New satellite imagery has revealed what analysts believe is a full-scale replica of a U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer under construction at a Chinese military testing facility in the remote Taklamakan Desert, raising fresh questions about Beijing’s preparations for a potential maritime conflict in the Indo-Pacific.

The structure, located at the Ruoqiang Test Range in China’s far-western Xinjiang region, closely resembles one of the U.S. Navy’s most important warships. The replica was reportedly identified through satellite imagery by Joseph Wu, co-founder of the Taiwan Defense Studies Initiative, and has since attracted significant attention among defense analysts and open-source intelligence researchers.

According to satellite data from Sentinel-2 and Copernicus, construction on the mock destroyer appears to have begun in October 2025. Independent satellite operators monitoring the area reported that no comparable structure had existed at the site before that period. More recent imagery suggests that the project has advanced substantially, with major features of the vessel now clearly visible.

Analysts examining the images say the deck layout increasingly mirrors that of an operational Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Metal framework reportedly outlines key sections of the ship, including the bridge, funnel, and forward gun mount, giving the replica a striking resemblance to the U.S. warship.

While the precise purpose of the structure remains unclear and the imagery has not been independently verified by multiple official sources, military experts believe the mock-up is likely intended to support testing and evaluation of Chinese anti-ship missile systems.

This is not the first time China has built life-size replicas of American military assets in its desert testing ranges.

In 2021, satellite imagery revealed mock-ups resembling a U.S. aircraft carrier and two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers at the same facility. Later, in January 2024, analysts identified a massive black silhouette approximately 1,085 feet long that appeared to replicate the shape of the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, the lead ship of America’s newest carrier class.

Investigations at the time suggested that work on the carrier replica had begun in late 2023. The repeated appearance of American naval targets at the range has led analysts to conclude that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is conducting extensive testing against realistic representations of U.S. military platforms.

China has also reportedly constructed replicas of American combat aircraft. Satellite images released in 2024 appeared to show mock-ups of F-35 Lightning II and F-22 Raptor stealth fighters positioned on a runway, alongside representations of a P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and a U-2 reconnaissance aircraft.

The apparent strike damage visible around those mock targets prompted speculation that they had been used during missile or air attack exercises.

The focus on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is particularly significant because the warship forms the backbone of U.S. Navy surface combat operations.

Since entering service in the early 1990s, the destroyer class has evolved into one of the most versatile naval platforms in the world. Equipped with the advanced Aegis Combat System and carrying dozens of missiles in vertical launch cells, these warships perform a wide range of missions, including air defense, ballistic missile defense, anti-submarine warfare, and anti-surface combat operations.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are also frequent participants in freedom of navigation operations and routine transits through the Taiwan Strait, actions that Washington says demonstrate its commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. Beijing routinely criticizes such deployments, describing them as provocative and destabilizing.

Given their central role in any potential conflict involving U.S. forces in the Western Pacific, the destroyers represent high-value targets for Chinese military planners.

Defense analysts believe China’s growing collection of life-size military replicas serves a purpose beyond simple target practice.

Modern missile systems increasingly rely on advanced guidance technologies, including image-recognition software and artificial intelligence-assisted targeting. By constructing realistic mock-ups of enemy platforms, the PLA can potentially train and refine missile seekers to identify specific ship classes and strike vulnerable areas with greater precision.

Recent reports indicate that additional satellite imagery showed debris patterns and impact marks around the new destroyer replica, suggesting it may already have been subjected to missile testing.

If accurate, the imagery would provide further evidence that China is using the facility to evaluate and improve anti-ship weapons designed to penetrate sophisticated naval defenses.

The same approach has reportedly been applied to Taiwan-related contingency planning. Over the past decade, China has constructed replicas of key Taiwanese government and military facilities, including representations of central Taipei and buildings resembling the island’s presidential offices.

State television footage released in 2015 showed PLA forces destroying a structure that closely resembled Taiwan’s Presidential Office Building during a live-fire exercise, underscoring the military’s emphasis on realistic targeting scenarios.

