Feed aggregator

La multiplication des services payants des compagnies aériens se généralise et ouvre la voie à une nouvelle ère peu confortable pour les passagers. Cette diversification […]

L’article Voyager avec un bagage en soute : ASL Airlines détaille sa gamme tarifaire est apparu en premier sur .

Riyad Mahrez devrait être le grand absent du prochain stage de l’équipe d’Algérie. Le capitaine de la sélection nationale pense à la retraite internationale. C’est […]

L’article Riyad Mahrez pense à la retraite internationale avec l’équipe d’Algérie est apparu en premier sur .

Summary: The Russian Navy is considering decommissioning the Pyotr Velikiy, its only nuclear-powered guided-missile battlecruiser from the Kirov-class, due to high maintenance costs and the need for extensive repairs and modernization. These ships, known for being the largest and heaviest surface combatants after aircraft carriers, were developed during the Cold War to counter U.S. submarine and carrier group capabilities. Armed with SS-N-19 Shipwreck (P-700 Granit) missiles, capable of sharing target information mid-flight, and a host of other advanced weapons including the S-300 air-defense system, Kashtan air-defense missile/gun system, and the 130mm AK-130 gun, the Kirov-class represented formidable maritime power. 

Russia's Naval Dilemma: The Potential Decommissioning of the Kirov-Class Battlecruiser

The Russian Navy might decommission its sole nuclear-powered guided-missile battlecruiser, the Pyotr Velikiy. According to Tass, this Kirov-class ship costs too much to maintain. The vessel’s poor condition, coupled with the repairs and modernization needed to keep it relevant, mean its demise may be approaching. 

The Kirov class was designated by the Soviets as Project 1144 Orlan (Sea Eagle). It includes the largest and heaviest surface combatant warships to sail the seas. Second in size only to larger aircraft carriers, these ships have remained an important component of Russia’s naval fleet.

Kirov ships were conceptualized during the Cold War to counter the capabilities of the U.S. Navy’s submarine fleet. Specifically, the USSR desired a battleship class capable of carrying a large payload of SS-N-14 anti-submarine missiles and later P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles. The Granit long-range anti-ship missile system (designated by NATO as SS-N-19 Shipwreck) was the primary armament of the Kirov class. 

With their multi-variant target engagement program, Granit missiles could share information while in flight. However, these weapons could not be controlled after being launched. The lead missile would always assume a high-level flight trajectory, followed by subsequent missiles at a lower level.

Kirov-Class Battlecruisers Packed a Punch

The Shipwreck missile was designed in the 1970s to replace the Soviets’ shorter-range P-70 Ametist and P-120 Malakhit missiles. Soviet officials strongly desired the missile, seeing it as a better counter to the U.S. Navy’s rapidly advancing carrier battle groups. The Shipwreck was constructed by Chelomei/NPO Mashinostroyenia. By the early 1980s, the weapon was deployed aboard the Kirov cruiser. Granit launchers were also incorporated onto the Soviet’s aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, giving it added primary attack capability.

The -300F air-defense missile complex is also equipped on Russia’s lone remaining Kirov-class ship. As detailed by Naval Technology, “The Osa-MA air defense missile system is supplied by the Znamya Truda Plant based at Saratov. The ship has two double launchers and 40 missiles. The system can operate autonomously or it can be integrated into the ship’s combat systems and download target data from the ship’s sensors. Osa-MA has a range of 1.2 to 10km at an altitude between 25m and 5,000m.”

The addition of the Kashtan air-defense missile/gun system gives the Kirov-class ship an added edge, defending against an array of precision weapons including aircraft, anti-radar missiles and air bombs, and even small naval ships. This system is able to engage up to six targets at the same time, with a gun range of 1.5 km for altitudes up to 4,000 meters. 

Russia’s Ametist Design Bureau, Izumrud JSC, and Tula Engineering Plant supply the Kirov ships’ 130mm AK-130 multipurpose twin-barrel gun. Notably, the gun can be operated remotely under autonomous control, or manually. 

