aircraft orders, defense procurement and other industry trends.

A team of Citi analysts led by John Godyn attended Farnborough earlier this week and reported back to clients Thursday morning.

Their findings pointed to accelerating missile demand and a wave of new aircraft orders that could fuel a stronger and more robust growth cycle for aerospace and defense companies.

Godyn highlighted the event's key takeaways, giving clients a clearer picture of the aerospace and defense industries heading into fall and 2027:

1) Aftermarket channel checks across multiple companies extend recent strength.

We spoke with a wide range of aftermarket exposed companies including engine manufacturers, parts/component manufacturers, MROs, and aircraft lessors. Consistently, across all meetings, companies expressed the view that the key themes driving aftermarket continue including: (1) low retirement rates, (2) high lease renewals and tight secondary market trends for AC/engines, (3) strong demand for lift from global airline customers, (4) capacity constrained MROs, and (5) no impact from the conflict in the Middle-East. Given how strong recent trends have been, companies did caution that mean reversion to long term growth rates, which GE described as LDD revenue growth and many non-engine aftermarket players described as HSD revenue growth, was inevitable. We view the read-through as clearly positive across multiple stocks in our aftermarket coverage (GE/RTX/VSEC/LOAR/HEI) and EU analyst Conor Dwyer echoed that sentiment for Safran's 2026. To be fair, we note that investor expectations are already set for continued beats in this category of stock so the bar isn't obviously low.

2) M&A heating up?

Multiple companies we spoke to described an M&A backdrop that is much more active with many deals coming to market. Management teams described multiple drivers with notable emphasis on self-help activities at corporates focused on ramping production leading to non-core assets or underperforming suppliers being put up for sale, as well as PE-owned assets coming to market. We get the sense from most of our companies that the Aero M&A pipeline remains robust and multiple companies expect M&A to be a larger driver of growth. Valuations were regularly cited as reasonably full, but there remain opportunities to find deals at reasonable prices.

3) Airbus Next-Gen has been a dominant theme throughout the week.

The next generation Narrowbody Jet on the part of Airbus has been a ubiquitous theme throughout the week. GE indicated CFM collaboration with Airbus was very active on the RISE program (meeting 2x per month). Other component manufacturers expressed similarly heightened activity and discussion around the next generation Narrowbody Jet. Suppliers described conversations with BA on similar topics to be far earlier stage and having less consistent cadence.

4) GE emphasized more upside on CFM56 aftermarket $ profit and a quicker ramp on LEAP aftermarket $ profit than investors may appreciate.

GE noted that LEAP:CFM56 $ profits should be roughly equal by 2030. GE expects CFM $ profits to continue to grow until 2028 before flattening out, while LEAP $ profits continue to catch up until 2030. LEAP % margin will lag CFM56 even in 2030 and will continue to move higher as the LEAP installed base ages. We see a similar shape in our above-consensus expectations and see the possibility of additional upside as the belief that the aftermarket cycle lasts ultimately proves to be more robust than even GE management expects.

5) GE engine read-through positive.

The aforementioned CFM56:LEAP view is similar to Conor Dwyer's assumed split for Safran within the next 5 years (he is 45:55 in 2030, reaching 49:51 in 2031). Conor notes that GE was quite relaxed about the threat of rising retirements in the coming years to the CFM56 program, but did note it is managing the risk of rising USM (used serviceable materials) already with slightly slower price increases on the CFM56 vs the LEAP and acknowledged the possibility of risk in 2029-31 (this is a risk Conor highlighted here in 2028).

6) Bullishness on emerging engine technologies was palpable.

Although we did not speak to RTX, we felt that GE upped the volume on its RISE engine and is increasingly and more loudly making the case for the innovative technology. Separately, multiple EVTOL players we met with showed evidence of progress on hybrid-electric engines punctuated by a GE/BETA hybrid-electric engine which was demonstrated live and recently was the first such engine to be tested above 30,000 feet.

7) Demand for accelerating missile production was a frequent topic of conversation.

At face value, this is no surprise, but channel checks emphasized 3 interesting points: (1) targets of 3-10x growth in production by program are likely to prove low because these forecasts do not incorporate international demand, so as 'framework agreements' are definitized, the supply chain is already being asked to ramp even higher to satisfy allies' needs, (2) solutions for scalable hypersonic missile production are being requested, and (3) supplying into emerging affordable mass designs may be a bigger opportunity than initially thought. We continue to believe that Missile Defense/Munitions Replenishment are themes that will exceed expectations for years to come.