The emergence of the new destroyer replica comes as China continues to expand what is already considered one of the world’s most formidable anti-ship missile arsenals.

Beijing’s military modernization strategy has heavily emphasized anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities designed to deter or complicate the deployment of U.S. naval forces near China’s coastline and strategic interests.

Among the most prominent anti-ship weapons in Chinese service are the YJ-series cruise missiles.

The YJ-83 remains widely deployed across the PLA Navy and Air Force and serves as a standard anti-ship weapon on many smaller combatants and aircraft. More capable systems include the YJ-18, a cruise missile with both anti-ship and land-attack functions and a reported range of between 220 and 540 kilometers.

The YJ-12, meanwhile, has emerged as one of China’s most potent anti-ship cruise missiles. With a range approaching 400 kilometers and supersonic terminal speed, the missile is capable of being launched from bombers, ships, and land-based platforms.

Recent military parades have showcased even more advanced designs. During China’s Victory Day celebrations in 2025, authorities unveiled the YJ-15 and YJ-19 missiles, both of which reportedly incorporate hypersonic or near-hypersonic technologies.

The YJ-15 is believed to possess a range between 1,000 and 1,500 kilometers and may utilize a boost-glide waverider configuration that enhances speed and maneuverability. The YJ-19 appears to feature characteristics associated with air-breathing hypersonic weapons, including a distinctive underbody air intake.

Beyond cruise missiles, China has invested heavily in anti-ship ballistic missiles, a category of weapons specifically designed to threaten large naval formations.

The DF-21D, often referred to as the world’s first operational anti-ship ballistic missile, has become one of the most closely watched elements of China’s missile force. Capable of reaching speeds approaching Mach 10 during its terminal phase and reportedly possessing a range exceeding 2,000 kilometers, the missile was developed specifically to engage ships at sea.

The larger DF-26 extends that threat even further. With a range of approximately 4,000 kilometers, the missile can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads and is believed to possess the capability to target moving naval vessels deep into the Pacific.

China is also believed to be developing the DF-27, a missile reportedly capable of striking targets at distances between 5,000 and 8,000 kilometers. Such a range would potentially place much of the Indo-Pacific and portions of the U.S. West Coast within reach.

Alongside these land-based systems, Beijing has introduced newer anti-ship ballistic missiles, including the YJ-21, a hypersonic weapon reportedly deployable from Type 055 cruisers and H-6K bombers. Military analysts consider the missile a significant threat because of its ability to maneuver during reentry, complicating interception efforts.

Additional systems unveiled in recent years include the YJ-17 and YJ-20, both believed to incorporate advanced maneuvering and hypersonic technologies designed to overcome modern missile defenses.

The construction of another full-scale American warship replica highlights the extent to which China is investing in realistic military training and weapons testing.

As Beijing continues to expand both its naval fleet and missile inventory, the ability to accurately identify and strike specific targets has become increasingly important. Large-scale replicas provide a cost-effective way to evaluate weapon performance, train operators, and improve targeting algorithms under realistic conditions.

For defense observers, the latest imagery offers another glimpse into the PLA’s evolving approach to warfare—one that combines sophisticated surveillance, advanced missile technology, and extensive testing against realistic representations of potential adversaries.

Whether the newly discovered destroyer replica is ultimately used for missile strikes, sensor testing, or targeting research, its appearance underscores a broader trend: China is preparing for increasingly complex maritime operations while continuing to build capabilities aimed at challenging U.S. naval power across the Indo-Pacific.

The emergence of reports alleging covert Israeli operating facilities deep inside western Iraq has transformed what once appeared to be an obscure logistical issue into a potentially major geopolitical controversy with implications for regional sovereignty, military force posture calculations, and the evolving nature of Middle Eastern conflict dynamics.

If the allegations are ultimately verified, the reported deployment structure would indicate that the long-running strategic confrontation between Israel and Iran has expanded beyond direct missile exchanges and proxy warfare into a geographically dispersed operational ecosystem where third-country territory increasingly functions as an enabling battlespace for long-range military campaigns.