Sputnik provides more detail surrounding the S-300 on the Kirov-class ship, claiming its radar can track multiple aerial targets at altitudes of 30km and ranges out to 300 km. 

“Pyotr Veliky is armed with 48 S-300F Fort and 46 S-300FM Fort-M (SA-N-20 Gargoyle) medium-range surface-to-air missiles (with effective range of up to 200 kilometers), 128 3K95 Kinzhal (SA-N-9 Gauntlet) short-range SAMs, and six CADS-N-1 Kashtan gun/missile systems,” Sputnik reports.

Initially, the Kirov was also equipped with the RPK-3 Metel (designated by NATO as SSN-N-14 Silex) and the RPK-2 Vyuga (designated by NATO as SSN-N-15 Starfish). 

The majority of these weapons systems are positioned forward, while the ship’s stern is designed to house a below-deck helicopter hangar and other machinery.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

D’après un communiqué publié hier par le Centre de Recherche en Astronomie Astrophysique et Géophysique (CRAAG), un événement céleste fascinant nous attend ce soir, (jeudi […]

L’article Astronomie : un spectacle grandiose à ne pas manquer ce soir (jeudi 14 mars) est apparu en premier sur .

Summary: During recent military exercises, North Korea showcased a new tank, which was observed by leader Kim Jong-un, Defense Minister Kang Sun-nam, and Chief of the General Staff Ri Yong-gil. Dubbed the "M2020," the new tank, first revealed in a 2020 military parade, appears ready for deployment. Although specific details are scarce, it resembles the Russian T-14 Armata and Iranian Zulfiqar MBTs but shares design features with the older Soviet T-62. Equipped with composite armor and a 125mm main gun, the North Korean state media lauded the tank's combat capabilities, with Kim Jong-un proclaiming it as one of the world's most powerful tanks.

Show of Strength: North Korea's Latest Tank, the M2020, Joins Military Exercises

Much has been made about South Korea’s K2 Black Panther main battle tank (MBT) in recent years, but on Thursday, North Korean state media first reported that the Hermit Kingdom also rolled out one of its new tanks during military exercises this week. The vehicle was present at an event attended by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Defense Minister Kang Sun-nam, and Chief of the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army Ri Yong-gil.

Kim joined troops training on the tank during the training drills—and it was the third time he had observed his forces engaged in training since the start of the ongoing eleven-day South Korean-U.S. joint exercises, which he views as rehearsals for an invasion.

The North Korean military held demonstrations involving the tanks, after which Kim was spotted sitting in the driver’s seat of one of the six tanks. The vehicles also took part in live fire exercises and a training match—which the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) described as a competition.

“The competition took place in a team-to-team mode. The competition was aimed at rigorously checking the practical skills of tank crewmen and practicing ways to conduct combat operations based on various tactical missions. The competition involved distinguished tank crews from major tank formations,” KCNA reported.

The 105th Tank Division was declared the winner of the mock battle—not entirely surprising as it was the unit that occupied the South Korean capital Seoul during the Korean War.

North Korea’s “New” Tank: What Do We Know

Media reports have not identified the North Korean military’s tank by model number or other designation, but according to The Associated Press, it is the same model that was first unveiled during a military parade in 2020. Its presence during Wednesday’s drill may indicate that it’s ready to be deployed, South Korean experts suggested.

Known only by the unofficial moniker “M2020,” there are reports that nine prototypes may have been built—which tracks as six were spotted in the photos released by state media. While it has an appearance that is similar to the Russian T-14 Armata and Iranian Zulfiqar MBTs, it is believed to share some design features with the much older Soviet-designed T-62—which also is to be expected, as Pyongyang has a history of modifying the T-62.

The tank’s hull features armor plates on the sides, with slat armor on the rear of the hull protecting the engine while it is reported to be equipped with composite armor and armed with a Soviet 2A46 125mm main gun.