8) Positive secondary market trends supportive of aircraft lessors.

In particular: (1) a continued, favorable supply/demand mismatch in the secondary market driving lease rates higher across a wide range of aircraft types, (2) among narrowbodies, notable strength in the A321neo and 737MAX, (3) among widebodies, even greater strength in the A330neo and 787 families of aircraft, (4) a belief among lessors that existing production outlooks across the OEMs are unlikely to be a meaningful headwind to secondary market trends until the end of the decade, and (5) the view that a lack of customer support will dissuade airframe OEMs from pursuing new clean sheet designs this decade. In totality, these channel checks were not only positive for AER, but also much of our aerospace coverage.

9) Are 737 -7 and -10 certifications imminent?

Suppliers to whom we spoke expressed a tremendous amount of confidence in rate increases at BA in the short/medium-term. Suppliers also felt that events supportive of BA's case for raising rates, namely the -7/10 certifications, were likely to happen sooner rather than later.

10) ETN mentioned that Aero could be in a historic "feast" cycle.

ETN Aero Management mentioned that it expects 16 new Aero-focused platforms launching over the next ten years vs. the last big Aero cycle in the 2000s where only five were launched. The majority of the new expected platforms will be military, and ETN Management seems confident that the company can enjoy considerable content on these platforms. We sense Management is particularly excited about the Bell MV-75 Helicopter program and the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program (CCA), although these programs are still in the early stages in terms of ramp up for ETN.

11) Aero supply chain slowly healing but will be tested with further rate increases.

In general, nearly every company we spoke to described the current aerospace supply chain as healthy and struggled to identify any major problem areas. In fact, being part of the solution was cited as an opportunity by many, such as VSEC, DCO, and HEI. Separately, both PH and ETN mentioned an increased focus on dual/multi-sourcing, which is leading to greater supply chain resiliency. Anecdotes of supply chain issues don't seem widespread, and we also think Aero suppliers are increasingly leaning on improved software, electronics, and even additive manufacturing to further support the Aero manufacturing food chain. That said, the topic of defense orders using DPAS at some point in the future did come up as a risk factor that was cited as a realistic scenario that could disrupt the aero supply chain.

12) Aerospace suppliers' ability to price still strong.

Suppliers throughout the A&D supply chain described negotiations as much more focused on availability, performance, quality, and on-time delivery rather than price and margins. We get the sense that A&D suppliers will continue to outpace inflation with solid pricing and likely expanding margins without much pushback. Pricing muscle seemed to improve substantially during the COVID supply chain "crunch"" and that has allowed suppliers to continue to rea

Another potential tailwind for the defense industry emerged Wednesday, when House Republicans narrowly passed the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, authorizing a record $1.15 trillion in military spending.

The measure passed 216-212, largely along party lines. While it is below President Trump's $1.5 trillion budget request, it still is a jump from the roughly $900 billion last year.

?? JUST IN: The US House has just PASSED the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — with the SAVE AMERICA ACT ATTACHED — sending it to the Senate before it heads to President Trump's desk

Final vote: 216-212

7 Republican NAYs, while 6 Democrats voted YEA pic.twitter.com/LrNfKVGBZL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 22, 2026

The NDAA faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where Democrats are expected to oppose its cost and several controversial policy provisions.

Related coverage:

• "Demand Signal Is Real": US Bipartisan Senate Delegation Touts Defense Boom At Farnborough Airshow

If passed in the Senate and signed by Trump, the spending surge would provide tailwinds for defense stocks.

The iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF (ITA) has moved up and to the right, reflecting the boom in military spending as multiple wars rage across Eurasia. The global boom in defense spending has a lot more room to run.

ITA's next leg up will require a sustained upside break above the $250 level. 

Professional subscribers can read military trends notes at our new Marketdesk.ai portal.

Natural population growth is slowing across much of America.

According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates, 17 states recorded more deaths than births between July 2024 and July 2025, up from only four states during much of the 2010s.

Using U.S. Census Bureau data, Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld created this map showing natural population change in every state.

Because the measure excludes domestic and international migration, it highlights where population growth increasingly depends on people moving in.

Natural Population Change by State

The table below ranks every state by natural population change between July 2024 and July 2025, highlighting where births continued to outpace deaths—and where they no longer did.