The controversy has become especially sensitive because reports from both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times suggested American officials may have possessed prior awareness regarding the alleged infrastructure while Iraqi authorities remained either partially informed or entirely excluded from operational knowledge. Such allegations have intensified scrutiny over sovereignty management, coalition transparency, and the broader conduct of regional security partnerships.

According to reporting cited by the two newspapers, the alleged facilities were linked to Israeli operational activity directed toward Iran and may have functioned intermittently for more than a year. The New York Times later reported that at least two covert sites had reportedly been maintained across remote desert sectors in western Iraq, raising questions regarding the scale, duration, and strategic intent of the reported infrastructure.

Political sensitivity surrounding the allegations escalated rapidly after Iraqi political figures increasingly characterized the alleged facilities as evidence of foreign intrusion into Iraqi territory. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi reportedly called for stronger oversight mechanisms capable of preventing Iraq from becoming an operational arena for wider regional confrontation.

For strategic analysts, however, the significance of the allegations extends well beyond Iraqi domestic politics. Remote logistical networks capable of sustaining high-tempo military operations frequently alter force projection equations throughout regions where geography historically constrained aerial reach, operational endurance, and campaign persistence.

The alleged facilities reportedly emerged across western Iraq’s expansive desert sectors near the intersections of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria. Analysts note that the terrain characteristics of the region create ideal conditions for discreet operational activity because sparse populations, limited infrastructure density, and vast desert corridors reduce civilian observation and complicate surveillance monitoring cycles.

Military planners increasingly prioritize such dispersed logistical architectures because modern long-range campaigns depend heavily on survivability, redundancy, and the ability to sustain operational tempo while remaining below conventional detection thresholds.

The geographic positioning of western Iraq introduces additional strategic significance. Proximity to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and several critical regional transit corridors potentially transforms the remote desert environment into an operational bridge linking multiple theatres of military activity across the Middle East.

Regional security observers increasingly view the broader issue through the framework of strategic battlespace expansion. Modern conflicts rarely remain geographically confined once intelligence operations, logistics chains, long-range aviation, and covert mobility networks become central determinants of campaign effectiveness.

The reported revelations therefore carry implications extending far beyond Iraq itself because covert forward operating networks often serve as force multipliers capable of reshaping strike geometry, aerial endurance cycles, and strategic reach without requiring highly visible permanent military installations.

Western Iraq’s vast Anbar-Najaf desert environment reportedly provided a uniquely permissive operational landscape where temporary military infrastructure could be concealed without extensive construction footprints or easily detectable deployment signatures.

Reports indicated that the area near al-Nukhaib attracted particular operational interest because the surrounding terrain combined sparse populations with expansive open corridors and minimal civilian infrastructure. Such conditions significantly reduce observation risks compared with urbanized or strategically monitored sectors elsewhere in the region.

Investigative reporting by The Wall Street Journal suggested that one alleged facility emerged shortly before periods of heightened escalation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. The New York Times later reported that preparations connected to another site may have extended as far back as late 2024.

Analysts note that strategic planners frequently prioritize terrain enabling operational ambiguity because remote desert regions naturally complicate aerial surveillance cycles and ground monitoring efforts conducted through conventional intelligence systems.

One investigative account suggested that a suspected installation may have been established on a former Iraqi-era airstrip or dry lakebed approximately 180 kilometers southwest of Najaf and Karbala. Open desert terrain reportedly allowed makeshift aviation facilities to emerge with minimal engineering requirements while simultaneously supporting helicopter operations and temporary deployment structures.

Satellite imagery analysis referenced within reporting allegedly identified unusual activity patterns consistent with field logistics operations and possible aviation support infrastructure. Military analysts often regard improvised landing environments as highly valuable because dispersed aviation support locations complicate enemy targeting calculations and reduce vulnerability associated with centralized infrastructure.

The prolonged operational timeline described in the reports suggested that the activity represented a recurring logistical support architecture rather than a temporary emergency deployment linked to a single crisis cycle.