North Korean state media reported that Kim expressed satisfaction with the new tank and described it as having “shown outstanding combat capacity, powerful strike ability and high maneuverability.” Kim further suggested it was one “of the most powerful tanks in the world” and that was a “strong reason to be proud” of it.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

La filiale de Sonatrach, “Sidal Gaz”, spécialisée dans la production et la commercialisation des gaz industriels et médicaux, vient d’obtenir deux importantes accréditations selon les […]

L’article Sonatrach : 2 certifications de conformité décrochées par Sidal Gaz est apparu en premier sur .

Alors que la population algérienne dépasse les 45 millions d’habitants, il est crucial de réfléchir à l’avenir de nos villes et de notre pays. Comment […]

L’article Écotourisme en Algérie : Belux Éclairage propose des concepts innovants est apparu en premier sur .

Summary: The US Navy faces a significant strategic challenge due to the rise of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems, particularly from countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. These systems threaten to render US aircraft carriers and their air wings, including advanced F-35B and F-35C warplanes, obsolete by preventing them from getting close enough to enemy territories to be effective. This issue, highlighted nearly a decade ago, points to a broader problem within the Navy and the US military's procurement strategy, which has continued to invest in legacy systems like aircraft carriers and F-35s without adequately addressing the evolving nature of warfare. 

Beyond the Aircraft Carrier: Reimagining US Naval Strategy Against A2/AD Threats

The US Navy has long prized the power projection capabilities that its wildly expensive, massive aircraft carriers have allowed for.

Yet, the advent of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems has led the US Navy to a dangerous place.

Namely, its aircraft carriers, the Navy’s primary weapon at sea, will be rendered useless before even the first shots in any war with an A2/AD-wielding power (such as China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea) were ever fired. 

And it isn’t just the aircraft carriers that would be made obsolete overnight by sophisticated A2/AD systems, of the kind that China possesses. It is the air wings of advanced warplanes, such as the F-35B and F-35C variants and other warplanes, that depend on the aircraft carrier to nestle in close to a rival’s territory, allowing for the warplanes to do their jobs. 

Should the carriers be kept beyond the range of the warplanes that comprise their carrier air wings, then the entire concept of the aircraft as a warfighting platform is gone.

This is not a new problem. 

The Navy Ignores the Aircraft Carrier Crisis at Its Own Peril

Going back to 2015—almost a decade ago—experts have been cautioning about the rising threat that China’s A2/AD systems pose to US aircraft carriers.

Dr. Jerry Hendrix of the Center for New American Security (CNAS) wrote a treatise in 2015 tracing the moment when the US Navy, in his estimation, “suddenly drifted off-course.” In Hendrix’s view, that sudden drift started around the 1990s, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bloodless American victory in the Cold War. 

According to Hendrix:

"The end of the Cold War—followed by the decision to cancel the replacement aircraft for the A-6 intruder, the A-12 Avenger II—began a precipitous retreat from the range and the deep strike mission that had long characterized the carrier air wing. The rapid successive retirements of the A-6 Intruder, F-14 Tomcat, and the S-3 Viking that followed, and the decision to replace these aircraft with variants of the F/A-18 Hornet—originally designed as a replacement for the short-ranged fighters and light attack aircraft—shrank the average range of the carrier air wing from over 800 [nautical miles] in 1996 to less than 500 nm by 2006. This occurred just when competitor nations, led by China, began to field A2/AD systems with ranges of 1,000 nm or more."

The rot, therefore, has set in deep. 

And the war planners in Beijing saw it (as did their autocratic allies). Today, the Americans project a fantasy of dominance upon the world. But all the major weapons systems that the United States can—and will—deploy at the onset of a great power war are tailored for a bygone age. 

For decades, American defense contractors and their shameless allies on the Hill (as well as in the Pentagon) have gotten away with bloody murder: overcharging the taxpayer for legacy systems that don’t even come close to meeting America’s strategic needs. 

These systems have been developed without taking into account the growing capabilities and intentions of US rivals, such as China. After decades of investing in these technologies, the United States finds itself at a serious disadvantage. For all the money, time, and resources spent building up these systems, they are worthless if they cannot even get within range of their potential targets, thanks to the advent of A2/AD defenses. 