Pennsylvania recorded the nation’s largest natural decline (-10.7K), followed by West Virginia, Maine, and Michigan. Most states with natural decreases were concentrated in the Northeast and Appalachia, regions that include several states with some of the country’s oldest populations.

Florida also recorded more deaths than births, yet remained one of America’s fastest-growing states because of migration.

The South remained the engine of natural population growth. Texas (+158K), Georgia (+29K), and North Carolina (+15K) posted strong gains. California (+110K) and New York (+43K) also recorded far more births than deaths despite slower overall population growth.

America’s Population Is Increasingly Shaped by Migration

Natural population change tells only part of the story.

Several states with more deaths than births, including Florida, Maine, and Pennsylvania, can still grow overall when migration offsets their natural decline. Others continue losing population even after attracting newcomers.

Meanwhile, states such as Texas, North Carolina, and Arizona benefit from both natural population growth and migration, helping drive some of the country’s fastest population gains.

As America’s population ages and birth rates remain historically low, natural population growth is becoming less common. For a growing number of states, migration—not births—is now the primary driver of population growth, making migration trends increasingly important to their long-term demographic outlook.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on immigration’s role in U.S. population growth by state.

Authored by Iain Davis via Off-Guardian.org,

Let’s consider the arguments of those who advocate global governance, the people whom Hrvoje Moric identifies as the Multipolaristas. They are often engaged in China-maxxing and are, whether they know it or not, essentially serving as propagandists for the global oligarchy.

Research conducted by analysts working for the South China Morning Post (SCMP)—an English-speaking, Western-aligned Chinese news outlet—suggests that, between 2015 and 2025, a notable shift occurred in the way China and its government were portrayed by the leading Western media organisations.

Chief analyst Jianlu Bi, who is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Policy Studies and a research fellow at the Charhar Institute in Beijing, wrote:

[N]early 70 per cent of stories covering China’s economy, technology or environment in 2019 had a negative tone [but] by 2025, the share of negative stories dropped to around 40 per cent, along with an increase in neutral coverage across all categories and positive coverage of the [Chinese] economy.

This notable Western media narrative shift is part of a wider trend that can be described as “China-maxxing.” With outlets like The Economist, the Financial Times, and The New York Times—all previously known for their staunch anti-China propaganda—now quite regularly extolling the virtues of China and, most notably, its economy, “China-maxxing” is an identifiable phenomenon.

The Western mainstream media is gradually shifting to sell the Chinese government to us as the “good guys.”

Recently, Elon Musk has engaged in some China-maxxing of his own. Musk is part of the gaggle of oligarchs eager to roll out AI data centers wherever they can. Musk was keen to point out that the only national government that has, in his view, adopted the right approach is China’s:

The availability of energy is the issue. If you look at electrical output outside of China, it’s more or less flat. Very slight increase, but pretty much flat. [. . .] If you’re putting data centers anywhere except China, where are you going to get your electricity? Especially as you scale, how are you going to turn the chips on? Magical power sources? Magical electricity fairies?

The previous blanket Western media vilification of China was always absurd state propaganda. China has been framed as the comic-book villain to encourage Western populations to accept further suppressions of their rights by their own governments and to claim justification for increased public spending on the Western military-intelligence complex.

Meanwhile, the multinational corporations that benefit from the government contracts, supposedly awarded to protect Western populations from the fabricated Chinese threat, such as Musk’s SpaceX, are led by oligarchs who genuinely pose a threat to everyone.

Though he didn’t use the term himself, in trying to explain China-maxxing, Mr. Jianlu offered a list of potential reasons for it. These included the Western media’s recognition of China’s technological and economic progress, the Chinese government’s apparent commitment to tackling climate change, its drive for efficiency, and so on. Jianlu argued that all of this has combined to force Western media outlets to reevaluate how they cover China and China-related matters.

Nation-states and national governments are set to be replaced by a global Technocracy. At some point, therefore, the conversation about moving away from the extant governance system to which people are accustomed to the new one has to commence.

Returning to Jianlu’s analysis, he is a leading Western policy think tank representative, and the media outlets he discussed primarily serve as propagandists for Western policy. Buried in the analysis, there is a brief statement that indicates what the real purpose of China-maxxing is:

Unlike the US, where policy shifts can abruptly occur due to political changes and short-term economic pressures, [. . .] China’s long-term strategic planning and consistent policy implementation have yielded results.

Dark Enlightenment-enthused oligarchs like Peter Thiel want to “escape from politics in all its forms,” and beyond dictatorship, there is no political mechanism of any kind in the Technocracy advocated by oligarchs like Elon Musk.

The oligarchy intends to make itself the feudal lords (founders) of private smart city-states similar to those currently being developed in China. The UN desires the same transformation. China-maxxing suits their shared agenda perfectly.

China-maxxing is yet more Western media propaganda, this time intended to convince Westerners that the model of government they are accustomed to no longer works. The Chinese development of Technocracy is better because it “yields[s] results.” Irrespective of the fact that no Westphalian-model Western government has ever operated as a democracy, China-maxxing has arrived to persuade Westerners that the so-called “representative democracies” that they have been misled to believe are democracies are now surplus to requirements.

Multipolaristas, specifically those working in the independent media, perhaps unwittingly argue that the dictatorial state control of human beings’ access to resources is acceptable because the accompanying surveillance state seemingly “yields[s] results.” Some say it reduces crime or that the gleaming towers of the new city-states are so beautifully clean and convenient. Others that China’s infrastructure investment strategy shows the world a clear alternative to austerity.

China is nation-building while Western nations decline and collapse. Chinese Technocracy “yields[s] results” that failing Western nations cannot match. Unless, logically, they too adopt Technocracy.

To an extent, the Multipolaristas make reasonable points. Who wouldn’t want to live in safe, clean cities? Who wants austerity when the state could invest in much-needed infrastructure instead? Who wouldn’t want the employment opportunities and the economic benefits that result? But all of the Multipolarista’s ostensibly reasonable observations and commentaries are based upon fatal omissions that result in them essentially spreading Western propaganda, intentionally or otherwise.

No state needs to impose a centralised technological population surveillance system in order to improve public safety, clean the environment or the streets, or invest in public infrastructure and its own economy. By effectively promoting global governance and Technocracy, the Multipolaristas’ foolhardy suggestion is that functional oligarchies are benevolent and that we should trust them.

Oligarchs are constructing their digital kill chains, and oligarchs like Musk are also promoters of China’s blossoming Technate. This is not a coincidence.

There are no historical examples of a state ever successfully imposing the full gamut of despotic behavioural control systems on a large population. But with its Greater Bay Area initiative, linking China’s numerous smart city projects together, China is reaching that point. Now Western mainstream and independent media outlets are showcasing China’s development to sell all the alleged benefits of Technocracy to Western populations.

Neither fascism nor communism even comes close to the behavioural dictatorship Technocracy is designed to inflict. Ignoring this aspect of China’s undoubtedly impressive modernisation is an epistemological error so profound it renders the rest of the Multipolaristas’ arguments practically irrelevant.

If the objective was not to enslave us, no state and no oligarch would construct Technates. The sole purpose of Technocracy is systematic human bondage.

From humanity’s perspective, there is nothing good about living in a Technocracy. No matter what incentives we are given, irrespective of the claimed benefits offered to entice us, giving our consent to those who wish to foist Technocracy upon us is an act of generational suicide.

There is, of course, no reason why we should agree to any of it.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

We’ve all heard the argument for most of our lives: “White culture doesn’t exist.” It’s perhaps the most common racial refrain because it’s the most socially acceptable to repeat. If someone said “Black culture doesn’t exist because black people all herald from different tribes…” that person would be browbeaten as a bigot by the woke mob. When it comes to white culture, such claims are applauded.

The question is, why is it okay to diminish or denigrate white culture while worshiping every other culture? Furthermore, if white culture doesn’t exist, why are woke minority groups constantly trying to hijack white history and accomplishments?

I want to explore this issue a little more deeply, mostly because of the endless targeting of western civilization through the leftist deconstruction of our most popular figures and mythologies. This time, the Hollywood elites have chosen Homer’s The Odyssey, an ancient Greek classic deeply rooted in western history (white history), as their victim.

Hollywood has pulled out ALL the stops for this movie and I suspect it’s because they are desperate. They are desperate for a woke win. They’ve had hundreds of failures both in film and television in the past few years and it’s starting to look like “Get Woke, Go Broke” is becoming the dominant force in popular discourse. The leftists can’t stand it.

In response, Hollywood has stacked the deck – They brought in Christopher Nolan, one of the only directors left in the industry who still has a built-in audience of simps who will go see his movies regardless of their quality. The distributors have focused on IMAX ticket sales for a wealthier clientele, artificially inflating the overall box office take.

The media has been running non-stop interference, promoting the movie heavily months in advance. Evidence also suggests that Rotten Tomatoes is once again rigging the audience score for this film by rejecting most negative reviews (they have done this with multiple woke tent pole movies over the years).

Hilariously, journalists are already declaring The Odyssey “proof” that “Get Woke, Go Broke” is a fallacy. As I write this, the movie hasn’t made a dime in profit yet. What I find most interesting, however, is that these activist journalists are actually using the phrase “Get Woke, Go Broke” in their vernacular. It’s an indirect admission of their agenda.

They are specifically citing our movement as their enemy and declaring us “defeated” because The Odyssey is projected to make money. By default, they are admitting that we are a threat to them, and that The Odyssey is a woke project designed to “silence us.” But why does this matter?

It’s important to understand that leftists think like children. They believe that having a “majority” is the same as being right; having a majority to them is the same as having power. If the Odyssey is a box office success, they think this proves that they are the dominant political movement.

They don’t care if their supposed majority is actually astroturf; if they can fool the public into thinking the political left has a social mandate, this will win them control over the culture. In other words, they’re trying to manufacture a consensus.

The Odyssey film is a clear salvo aimed directly at conservatives and western history. It is a multicultural travesty, a joke of a movie filled with historical inaccuracies and based on a deconstructionist translation written by a feminist academic from Oxford (Emily Wilson). The movie explicitly undermines the heroism of the story and makes Odysseus a broken man, suffering from “trauma” and PTSD over his regrets of the war and his “colonist” behavior.

But the spurious additions to the mythology are less interesting to me than the reasons they were included.

The deconstruction of Odysseus reminds me of what Kathleen Kennedy and friends at Disney did to Luke Skywalker in “The Last Jedi”. They took a brilliant, courageous and moral man and turned him into a shattered, crusty and nihilistic little bitch – completely the opposite of his original character. This was not a mistake, this was quite deliberate.

White people are not allowed to have bold, wise and confident heroes. We’re supposed to regret our history and our accomplishments. We’re not supposed to celebrate such things, because that might inspire us to be bold, wise and confident today.

The race swapped cast of The Odyssey featuring black actors, Hispanics, Asians, and other people (including a transgender Ellen Page playing a male Greek warrior) who would never have populated Homer’s era is the common angle of attack for woke Hollywood, but it’s not the only attack. If a main protagonist is white, as is the case in Nolan’s film, he must be torn down and made weak. He must be portrayed as shamed and desperate for redemption, which, of course, he will only receive by embracing progressive ideals.

The last thing Hollywood wants is to portray a white hero who is unapologetic for his actions and values.

This is the underlying woke messaging that really poisons the well when it comes to The Odyssey. The minority actors are primarily a shield from criticism. If anyone complains about African or Hispanic or Asian actors in a Greek epic, the media can pull the “racism” card and dismiss the issue outright. They assert that we merely hate seeing minorities in movies.

But it’s not minorities in movies that we have a problem with; it’s the injection of woke propaganda. This is the real crime. If Christopher Nolan made a film based on the African “Epic of Liyongo” from the 9^th Century and he replaced the Swahili characters with white actors in a bid to hijack African history, the left wing would lose their collective minds and scream “cultural appropriation.”  The double standard is obvious.

Will Odyssey make a profit? Possibly. The movie had a big first weekend, but adjusted for inflation it didn’t even crack the top fifty on the list of opening weekend box office winners. The film has to make around $700 million in order to break even, not counting the 20% of the gross receipts that go to Christopher Nolan according to his contract.

I am doubtful that the studio will make much money on this flick, but Hollywood will declare it a victory all the same. Firstly, because no woke movie has had similar momentum in years. And secondly, because the political left is dying and they need a very public win in order to justify their habit of doubling down on failure.

Any sane and intelligent person would point out that one “successful” movie does not make up for the cemetery filled with woke box office disasters. This doesn’t matter to the activist mob. They think that one win will erase all their previous losses.

Furthermore, The Odyssey is intended to act as a continuation of the long Marxist march towards a multicultural west and the end of white history as we know it.

Homer’s epic poem was composed around 2800 years ago and is one of the oldest surviving works of literature in human history. It stands as a testament to the incredible accomplishments of the western world; part of the wellspring from which the modern west poured forth.

At the time The Odyssey was created, the Mediterranean was overwhelmingly Caucasian according to genetic records. This includes North Africa, which was majority Caucasian and largely “white” by modern standards. It should be noted that Sub-Saharan Africans did not exist in any notable quantity in North Africa or the Mediterranean until many centuries later because travel across the deserts of central Africa prevented their migration north for thousands of years.

Arabs were also limited and did not occupy the region in great numbers until the invasion of the Muslim hordes long after Homer lived.

Numerous images from the ancient Greeks and Macedonians, including pottery, murals and other surviving art, depict people of fair skin, often with blue eyes, and in some cases blonde hair, etc. In other words, they were white – Varying shades of white, but still white.

Simply pointing out this historical and scientific fact will immediately trigger the woke mob and their academic allies. You will be inundated with a flurry of exceptions and some tiresome mental gymnastics about why the people of these early civilizations were not really “white”. Remember, “white culture doesn’t exist”, only other cultures exist.

Far too many critics and historical conspiracy nuts actually think the demographics of North Africa and the Mediterranean in the time of Homer were the same as the demographics of North Africa and the Mediterranean today. They don’t know anything about the great migration shifts of the Middle Ages or the invasion of the Muslims. No meaningful discussion can be had with these people because their point of reference is built on pure ignorance.

Beyond that, there is another subset of dishonest people (woke leftists) who see it as their duty to undermine white history and rewrite as if it never existed. They often cater to the inferiority complexes of minority groups by asserting that white history is actually THEIR history. White people just “stole” accomplishments from other civilizations and replaced them over time.

This is part of the narrative that motivates the discourse over Christopher Nolan’s dismal film version of The Odyssey. It is a woke treatise, a magic talisman designed to brown-wash and feminize yet another piece of western heritage. It’s part of a greater agenda to make white people forget who we are, or at the very least, make us ashamed of who we are.

The end game? Like I said, it’s about the multicultural takeover of the western world. Everything stems from this scheme. Hollywood’s woke reboots are rooted in it. The mass immigration policies of leftist governments drive the agenda forward. The deconstruction of our history in public schools and colleges is designed to indoctrinate children so they never learn the truth.

Until one day, we look around, and everything that makes us who we are is gone, from meritocracy to republicanism, from Christianity to critical thinking, from innovation to entrepreneurship, from individual liberty to free markets, from property to responsibility, and yes, colonialism (the act of improving third world hellholes where people are incapable of improving their own surroundings so they don’t turn into pillagers trying to invade our countries).

All of it replaced with a socialist purgatory in which everyone is equally pathetic, hopeless and useless.

The whole conspiracy has become quite transparent and grimly boring. Luckily, one garbage movie isn’t going to change the overwhelming trend, which is the slow but steady decline of left-wing insanity. Nothing they are doing is hidden from us. We see it all, and in the long run, they’re going to lose. It’s inevitable.

A new paper under peer review by the Chinese-language Journal of Deep Space Exploration lays out an ambitious plan to crash a spacecraft at Mach 26, or 20,000 mph, into a near-Earth asteroid to test new planetary defenses.

The South China Morning Post reports that a team led by Li Mingtao, chief scientist for planetary defense at the China National Space Administration, is planning a mission even more ambitious than NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART).

That mission would slam a spacecraft into 2015 XF261, an asteroid estimated to be about 30 meters wide, in either 2029 or 2030.

"Dart was the first to demonstrate asteroid deflection by kinetic impact in space, but it did not directly change an asteroid's orbit around the sun relative to Earth, making it different from a real planetary-defense scenario," the researchers wrote in the report.

The planned impact would be nearly 50% faster than NASA’s 2022 DART, which hit the asteroid Dimorphos at 6.1 kilometers per second, or about Mach 18.

According to the paper, the mission calls for two spacecraft: one interceptor and one observation spacecraft, which would use a Venus gravity assist before rendezvousing with the target. It would deploy a small probe to monitor the collision and measure changes to the asteroid's orbit, shape, surface, and internal structure.

"Focusing on China's first asteroid-defense demonstration and verification mission, planned for implementation before 2030, this paper systematically reviews the frontier scientific questions in kinetic-impact asteroid defense to support mission design, implementation, and preliminary scientific research," the researchers said.

If successful, the test would become China's first end-to-end demonstration of an operational planetary-defense system. It will help scientists better understand how – and when – a kinetic impactor spacecraft could be used to deflect an Earth-bound asteroid.

Meanwhile, SpaceX will launch the NEO Surveyor asteroid-detection telescope no earlier than September 2027, which will discover and monitor most of the potentially hazardous asteroids and comets that come within 30 million miles of Earth's orbit.