According to investigative accounts, the alleged facilities primarily functioned as forward logistical nodes supporting Israeli long-range operational activity directed toward Iranian targets. Such operations frequently depend less on aircraft performance itself and more on sustaining endurance through dispersed support infrastructure, contingency recovery systems, and flexible operational frameworks.

The reported support architecture allegedly included air-refueling coordination capabilities, helicopter operations, surveillance systems, military vehicles, temporary landing areas, electronic equipment, and emergency recovery assets designed to sustain long-range operational endurance.

Search-and-rescue preparations reportedly formed a particularly important component of the network because pilot extraction capabilities increasingly determine campaign sustainability during extended military operations. Reports indicated that helicopters and contingency recovery teams remained prepared to recover downed personnel if required during operational missions.

The New York Times further reported that the alleged infrastructure included tents, temporary deployment structures, mobile personnel support facilities, and rapidly deployable aviation staging environments intended to minimize visible permanent military signatures.

Military planners frequently establish such forward support nodes because recovery timelines directly influence pilot survivability, operational continuity, and overall campaign resilience. If accurately reported, the installations would therefore represent force multipliers rather than conventional frontline combat bases.

The controversy surrounding the alleged facilities intensified dramatically following accounts involving a local Iraqi shepherd identified as Awad al-Shammari. Reports suggested he unexpectedly encountered one suspected installation while conducting routine herding activity within remote desert sectors.

Accounts indicated he observed helicopters, soldiers, tents, and a landing strip before allegedly reporting the discovery to local authorities. Family members and local witnesses later connected his subsequent death to events surrounding the encounter, although broader circumstances remain disputed and unresolved.

Some reports alleged that a helicopter pursued his vehicle and opened fire following the discovery of unusual military activity. The incident transformed what had reportedly functioned as a concealed operational environment into a politically explosive national security issue inside Iraq.

Subsequent Iraqi security investigations reportedly attempted to examine suspicious aerial movements and unidentified activity patterns throughout western desert sectors. Investigative teams allegedly encountered aerial fire while approaching suspected operational areas.

According to accounts cited by The Wall Street Journal and amplified through regional reporting channels, at least one Iraqi soldier reportedly died before investigative personnel withdrew under continued aerial pressure. Follow-up searches later reportedly found no enduring operational presence capable of definitively confirming the allegations after tactical withdrawal procedures had apparently been executed.

The sequence illustrated how temporary military deployments can create substantial evidentiary ambiguity once rapid dismantling and mobility protocols are implemented.

Another politically sensitive dimension emerged from claims that multiple American officials possessed prior awareness regarding the alleged facilities while Iraqi authorities may not have been fully informed regarding operational arrangements occurring within Iraqi territory.

Some Iraqi political figures accused Washington of shielding Israeli activity while limiting Baghdad’s awareness regarding specific operational environments. Reports also alleged that requests had been made to reduce Iraqi monitoring activities during periods involving heightened regional military operations.

These allegations introduced difficult questions regarding transparency between security partners and the management of sovereignty within coalition operational environments. Analysts note that accusations involving concealed military access often generate political consequences extending far beyond immediate tactical objectives because sovereignty concerns directly shape alliance credibility and domestic legitimacy calculations.

No public Israeli statement has directly addressed the allegations described within the reporting.

The revelations have accelerated broader concerns regarding Iraq’s increasingly fragile position within the wider Iran-Israel strategic competition. Some Iraqi security officials reportedly minimized the allegations and suggested any foreign presence may have lasted less than forty-eight hours, while other political factions characterized the issue as evidence of serious external violations involving both Israeli and American participation.

Iraq reportedly filed complaints through diplomatic channels following the emergence of the allegations, while large-scale military sweeps involving Iraqi security forces and Popular Mobilization Forces later expanded across broad desert sectors stretching toward the Saudi frontier.

Reports indicated that the operations covered an area extending roughly 120 kilometers and focused heavily on reasserting sovereignty across remote regions considered vulnerable to covert activity.

Former Iraqi officials argued that stronger state authority mechanisms would be necessary to prevent external powers from transforming Iraqi territory into an operational battleground for broader regional confrontation.