Long-Range Warfare is the Future, Not the F-35

Warfare today among great powers will be fought at greater distances than ever before. American offensive systems, though, are all predicated on being able to get close to distant targets. The F-35, like the F/A-18 Hornet will be unable to achieve its mission of striking at enemy targets because of A2/AD.

Rather than blow its finite budget on things like the F-35 and more aircraft carriers, then, the US Navy must lead the way in developing long-range strike weapons that can annihilate A2/AD networks. 

Way back in 2015, analysts were urging the Navy (and other branches) to invest in “the areas of unmanned systems, stealth, directed energy, and hypersonics.” Hendrix urged his readers in 2015 to support “experimentation, such as seen with the X-47B [unmanned spaceplane]” in order to burst the A2/AD defensive bubble. 

After all, once A2/AD was overcome, the traditional Navy power projection platforms, notably the aircraft carrier, can become relevant again. Rather than take Hendrix's prescient calls more seriously, though, the Navy spent most of its budget on building the Ford-class aircraft carrier. 

About the Author 

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

La compagnie maritime nationale assure plusieurs traversées depuis et vers le port de Marseille en France. Algérie Ferries revient dans un nouveau communiqué pour faire […]

L’article Transport de marchandises vers Marseille : Algérie Ferries annonce une nouvelle mesure est apparu en premier sur .

Summary: The ambitious T-14 Armata program, once hailed as the future of Russian armored warfare, faces significant setbacks and unmet expectations. Initially planned for a massive rollout of 2,300 units from 2015 to 2020, the reality has fallen short, prompting speculation that the program might be abandoned. The Armata's troubles began early, notably with a malfunction during its 2015 debut, mirroring the misfortune of Tesla's Cybertruck. Its subsequent withdrawal from frontline service in Ukraine due to underwhelming performance further eroded confidence in the tank's capabilities.

T-14 Armata: Russia's Tank of the Future Faces Uncertain Fate

The Russians were counting on the T-14 Armata as the tank of the future. Initial procurement plans called for 2,300 T-14s to be delivered between 2015 and 2020.

But it’s 2024 and nothing like 2,300 T-14s have been delivered to the Russian Army.

Indeed, the Armata program may never materialize as envisioned, with Sergio Miller arguing that the “story is over.”

Is the T-14 Armata Story Over?

The T-14 started off on the wrong foot, much like Tesla’s Cybertruck, breaking during its unveiling at the 2015 Victory Day parade, with thousands of witnesses. According to Miller, the breakdown was an “augury,” and that now, almost one decade later, “it can be stated with confidence the Armata story is over.”

So, where did the T-14 program go wrong?

Technically, the Armata is still Putin’s tank of the future. But the program has been consistently hampered, for a long time now. Making matters worse, last September, the Armata was pulled from frontline service in Ukraine, indicating that the new tank’s performance was suboptimal.

“Armored forces from Russia’s southern military district (SMD) were given T-14 “Armata” main battle tanks (MBTs) for combat operations, according to the state news agency Tass, which noted that this was Moscow’s first official confirmation of their use in Ukraine,” Newsweek reported.

According to one military source, the Armata was used in combat operations and several units participated in battle to gauge the tank’s performance. Shortly thereafter, the tanks were pulled from the frontline. The inference of course is that the Armata performed poorly.

Now, the T-14’s withdrawal from Ukraine does not mean conclusively that the program is being canceled. But the fact that Russia was not comfortable using their “tank of the future” in a land-based war of attrition speaks volumes to the (lack of) confidence Putin has in the Armata. (Granted, Russia is suggesting that the tank is too valuable to use in war).

The T-14 was supposed to offer a boost for the beleaguered Russians; the tank was highly anticipated and expected to help the cause. The tank’s 125mm cannon and supposed high survivability features were long awaited. The Russians are undoubtedly keen to improve the survivability of their soldiers.

Russian casualties have been remarkably high. To date, Moscow is believed to have lost 424,060 troops. In the past week alone, Russia lost 7,200 troops, 278 artillery systems, and over 200 armored personnel vehicles. Russia has also lost nearly one hundred tanks in the past week. So, an infusion of fresh tanks is becoming increasingly necessary.

T-14: The Source of the Problem

Miller believes that the Armata’s primary problem lies with the engine, in large part because the tank was designed around an engine rather than the other way around. What happened is that Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) decided to use the A-85-3 engine as the basis for the Armata. However, the A-85-3 was complex and extremely difficult to maintain, causing practical problems. The Russians could have perhaps solved the problem with a swap – the A-85-3 for the proven and more durable V-92S2F engine. Yet, the 92S2F was too big for the T-14, which was built strictly to accommodate the smaller A-85-3.

“The only realistic engineering solution now is to start again,” Miller said.

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

On Thursday, the European Parliament adopted two resolutions on the respect for human rights in Afghanistan and Venezuela.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Human Rights

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

On Thursday, the European Parliament adopted two resolutions on the respect for human rights in Afghanistan and Venezuela.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Human Rights

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

On Thursday, the European Parliament adopted two resolutions on the respect for human rights in Afghanistan and Venezuela.
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Human Rights

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Summary: The US Navy faces a strategic crisis due to the rise of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities by adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. These developments challenge traditional naval power projection, particularly the effectiveness of aircraft carriers in such contested environments. To adapt, the Navy needs to embrace a new force posture focusing on stealth, submersibles, directed energy weapons, drones, and hypersonic weapons. Despite this, investment continues in aircraft carriers, overlooking the strategic advantage of submarines, especially in potential conflicts over Taiwan or the South China Sea. The Navy's current acquisition strategy, favoring expensive carriers over versatile and stealthy submarines like the Virginia-class, is criticized for not aligning with modern warfare needs. This approach risks the Navy's ability to counter A2/AD strategies effectively and calls for a shift in priorities towards more relevant and cost-effective platforms and technologies.

Submarines vs. Aircraft Carriers: Adapting US Naval Strategy for Modern Threats

The US Navy is in a real crisis and they might not even realize it. Having spent decades obsessed with the aircraft carrier, the Navy appears to not have internalized the fact that America’s foes were developing capabilities to stunt the Navy’s power projection capabilities into the backyards of their rivals. 

This has been especially true with China, which probably leads the world in what we know as “anti-access/area-denial” (A2/AD) capabilities. Russia, Iran, and North Korea are likely right behind China with their A2/AD systems, too. 

What this means is that the Navy has no choice but to fundamentally rethink its entire force posture and the way that it fights. No longer able to move its assets within physical range of potential targets, the Navy needs to learn to leverage stealth, submersibles, directed energy weapons (DEW), drones, and hypersonic weapons together into one seamless strike package; a sort of pin to pierce the bubble that A2/AD systems create around the regions they are deployed to. 

And once the bubble is burst by these long-range systems, more conventional styles of power projection can be brought to bear against the enemy.

But the Navy has put the cart before the horse. 

America’s naval service continues investing in its preferred weapons system, the aircraft carrier. These expensive monstrosities are not as relevant or useful in the modern age of A2/AD as they were before the rise of A2/AD. For the Navy to retain power projection, then, it must look to other platforms. 

The Navy must invest in the submarines. In fact, if and when a war with China erupts over Taiwan or the South China Sea (or both), it will be America’s submarines that become the primary method of power projection.

Subs Over Aircraft Carriers

Inherently stealthy and hard-to-track (though not impossible to track), submarines will be able to harass any Chinese invasion fleet heading toward Taiwan. If China opted for a blockade of Taiwan rather than a bloody invasion, US submarines would be key in disrupting that invasion as well. Specifically, US attack submarines, such as the costly Seawolf-class or the newer and more affordable, Virginia-class submarines. 

There is already a crisis in the US submarine fleet in that the Pentagon has allowed for its submarine force to wither and atrophy—so much so that Navy shipyards are having extreme difficulty in meeting any increase in demand for more submarine builds.