Yet despite the growing controversy, independently verified coordinates and definitive physical evidence remain publicly unavailable. As noted by The New York Times, unresolved questions persist regarding the precise scale, operational duration, and strategic purpose of the alleged infrastructure.

The broader strategic reality emerging from these reports is that modern Middle Eastern conflicts increasingly depend less on conventional front lines and more on concealed logistics systems, flexible force posture arrangements, covert mobility corridors, and dispersed operational ecosystems capable of silently shaping regional power projection.

For many regional defence planners, the most consequential warning may not concern the alleged desert installations themselves, but rather the accelerating normalization of covert cross-border military architectures capable of quietly redrawing deterrence dynamics across the Middle East without formal declarations of war or clearly identifiable battlefronts.

Unverified but persistent reports emanating from Indian media and social media platforms are stirring serious geopolitical unease across South Asia. According to these sources, India may have conducted a precision strike—possibly involving cruise missiles—on the heavily fortified Kirana Hills region in Pakistan’s Sargodha district, a zone long suspected of housing critical elements of Islamabad’s nuclear weapons program.

Codenamed “Operation Sindoor,” the alleged Indian offensive is said to have targeted subterranean facilities used for nuclear research or storage. Some sources claim the attack caused a severe radioactive leak, a charge that—if true—could amount to one of the most daring military gambits in recent Indo-Pakistani history. However, in the absence of official confirmation from either India or Pakistan, and no statements yet from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the truth remains shrouded in silence, and potentially, in secrecy.

The Kirana Hills have always been a mystery cloaked in strategic importance. Situated in Pakistan’s Punjab province, roughly 20 kilometers from the Mushaf Airbase in Sargodha, the area is isolated, topographically rugged, and historically sealed off from public view. This geographic seclusion made it the perfect site for Pakistan’s earliest “cold tests”—non-explosive nuclear device experiments—under the supervision of the late Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan in the 1980s and 1990s.

These subcritical tests were key milestones in Pakistan’s path to nuclear capability. Though they produced no nuclear yield, they validated the architecture and implosion mechanisms of early bomb designs, providing Pakistan with a functional deterrent long before the dramatic 1998 Chagai-I nuclear detonations.

 

Analysts and intelligence experts have long suspected that Kirana’s underground bunkers may still serve critical roles in Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division (SPD) infrastructure—whether as storage sites, testing facilities, or command nodes.

The existence of “Operation Sindoor” remains unverified. According to several Indian outlets and defense analysts close to government circles, the strike was authorized following a recent escalation of cross-border tensions in Kashmir, allegedly triggered by Pakistan-backed infiltrations. Some suggest the operation was a calculated “non-nuclear decapitation strike,” aimed not at provoking a war but at undermining Pakistan’s strategic deterrence posture.

The details are fuzzy. Claims range from the use of BrahMos cruise missiles to more exotic technologies like low-yield penetrator warheads. One widely circulated theory holds that Indian forces struck just one underground facility suspected of housing enriched fissile material or a command and control unit—a move potentially designed to test Islamabad’s threshold for nuclear retaliation.

Pakistan’s silence, so far, is deafening. There has been no acknowledgement from the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military’s media wing, nor from civilian leadership. The absence of fiery rhetoric—typical in previous Indo-Pak flareups—has only deepened suspicion that something highly classified may have occurred.

Perhaps the most compelling circumstantial evidence of a nuclear-related incident came not from South Asia, but from the skies.

Shortly after the alleged strike, open-source flight trackers spotted a U.S. Department of Energy aircraft, a Beechcraft B350 “Aerial Measuring System” (AMS), traversing Pakistani airspace. Tail-numbered N111SZ, the aircraft is no ordinary government plane. It is equipped with advanced gamma radiation sensors, isotopic signature mappers, and real-time telemetry systems. Its primary function? To detect, track, and map radiation releases—whether from nuclear accidents, bomb detonations, or covert facility leaks.

The AMS has historically been deployed in the aftermath of major nuclear events such as the Fukushima disaster and during U.S. homeland drills. Its appearance over Pakistan, unannounced and unexplained, suggests U.S. agencies may have been quietly monitoring radiation levels in the region—an act almost impossible to justify unless there was a reason to believe something radioactive had occurred.

 

In a parallel development, another suspicious aircraft was detected by global aviation watchdogs. An Egyptian Air Force Ilyushin IL-76 cargo plane, operating under callsign EGY1916, was tracked making an unusual route: from China to Murree, a remote hill town in Pakistan, and then to the United Arab Emirates.

While official channels offered no explanation, open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysts floated a provocative hypothesis—the IL-76 may have been involved in an emergency containment mission. Speculation suggests it was ferrying boron-based compounds, such as boric acid or boron carbide, substances essential in nuclear radiation suppression efforts.

Boron, particularly its isotope Boron-10, is a neutron absorber commonly used in nuclear reactors and accident mitigation. It was famously deployed during the Chernobyl and Fukushima crises to suppress chain reactions and limit contamination. The sudden presence of an IL-76 near potential nuclear infrastructure—combined with rumors of a radioactive leak—fuels suspicion of a covert clean-up.

The geopolitical silence following these incidents is both eerie and telling. Usually, even small skirmishes along the Line of Control (LoC) provoke rapid-fire accusations, press briefings, and diplomatic posturing. In this case, neither India nor Pakistan has broken the silence. Washington and Beijing are also conspicuously tight-lipped, while the IAEA has not commented on any monitoring anomalies in Pakistan.

Veteran nuclear policy analyst Dr. Laila Rahman of the South Asia Institute in London suggests this may reflect “a behind-the-scenes crisis management effort among major powers.”

“If radiation was indeed released and detected internationally,” she says, “we may be witnessing one of the rare moments when global actors are quietly coordinating to avoid a diplomatic or strategic collapse.”

If Operation Sindoor did occur and targeted a nuclear facility—even one inactive or lightly manned—it raises serious questions about the evolving nature of deterrence in South Asia. The idea of a “non-nuclear strike on nuclear targets” is dangerously destabilizing. It suggests a new doctrine may be emerging in New Delhi: one that doesn’t see Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure as off-limits.

Retired Indian General Prakash Menon, speaking at a closed-door seminar in New Delhi, reportedly remarked that “nuclear sanctuaries can no longer be considered untouchable if they’re being used to shield adventurism.”

 

Conversely, Islamabad’s lack of retaliation—or even acknowledgement—may signal an implicit recognition of vulnerability, or a strategic decision to contain the fallout politically rather than militarily.

The Strategic Plans Division (SPD) is the nerve center of Pakistan’s nuclear command, tasked with the security, development, and deployment of its atomic arsenal. Its headquarters, located at the Noor Khan Airbase near Islamabad, ensures real-time communications with nuclear delivery platforms—including air, sea, and land-based systems.

Nearby Mushaf Airbase, home to Pakistan’s elite F-16 squadrons, is believed to be one of the operational hubs for nuclear-capable aircraft. A successful strike anywhere within the radius of these facilities would mark a serious intelligence breach and a blow to Pakistan’s second-strike credibility.

Strangely, both Pakistani and Indian mainstream media outlets have largely tiptoed around the story. Coverage has been limited to editorials and vague online debates. Pakistani television channels, known for their combative talk shows, have avoided the topic entirely. The digital vacuum has given rise to wild speculation on platforms like Reddit, X (formerly Twitter), and Telegram—where amateur analysts and former military officers trade unverified maps, infrared overlays, and intercepted chatter.

This media restraint could be due to direct censorship, or because even seasoned journalists are unsure of what actually transpired.

Whether or not a missile actually struck Kirana Hills, and whether radiation truly escaped into the environment, the rumors alone have opened a Pandora’s box. South Asia’s nuclear peace has always been precarious, held together by opaque doctrines, ambiguous red lines, and unspoken understandings. If the events of the past weeks are even partially true, that unspoken contract may have just been torn.

And yet, without official confirmation, the world is left to parse shadows: the path of a radiation-tracking plane, the flight log of an Egyptian cargo jet, and the sudden, eerie silence from two of the world’s most adversarial neighbors.

Until someone speaks—and someone will—the Kirana Hills episode will remain what it is now: a ghost story with radioactive consequences.

ABU DHABI: Tom Banton etched his name in DP World ILT20 history by becoming the first batter to score two centuries in the competition as MI Emirates cruised to a commanding 154-run victory over table-toppers Desert Vipers at the Zayed Cricket Stadium in Abu Dhabi on Monday.

The triumph also marked the second-highest victory margin in the DP World ILT20. Banton combined with Andre Fletcher to construct the highest stand for any wicket in T20s on UAE soil at 198 runs.

Fletcher remained unbeaten on 96 runs and Banton scored 105 runs to steer the MI Emirates to 228/2  — the second-highest total in DP World ILT20 history. 

In response, the Vipers only managed 74 runs, matching the record for the lowest score across three seasons of the DP World ILT20.

Muhammad Rohid made early inroads as he sent back Fakhar Zaman for only seven runs in the second over. Rohid went on to claim Sam Curran and Azam Khan later in the innings to finish with figures of 3/24. 

Meanwhile, Fazalhaq Farooqi claimed the wicket of the dangerous Alex Hales, while Alzarri Joseph bagged Dan Lawrence and Adam Hose to leave the Vipers reeling at 32/5 by the end of the powerplay.

With only two batters crossing double figures the Vipers were eventually bowled out for 74 runs in 12.3 overs. Dan Mousley picked up two wickets, while Farooqi and Alzarri picked up a wicket each to sweep up the tail.

Invited to bat first, the MI Emirates lost Muhammad Waseem, after he struck two consecutive sixes off Dhruv Parashar, to Mohammad Amir in the third over. Amir was economical in the powerplay only conceding 13 runs as the MI Emirates finished the first six overs at 40/1.

What followed was destruction from Banton and Fletcher. They initially played with restraint, taking 37 balls for their first 41 runs. But the tide turned in the 10th over when Banton took on Nathan Sowter, smashing him for a six and a four in a 16-run over.

Fletcher brought up his half-century off 32 balls, with Banton following suit in 38 deliveries. From there, it was pure carnage. The pair plundered 92 runs in the final five overs of the MI Emirates’ innings. 

Banton was the star of the show, reaching his second century of the season in just 52 balls. His knock, laced with nine fours and seven sixes, included three consecutive sixes off Lawrence. He was run out for 105 in the final over.

Fletcher was not far behind as he remained unbeaten on 96 runs in 50 balls, studded with 10 fours and three sixes as the MI Emirates were catapulted to 228/2 in 20 overs.

Player of the match Banton said: “I didn’t get off to a flier; I just knew the longer I stayed, the better chance I had. Sometimes you don’t time it as well as you’d like, and sometimes you do.

“As a top-order batter, you come up against very good bowlers, so having a good technique is important. It’s about looking at the match situation and scenario, not just teeing off.

“We came into this game on the back of two losses and were a bit under pressure. It’s a special night for MI Emirates, but we don’t want to take it for granted.”

Captaining the Desert Vipers in place of Lockie Ferguson, who was rested for the encounter, Curran said: “We just get the game out of the way and move on. That can happen in cricket.

“We were a little off with our fielding and energy. It’s such a quick tournament, and we play again the day after tomorrow, so we’ll have another chance.

“We can bounce back, and there’s no need to panic. It’s about learning and reflecting. Both of them played well, and I’m glad to see my fellow Englishman, and Fletcher, playing so well.”

Brief Scores

• MI Emirates beat Desert Vipers by 154 runs
• MI Emirates 228/2 in 20 overs (Tom Banton 105, Andre Fletcher 96 not out, Muhammad Waseem 19, Mohammad Amir 1 for 36)
• Desert Vipers 74/10 in 12.3 overs (Azam Khan 12, Sam Curran 11, Muhammad Rohid 3 for 24, Alzarri Joseph 3 for 17, Dan Mousley 2 for 8, Fazalhaq Farooqi 2 for 10)