Not to worry, though, the Navy has ameliorated the crisis at its shipyards by canceling the construction of planned Virginia-class submarines. Instead, the Navy is committed to building another of its new Ford-class carriers. The Ford-class aircraft carrier, by the way, costs about $13 billion to build and the first model took almost a decade to complete (those pesky shipyard issues were a real problem for the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford as well). 

The Block V Virginia-Class Sub

The Virginia-class attack submarine costs $4.3 billion per unit. The Virginia-class Block V (which was originally slated to be built for FY2025) is a marvel. This model has an insane array of features that makes it the perfect counterweight to holding Chinese and Russian forces hostage. It holds 28 Tomahawk cruise missiles (along with several other deployable weapons). The Block V variant has achieved what experts refer to as, “acoustic superiority.” 

This is a key feature, considering that the primary method for tracking submarines underwater is using sonar. With the Virginia-class Block V’s acoustic superiority, though, the submarine’s stealth is enhanced. That, coupled with the larger deployable weapons capability, would grant the Navy unparalleled power projection in a domain covered by an A2/AD bubble.

The Navy was building two Virginia-class subs per year. But for Fiscal Year 2025, the Navy shocked everyone and canceled their usual order. They want only one submarine built. 

Apparently, the Navy would prefer to blow through our hard-earned tax dollars to build $13 billion vanity projects, like the Ford-class, rather than build more affordable and relevant systems. The Navy, like so much of America’s elephantine military bureaucracy, is tailoring its strategy for winning the next war around its weapons rather than tailoring its weapons to meet its strategy. 

China, unlike their American rivals, does not suffer from this problem.

Heck, instead of building one additional Ford-class carrier over the next eight years for $13 billion, the Navy should cancel that project and instead build three new Virginia-class submarines for almost the same amount of money! 

Whatever money was left over should then be channeled into one of the Navy’s anti-A2/AD programs, such as the hypersonic weapons or DEW or drone programs. 

Let us hope the Navy can reverse course quickly on its acquisition plan. Because, at this rate, it’s going to lose its opening set of engagements with any Chinese A2/AD force.

About the Author 

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Alger, le 14 mars 2024 – BNP Paribas El Djazaïr et Fiat El Djazaïr s’unissent pour proposer des solutions de financement innovantes et attractives aux […]

L’article Crédit-auto BNP Paribas – Fiat El Djazaïr : conditions et avantages est apparu en premier sur .

Jeudi, le Parlement a adopté deux résolutions sur le respect des droits humains en Afghanistan et au Vénézuéla.
Commission des affaires étrangères
Sous-commission "Droits de l'homme"

Source : © Union européenne, 2024 - PE

Dans le cadre de la 78e session de l’Assemblée générale (AG) des Nations Unies, Dennis Francis, son président, a exprimé sa reconnaissance envers l’Algérie pour […]

L’article L’ONU reconnaît les avancées de l’Algérie dans la promotion de l’égalité hommes – femmes est apparu en premier sur .

Summary: The USS Iowa (BB-61), a historic centerpiece of the Pacific Battleship Center in Los Angeles since 2012, epitomizes the largest and fastest class of battleships ever produced by the U.S. Navy. Known for its significant role in World War II and the Korean War, this majestic warship, now a museum, continues to attract visitors with its storied past. Despite needing extensive deck repairs and facing financial challenges that have stalled relocation plans within the Port of Los Angeles, efforts are underway to maintain the USS Iowa for future generations, underscoring its enduring legacy as a symbol of American naval prowess.

USS Iowa: Preserving a Legendary Battleship as a Southern California Museum Marvel

The Battleship USS Iowa has been repeatedly ranked one of the top five museums in Southern California – and it serves to preserve the long-retired USS Iowa (BB-61), the lead vessel of the largest, fastest class of battleships ever produced for the United States Navy. The warship is the centerpiece of the Pacific Battleship Center, which has been open to the public in Los Angeles since 2012.

As with other retired warships, the former BB-61 is in need of much TLC, with major deck repair now in progress, yet, plans to relocate the ship to a more conducive location in the Port of Los Angeles are now on hold, as it would cost millions of dollars more than initially anticipated. For now, the USS Iowa will remain where it is, and hopefully continue to be maintained for future generations.

USS Iowa: A Historic Warship

The largest and most powerful battleships built for the U.S. Navy, the Iowa-class were also the final battleships that entered service with the Navy. Unlike slower battleships of the era, this class was also designed to travel with a carrier force, and even be able to transit the Panama Canal, enabling the mighty warships to respond to threats around the world.

Planning for the new class began even before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Seeing war clouds on the horizon, the U.S. Navy called for a "fast battleship" that could take on the increasing power projected by the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Laid down on June 6, 1940, she was completed on February 22, 1943 and just two days later was put to sea for a shakedown in the Chesapeake Bay and later along the Atlantic coast. By the summer of that year, she had been deployed to patrol the waters off the coast of Newfoundland after it was reported that the German battleship Tirpitz was operating in Norwegian waters.

In November 1943, USS Iowa carried President Franklin D. Roosevelt, along with Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff of the Army General George C. Marshall, Chief of Naval Operations Ernest King, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces Henry "Hap" Arnold, Harry Hopkins, and other military leaders to Mers El Kébir, Algeria. It was the first leg of the journey for the leaders heading to the Tehran Conference, and the warship then conducted a similar presidential escort on the return journey in December.

Notably, the battleship was outfitted with a bathtub specifically for President Roosevelt, who was unable to use the warship's shower facilities.

She spent the rest of the Second World War in the Pacific, where USS Iowa took part in the Marshal and Mariana Islands Campaigns, the Okinawa Campaign, and in the summer of 1945 even took part in strikes on the Japanese home islands. Iowa joined her sister ship, USS Missouri (BB-63) during the September 2 surrender ceremony in Tokyo Bay, and BB-61 then remained in the bay as part of the occupying force.

Decommissioned in 1949, she returned to service just two years later and took part in the Korean War, serving as the flagship of the Seventh Fleet from April to October 1952. Iowa took part in shelling enemy positions on multiple occasions, including sorties north of the 38th parallel. Those actions established her eligibility for the United Nations Service Medal and the Korean Service Medal with one bronze star.

She was decommissioned a second time in 1958.

In the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan called for a 600-ship U.S. Navy, the USS Iowa and her three battleships were reactivated and upgraded with new combat systems that replaced many of the ships' smaller five-inch guns with launchers for Harpoon anti-ship missiles, 32 Tomahawk cruise missiles and four Phalanx close-in weapon systems (CIWS). Initially equipped with 40mm anti-aircraft guns, during the Cold War those were replaced with missiles, electronic-warfare suites, and Phalanx anti-missile Gatling gun systems.

The warship was also used as the test bed for the Navy's RQ-2 Pioneer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in the 1980s, the first of its kind to use a drone as an aerial spotter for a battleship's guns.

On July 4, 1986, President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan boarded the USS Iowa for the International Naval Review in New York's Hudson River.

While Iowa didn't take part in combat operations following her reactivation, On April 19, 1989, a fire in her second sixteen-inch gun turret killed 47 crewmen. She was decommissioned a final time in October 1990.

Since 2012 she has been preserved as a museum ship – and is now being transitioned into what will be the future National Museum of the Surface Navy, as part of an effort to raise awareness of how the United States was – and still is – a maritime nation.

However, her greatest foe remains time and the elements – and she is not alone in that fight. Across the country, her sister ship USS New Jersey (BB-62) is also undergoing a major restoration effort.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Kylian Mbappé a attaqué Mohamed Henni en justice. La raison ? C’est parce que l’influenceur franco-algérien a utilisé le nom de l’attaquant du PSG lors […]

L’article France : Mbappé attaque un influenceur franco-algérien en justice à cause d’un kebab est apparu en premier sur .

On Thursday MEPs supported the candidacy of Carlo Alberto Manfredi Selvaggi, nominated by the Italian government, for the EU Court of Auditors (ECA).
Committee on Budgetary Control

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP