Feed aggregator

On Wednesday, MEPs endorsed the renewal of trade liberalisation measures for Moldova and amended the proposal on Ukraine to reinforce safeguards for EU farmers.
Committee on International Trade

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

On Wednesday, MEPs gave their green light to new EU rules to reduce emissions from passenger cars, vans, buses, trucks and trailers.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

On Wednesday, MEPs gave their green light to new EU rules to reduce emissions from passenger cars, vans, buses, trucks and trailers.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Summary: The U.S. Department of Defense has green-lit the F-35 fighter jet, produced by Lockheed Martin, for full rate production, a decision coming five years later than initially planned and two decades after the contract award. This milestone is reached despite the U.S. Air Force's recent decision to cut back its F-35 purchases in 2025 to 42 aircraft. The approval was based on comprehensive evaluations, including operational and live fire tests, and regulatory compliance, marking a significant achievement for the program. Despite reaching this stage, the Pentagon has temporarily halted new F-35 deliveries pending upgrades under the Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) initiative, which aims to enhance the jet's capabilities with improved hardware and software. Meanwhile, the F-35 has also been certified to carry the B61-12 nuclear bomb, emphasizing its dual-role capacity in conventional and nuclear warfare, and underlining its strategic importance to U.S. and NATO defense strategies. Over 990 F-35s have been delivered to date, highlighting its key role in modern military operations.

F-35 Fighter Jet Achieves Full Rate Production: What This Means for Modern Warfare

The U.S. Department of Defense has approved the F-35 for full rate production. 

The announcement comes five years later than originally planned and 23 years after Lockheed Martin was awarded the contract for the multi-role fighter. It comes even as the U.S. Air Force announced it would scale back its acquisition of the fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter, with plans to buy just 42 of the aircraft in 2025.

"The F-35 achieved this milestone after considering the results from the F-35 Combined Initial Operational Test and Evaluation and Live Fire Test and Evaluation Report, System Development and Demonstration exit criteria, statutory/regulatory documentation compliance, future production strategy, and draft acquisition program baseline details,” the Department of Defense announced on Tuesday. “Proceeding to MSC/FRP requires control of the manufacturing process, acceptable performance and reliability, and the establishment of adequate sustainment and support systems.”

The Air Force has operated the F-35 since 2016, and the service plans for a fleet of 1,763 aircraft. Production was already close to capacity, but the official full-rate production designation will allow the Joint Program Office to negotiate multi-year contracts for the fighter.

"This is a major achievement for the F-35 Program," Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Dr. William A. LaPlante said in a statement.

"This decision ­backed by my colleagues in the Department ­highlights to the Services, F-35 Cooperative Program Partners, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS)  customers that the F-35 is stable and agile, and that all statutory and regulatory requirements have been appropriately addressed," LaPlante added. "The F-35 Program is the premier system that drives interoperability with our allies and partners while contributing to the integrated deterrence component of our National Defense Strategy."

The F-35 program has delivered more than 990 aircraft to the U.S. military services, partner nations, and FMS customers.

The Nuclear-Capable Fighter Bomber

The F-35 has also attained operational certification to carry the B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bomb, marking it as the first fifth-generation aircraft with nuclear capabilities.

With that milestone achieved ahead of schedule, the F-35A becomes a pivotal component of the U.S. and NATO's extended deterrence commitments. The development highlights the aircraft's versatility as a dual-capable platform, able to deliver conventional and nuclear payloads. As NATO-operated jets receive initial certification for the deterrence mission, the integration of the B61-12 further solidifies the F-35A’s role in modern warfare.

U.S. Deliveries On Hold 

Despite these milestones, the Pentagon has stopped accepting deliveries of newly built Lightning II aircraft until Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) is ready. TR-3 includes a series of hardware and software improvements to the F-35 that include better displays, computer memory, and processing power.

Lockheed Martin finished building the first F-35s that were to have the TR-3 improvements in July 2023. But the software wasn't ready, meaning the Department of Defense couldn't conduct the check flights required to accept delivery. 

Lockheed has stored about 70 completed F-35s until that testing concludes, which is expected to happen by mid-to-late summer. 

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.

NATO member-state Denmark is considering repatriating some of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighters currently used for pilot training in the U.S. 

Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen on March 12 asked the Danish Armed Forces to prepare for a temporary repatriation of F-35 aircraft from a joint training facility at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, Bloomberg first reported. Several European nations who operate the F-35 have aircraft based at Luke AFB to support pilot training.

The news comes amid concerns in Copenhagen about potential delays to the delivery of new fifth-generation stealth fighters. It is unclear whether Lockheed Martin can meet the July deadline for the delivery of Denmark's newest aircraft.

The Danish Armed Forces is also exploring opportunities to purchase or borrow F-35s from other nations.

Danish F-35s

Last fall, Lockheed Martin officially handed over the certificate of ownership for Denmark's F-35s to the Danish Ministry of Defense Acquisition and Logistics Organization. More than 450 Danish and allied government, military, and industry leaders gathered at Skrydstrup Air Base, Denmark, to commemorate the milestone, and more than 10,000 local citizens participated in the Royal Danish Air Force's public open house.

Copenhagen has taken delivery of ten F-35s to date. Four of them are now at Skrydstrup Air Base. Six are stationed at Luke AFB, where Danish pilots and maintainers conduct training. 

Denmark plans to purchase a total of twenty-seven F-35s. Its fleet of the multirole aircraft is meant to play a pivotal role in bolstering NATO's collective resilience in the Baltics and strengthening the alliance's ability to deter and defend against threats across all domains.

Denmark is the 10th country and the fifth European NATO member-state to operate the F-35 from its home soil. It played a critical role in the F-35 program. Denmark joined the program in 2002 as a partner during the System Development and Demonstration phase, strategically influencing technical elements of the program. 

The Royal Danish Air Force also contributed a Danish F-16 to the Joint Strike Fighter 461st Flight Test Squadron at Edwards Air Force Base, California. It served as a chase plane for the F-35 Development, Test & Evaluation program. Danish industry has also contributed to F-35 production, development, and sustainment activities and today is building parts and components for the aircraft.

Replacing the F-16

Copenhagen's need for the F-35 comes as Denmark and the Netherlands formally announced they will supply F-16 Fighting Falcons to Ukraine. The Royal Danish Air Force has thirty F-16s in service and pledged to provide Kyiv with 19 of the American-made F-16s later this year. It was reported earlier this month that the first of those aircraft could be in Ukraine by this summer.

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.

Summary: Rumors have emerged that China plans to construct a fourth aircraft carrier, possibly aiming for a nuclear-powered design, a move that could significantly boost the People's Liberation Army Navy's (PLAN) capabilities. This development follows the PLAN's recent advancements, including the commissioning of its third carrier, the Type 003 Fujian, equipped with electromagnetic catapults akin to the American EMALS system. While the United States Navy maintains dominance with 11 nuclear-powered carriers, China's potential addition signals its intention to expand its naval power. This ambition reflects China's broader goal of becoming a "blue water" navy capable of global reach, amidst increasing military spending and efforts to enhance its strategic position, particularly concerning Taiwan. This strategic move underscores the rapid evolution of the PLAN and poses a notable challenge to the U.S. and Western naval superiority.

China Eyes Nuclear Future: Plans for a Fourth Aircraft Carrier Revealed

The United States Navy operates a total of 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, including 10 Nimitz-class supercarriers and one Gerald R. Ford-class super-sized flattop. Over the coming decades, the aging Nimitz-class carriers are set to be replaced on a one-for-one basis with the new Ford-class warships – ensuring that the United States remains the dominant carrier power in the world.

However, Beijing has other plans and it was just last week that rumors circulated it will build a fourth carrier. It came after Yuan Huazhi a political commissar of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and National People's Congress (NPC) deputy, told reporters that an announcement could be expected soon on a fourth carrier.

This isn't exactly earth-shattering news, as there has been speculation that it is a matter of when and not if China would begin construction on a fourth carrier, as it is now completing its third carrier, the Type 003 Fujian.

Great Naval Leap Forward with Aircraft Carriers

The PLAN has in just the past decade greatly expanded its aircraft carrier capabilities, which began by refurbishing an unfinished late Cold War era Soviet aircraft cruiser that was purchased from Ukraine in the 1990s. It was commissioned in 2012.

Even before news broke last week of a fourth carrier, China was already on track to have the second-largest carrier force with its three flattops – but what makes the latest revelation potentially worrisome for Washington is that there is speculation that the future warship will be nuclear-powered. Currently, only the U.S. Navy's aforementioned carriers – along with the French Navy's flagship Charles de Gaulle – are nuclear-powered, which gives the vessels unlimited range and endurance.

The PLAN already achieved a significant breakthrough with its conventionally-powered Type 003 Fujian, which is equipped with electromagnetic catapults and arresting devices that allow aircraft to be launched and recovered more frequently. It began testing the system last November. The technology is similar to the American EMALS system employed on the Ford-class.

The third and newest Chinese aircraft carrier is on track to begin sea trials later this year.

More Than a Blue Water Navy for China

Though Beijing has made clear it aims to develop a modern "blue water" navy within the next decade, it still lacks the overseas military bases to support such ambitions. It continues to forge relations and could expand its global reach, but in the shorter term, military analysts that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) may see carriers as necessary to achieve some aspirations closer to home – namely reunification with Taiwan.

As the South China Morning Post reported, aircraft carriers are believed to be crucial to operations along the Taiwan Strait, the waterway that separates the self-ruling island nation from the mainland.

Beijing's latest military budget, which was announced on Tuesday, raised funding for the Chinese armed forces by 7.2%, the same rate as last year amid aims to ramp up combat readiness as well as defense research and development.

Over the past two decades, the PLAN has rapidly expanded in both size and capability, positioning itself as a credible peer-level threat to the U.S. and other Western navies.

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.

On 19 March, Thierry Breton, European Commissioner for Internal Market, will present to the SEDE Members the newly released European Defence Industrial Strategy (EDIS) together with the proposed European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP), which set ambitious targets to enhance the defence readiness of the European Union and its Member States. ...
In camera, a tour d'horizon on EU security and defence priorities will be given by the EEAS Deputy Secretary General Charles Fries and SEDE Members will hold an exchange of views with the EEAS and Rear Admiral Vasileios Gryparis, Operation Commander of EUNAVFOR ASPIDES on the Red Sea crisis and the establishment of the CSDP defensive maritime security operation EUNAVFOR ASPIDES.
Meeting agenda and documents
Webstreaming - EP Multimedia Centre
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

On 19 March, Thierry Breton, European Commissioner for Internal Market, will present to the SEDE Members the newly released European Defence Industrial Strategy (EDIS) together with the proposed European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP), which set ambitious targets to enhance the defence readiness of the European Union and its Member States. ...
In camera, a tour d'horizon on EU security and defence priorities will be given by the EEAS Deputy Secretary General Charles Fries and SEDE Members will hold an exchange of views with the EEAS and Rear Admiral Vasileios Gryparis, Operation Commander of EUNAVFOR ASPIDES on the Red Sea crisis and the establishment of the CSDP defensive maritime security operation EUNAVFOR ASPIDES.
Meeting agenda and documents
Webstreaming - EP Multimedia Centre
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

I became a Republican nearly 45 years ago when I was captivated by Ronald Reagan’s vision for America. Fresh out of law school, I was a newly commissioned JAG officer in the United States Coast Guard. Little could I imagine, at that time, that a mere seven years later I would have the privilege of serving on President Reagan’s White House Staff. I would go on to serve in the White House under President George H.W. Bush and in the Pentagon as a Deputy Assistant Secretary under then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.

As a member of the GOP, I was “all in.” At that time, the Republican party stood for a strong national defense, respect for our allies, limiting the role of government in our daily lives, and an absolute intolerance for totalitarianism wherever it existed. Reagan’s defense buildup and aggressive approach with the Soviet Union was the catalyst that helped end the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.

I still believe in what made me a Republican in the first place. Most Reagan Republicans are in the same boat. That is why Donald Trump is not entitled to our votes. He has demonstrated, time and again, that he does not share the values that made us Republicans. It is, therefore, up to Trump to earn our votes.

So far, he has not. Indeed, as his hosting aspiring dictator Viktor Orban at Mar a Lago proves, he has no desire to earn them, either.

I can admit that my aversion to Trump is, at this point, personal. Yet that aversion stems from what made me a Reagan Republican in the first place. It was Reagan’s unvarnished, unironic patriotism. Those who sacrificed for America were heroes, full stop. The idea of America was greater than any individual within it.

From Day One of Trump’s first term, that sentiment has been glaringly, offensively absent. Having spent much of my career working in and with the U.S. intelligence community, his relentless mockery and unjustified criticism of my community was particularly concerning.  Reagan understood their importance and treated the Wall of Stars – a memorial to the people in the intelligence community who made the ultimate sacrifice – with the reverence it deserves. I never passed that memorial without thinking “thank God for those people.”

But not Trump. Trump used that hallowed space as a platform to whine about accurate media reporting about the crowd size for his inauguration. In that moment, it was clear that, in his mind, he was bigger than the idea of America. Patriotism was for, as he’d later say about America’s war dead, “losers and suckers.”

Reagan Republicans, take note. A Republican Party led by Trump is not one that espouses the ideals that made us Republicans in the first place.

One can go down the list of what made Reagan the leader he was and see those qualities absent in Trump.

A genuine optimism about America? Trump gave one of the darkest inaugural addresses in history and has somehow only gotten worse.

A strong military? Trump went through six Navy Secretaries in four years while doing almost nothing to strengthen our capabilities.

Supporting allies and opposing enemies? The only thing as consistent as Trump’s trashing of our allies is his support for dictators (Reagan would be appalled at Trump’s support for Putin.)

Limiting the federal government’s involvement in our daily lives? It is tough to make the case that Trump wants to do that when he’s picking fights with American companies for having the audacity to drop his daughter’s clothing line.

The only thing Trump and shares with Reagan is the slogan he stole from him.

I will admit, I am done as a Republican, at least until the MAGA branch has receded to the dustbin of history. But for those Reagan Republicans who have not yet made up their minds, I urge you not to vote for Trump simply because he is also a registered Republican. Make him demonstrate that he shares your values, your policy priorities, your commitment to a free and proud America. Make him show he honors what really makes America great: our optimism, our patriotism, and our democracy.

And if, as I suspect, he fails to convince you, be courageous. Loyalty to our nation and the principles upon which it was founded must overcome loyalty to party. Put country first.

A nation on the precipice cannot afford your blind loyalty to someone who is uncommitted to its preservation.

About the Author: Robert Kelly

Robert Kelly is a retired attorney and Coast Guard Reserve captain who served in the White House for Presidents Reagan and Bush.

Summary: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, lauded for its advanced capabilities and role as a fifth-generation fighter, faces criticism for one significant limitation: its range. The F-35 variants—A (Air Force) and C (Navy)—offer a range of 1,200 nautical miles, while the B variant for the Marine Corps reaches only 900 nautical miles. This stands in contrast to longer-range aircraft like the F-22 Raptor and the F/A-18 Super Hornet, which boast ranges of 1,600 and 1,800 nautical miles respectively. This limitation is crucial for operations involving Carrier Strike Groups and Marine Expeditionary Units, especially in vast open ocean expanses where operational success depends on range and fuel economy for mission engagement and return.

The F-35 Has A Challenge It Can't Easily Fix: A Range Problem

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter seems to have developed from a problem-plagued development program into a reliable, everyday fifth-generation fighter.

Today, the F-35 operates as it was designed to. Yet, as some critics have pointed out, it was designed to operate in a way that hobbles the US military strategy.

Namely, the F-35 suffers from a short range.

“The A and C [F-35] variants, employed by the Air Force and Navy respectively, have ranges of 1,200nm while the B variant for Marine Corps can only manage 900nm,” Maya Carlin wrote for The National Interest. “By comparison, the F-22 Raptor can reach 1,600nm while the F/A-18 Super Hornet maxes at 1,800nm.”

For a Carrier Strike Group based F-35C, or a Marine Expeditionary Unit based F-35B, operating in the vast expanses of the open ocean, range becomes vital to operational success. And while 1,200, or 900, nautical miles may sound like a lot, remember that range and fuel economy must be budgeted engaging in the mission itself (which is often fuel intensive), and returning to the ship after the mission.

So, 1,200 nautical miles means that the F-35-launching ship must be well within a 1,200-mile radius – which is becoming more and more dangerous as defense technology improves.

F-35 Limited Range Places Ships in Danger

The problem with the F-35’s limited range is that it draws Navy and Marine Corps ships closer to shorelines, closer to enemy defense hubs, further within the range of detection technology, and tracking technology, and missile systems.

In a conflict with, say, China, the US would be dependent upon their carrier and MEU fleets to deliver airpower, to control the airspace above wherever the conflict was being waged. Aircraft like the F-35 would be vital to the outcome of the conflict.

However, the limitations of the F-35’s range increase the vulnerability of vessels launching the ships, in part because the Chinese can narrow their search range when hunting the vessels.

One of the primary defensive measures of large vessels like aircraft carriers is the ability to hide in the open ocean. The further the range enemy targets, the larger the search radius that the enemy must search within to find the ship. The more constricted the target radius becomes, the easier the ship becomes to find.

And, of course, the closer to shore US ships must travel, the closer they are to enemy missiles.

“China has invested in conventional cruise missiles and medium to long-range ballistic missiles with an eye on denying the U.S. Navy, particularly its carriers, the freedom to operate in the South China Sea and beyond,” Carlin wrote. “For Air Force F-35s based in Japan and Korea, the transit to a potential flare-up around Taiwan would put them at the bleeding edge of their operational range.” What about aerial refueling? “Every variant of F-35 can have its range extended by aerial refueling, however, these tanker aircraft are incredibly vulnerable and the farther they can be kept from any frontline conflict the better.”

So, while the F-35’s range is not a fatal flaw, it does make the aircraft’s, and the aircraft’s support team’s, job harder.  

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.

The Future of Warships: Lessons from the U.S. Navy's Engagement with Houthi Rebels: On Monday, the United States Navy conducted six defense strikes and fired 18 anti-ship missiles in Yemen in response to two anti-ship ballistic missiles that were fired by the Iranian-back Houthi rebels into the Red Sea.

The Future of Warships: Lessons from the U.S. Navy's Engagement with Houthi Rebels

"Between 2:50-11:30 p.m. (Sanaa time) on March 11, United States Central Command conducted six self-defense strikes destroying an unmanned underwater vessel and 18 anti-ship missiles in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. It was determined these weapons presented an imminent threat to merchant vessels and U.S. Navy ships in the region. These actions are taken to protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels," The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) announced.

Since the U.S. Navy began its campaign of airstrikes launched in January, it has shot down and destroyed more than 100 Houthi missiles, according to an Associated Press analysis – yet, the onslaught from the Houthi rebels has shown no signs of abating.

It bears repeating, the brave sailors on the U.S. Navy vessels need to do everything right, every single time – and an enemy only needs to get lucky once. The Houthis are now clearly playing a "long game," hoping that one time they'll actually get lucky. If – and hopefully there is not a when – such a moment occurs, America's adversaries will take note, as will the world.

It won't be remembered that a hundred missiles were destroyed. All it will take is for one to make that lucky shot. Even minimal damage would be "proof" that the U.S. Navy isn't invincible.

This begs the question, "Is the era of the big, expensive warship over?"

The answer is complex.

The fact remains that frigates today already operate with vastly smaller crews than they did just a few decades ago, and will likely continue to shrink in size. At the same time, the weapon capabilities of those warships have increased. Thus, the era of the battleship and large cruisers has long since passed, and warships will simply need to adapt as they always did.

Fool to Fight a Fort – But Foolish to Think We Can Do Without Warships

The Royal Navy's Lord Admiral Nelson famously argued "A ship's a fool to fight a fort," but he was clearly proven wrong in how warships played a vital role in providing the firepower to allow for a successful amphibious invasion. World War Two's D-Day landings in Normandy, France, and the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific couldn't have occurred without the big guns from the battleship. Nelson can be forgiven for not being a forward thinker, and his comments were made more than 150 years earlier.

Yet, other forward thinkers, such as U.S. Army General Billy Mitchell, predicted the days of those massive behemoths would be superseded by aircraft. His portent to the potential of aviation was proven right as nearly two dozen battleships were sunk by aircraft during the Second World War. By contrast, only one aircraft carrier was sunk by a battleship – the HMS Glorious, which was retired as a battlecruiser and reconstructed as an aircraft carrier.

Yet, the real death knell for the capital ships in the Cold War was that it was determined that carrier-based aircraft and guided-missile cruisers could do the job more effectively than large battleships.

Thus we should recognize the fact that land-based missiles won't completely single the end of warships. Instead, the technology of warships will simply evolve.

The introduction of cannons didn't mean the end of warships. Instead, the wooden ships grew in size and were armed with more guns. That eventually led to the era of ironclads and then to steel warships, which further grew in size – with HMS Dreadnought ushering in the short-lived era of the modern battleship.

Bigger was better, at least until it wasn't.

Thus, the future will likely see smaller, faster warships, armed with missiles rather than big guns. Those vessels will be supported by unmanned vehicles in the air, on the surface, and under the water. But yes, the era of big, expensive warships like battleships is long over.

Even aircraft carriers may need to adapt given the advances in land-based "carrier killer" missiles. While carrier strike groups will continue to have a place in the world, those too will likely evolve. The future CSG will also likely employ drones and other systems, while the flattops and escorts will be armed with lasers to counter enemy drones, missiles, and aircraft.

The future U.S. Navy – and all naval forces for that matter – will likely be unrecognizable, but it will be an evolutionary rather than revolutionary step forward.

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.

Summary: The aircraft carrier, once a cornerstone of American naval power, is becoming increasingly obsolete due to the proliferation of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) technologies by U.S. adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. These technologies make carriers, with their high costs and vulnerabilities, less effective in modern conflict scenarios, especially against China's A2/AD capabilities in potential conflicts over Taiwan or the South China Sea. Despite this, the U.S. continues to invest heavily in carriers, which also serve as cultural icons, even as their strategic utility diminishes against cheaper and more proliferate A2/AD systems.

A2/AD: The Rising Threat to America's Aircraft Carriers and the Future of Naval Warfare

The aircraft carrier is one of the most expensive weapons platforms in history. It helped win the Pacific Theater of the Second World War. During the Cold War, it deterred the communists. After the Cold War, it helped to preserve that hard won peace. Yet, by the 2000s—especially from the 2010s, onwards—the aircraft carrier has been the victim of extremely diminishing returns. 

Despite this, the US Navy and Congress keep throwing gobs of tax dollars at the aircraft carrier. Meanwhile, with each passing year, the aircraft carrier’s usefulness is made less so, thanks in large part to the rise of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) technologies that America’s great power rivals (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea) are deploying with wanton abandon.

Should a conflict erupt between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, over Taiwan or for control over the South China Sea, given China’s immense A2/AD capabilities, it is likely that America’s aircraft carriers would be sidelined at the outset of the war. They are simply too expensive, too irreplaceable, and too vulnerable to China’s robust arsenal of A2/AD weapons. 

Despite these facts, the US government has invested considerable money into this platform. Further, it has become a cultural icon in the United States. 

Aircraft Carriers: A Wasting Asset

Thus, the likelihood that anyone in power in Washington would be willing to drop the flat top in favor of more relevant weapons systems is low. Instead, these monstrosities would be tasked with ancillary missions in areas of the world where US enemies did not possess A2/AD systems.

Of course, the bigger issue for the aircraft carriers is that they are far more expensive and complex than the A2/AD weapons that threaten them. What’s more, those A2/AD systems are easy to proliferate. So, China or Russia could easily hand this technology off to other American rivals, such as Iran or North Korea or Venezuela. Any of these rival states could, in turn, give the A2/AD capabilities over to non-state actors aligned with them. 

For example, Iran has spent the last decade building up the capabilities of the Houthi Rebels based in Yemen. Today, the Houthis are terrorizing the high seas by attacking major global shipping routes in the Red Sea and Strait of Bab El-Mandeb. The Houthis already possess an impressive array of drones given to them by Iran that pose a certain level of danger to US warships. 

Should the Iranians (or Chinese or Russians) hand off the advanced A2/AD systems they possess to the Houthis, the Yemen-based Shiite Islamist terrorist group could further deny US aircraft carriers another area of operation.

The point is that the A2/AD threat is not going away. It is only becoming more advanced. And with each year that the A2/AD threat to US surface warships increases, the usefulness of those surface warships—notably aircraft carriers—diminishes to such a point that they become sunk costs, both in terms of economics as well as in terms of strategy. 

Even non-state actors, like the Houthis, could field A2/AD systems that could shield them from the US Navy’s wrath. 

The Incredibly Shrinking Role of Aircraft Carriers

For those who agree that A2/AD represents a real threat to the US Navy’s aircraft carriers but that those carriers can simply be used for other, less threatening missions, don’t kid yourselves. Once it becomes common knowledge among America’s rivals that the crown jewels of the US surface fleet can be held hostage by relatively cheap A2/AD systems, every single US foe will acquire these systems. 

Overnight, the carriers and other surface warships will no longer be the great projectors of American military power into distant lands. Instead, they will become the equivalent of a strategic paperweight. These expensive and complex systems will have less and less to do, negating any justification for their cost. 

That is, until the US military can develop effective countermeasures to the growing coterie of A2/AD systems around the world. Things like creating advanced fleets of drones to conduct long-range offensive operations in A2/AD bubbles, building workable hypersonic weapons to overcome—and destroy—any A2/AD systems that exist, constructing smaller and more maneuverable surface ships while expanding the Navy’s submarine fleet, these are all moves that will stunt and overcome the growing A2/AD threat.

A Strategic Gap US Rivals Will Exploit

Once the A2/AD threat can be mitigated, when the US military is certain it can survive prolonged contact with an enemy force in the era of A2/AD systems, only then can the Navy consider deploying its larger legacy platforms, like the aircraft carriers, into this contested battlespace. But until these necessary adaptations occur, the US Navy’s most iconic warships, its carriers, will be kept out of the fray as a wasting asset. 

The carrier's absence will leave a massive gap in America’s strategic capabilities. A gap that America’s enemies, such as China, will happily exploit.

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.

MEPs on Wednesday gave their final green light to new legislation to protect EU journalists and media from political or economic interference.
Committee on Culture and Education

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

MEPs on Wednesday gave their final green light to new legislation to protect EU journalists and media from political or economic interference.
Committee on Culture and Education

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

On Wednesday, Parliament adopted its proposals to better prevent and reduce waste from food and textiles across the EU.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

On Wednesday, Parliament adopted its proposals to better prevent and reduce waste from food and textiles across the EU.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Can F-16 Fighters Win the War for Ukraine? Ukraine has lost the war with Russia. Whatever happens next—no matter what Western media sources may claim—the Ukrainians will not defeat the Russians, who are entrenched in their positions in Eastern Ukraine and in Crimea. The best Kyiv’s desperate leaders can hope for is to achieve a stalemate via negotiated settlement. 

But that is not what Western leaders are advising their Ukrainian clients to seek out from Russia. Instead, Western leaders are filling the Ukrainians’ minds with the siren song of airpower. 

After last year’s ode to main battle tanks from NATO nations did little to alter the direction of the war at the strategic level, one would have thought that both NATO and the Ukrainians would have learned their lesson. 

No weapons system can save Ukraine from the realities of Russian military and industrial power or from the even more painful realities of geography. 

Reason, of course, is the first victim of warfare. 

F-16: The Siren Song of Airpower

Even though NATO provided Leopard-2s and Challenger-2 tanks—to say nothing of the fact that America’s much promised Abrams tanks have yet to arrive in any substantial numbers—have done little to sway events in Ukraine’s favor, Kiev is now told that F-16 fighter jets will do the trick. 

To be clear: the F-16s will make no difference for multiple reasons.

First, these systems are secondhand warplanes that are at the end of their life cycles. Being old and sent into high-tempo aerial combat is not going to bode well for the Ukrainians. 

Second, they are being given a miniscule amount of the aging F-16s meaning these systems will not make a substantial difference. 

Third, it will take four-to-five years to fully train Ukrainian pilots to properly fly the warplanes in question. By that time, the war will have fundamentally shifted, and Russia will probably have an even stronger hand. 

Further, the older F-16s are not a match against Russia’s next generation warplanes. They might be able to be deployed for ground cover missions but these operations would be limited and hardly worth the headache. As my colleague at the Asia Times wrote a year ago on this subject, “Used F-16s at the end of their life, are not really going the war chessboard.” That was true in 2023. It is truer today in 2024. 

Wasted Tanks, Wasted Time for Ukraine 

The sad fact is, though, Ukraine has become a dumping ground for old NATO equipment. Just look at the much-ballyhooed tanks that NATO has showered Ukraine with. 

The French have poured in lightly armored French-built AMX-10RC. These vehicles are antiques from the 1970s—and the Ukrainian military deemed them to be “unsuitable” for the combat operations that have defined the Ukraine War. 

Nevertheless, the French sent them by planeload into Ukraine. 

The handful of British Challenger-2 tanks were also older variants. The 14 or so advanced German-built Leopard-2 main battle tanks were insufficient in number to do much more than get in the way on the Ukrainian battlefield (after it took far longer than the Ukrainians expected to get these units into position). 

Lastly, the Americans promised an astonishing 31 M1 Abrams tanks…only to admit shortly after they declared that these war machines were being given to the Ukrainians that the bulk of the shipment would be composed of out-of-order and older variants because the US arsenal lacked adequate numbers of more modern variants of the Abrams.

So, there is a pattern to NATO aid in this conflict. The aid is almost always insufficient to the task at hand. Just as with the tanks, the systems being promised are too old to be useful and are never given over in abundance (because the West lacks sufficient numbers of any major weapons platform, thanks in large part to the shabby state the defense industrial base is in). What’s more, they rarely arrive in a timely fashion. All this leads to the same dreadful place: no weapon system given to Ukraine by NATO will turn the tide of the war. 

Ukraine Must Negotiate, or It Will Sure Fall to Russia

Rather than cling onto the delusion that Ukraine’s slipshod, underdog army is going to somehow overcome the numerical and technological advantages of the Russian military and liberate the Russian enclaves of Eastern Ukraine or Crimea, Kiev’s leaders should have been feverishly negotiating with their Russian counterparts for a ceasefire before Moscow decides to simply ground down the Ukrainians. 

No amount of F-16s, at this point in the war, will help. 

Washington and Brussels should stop overpromising and under-delivering to the Ukrainians. They’re getting innocent Ukrainians killed and needlessly dragging on the war. Negotiate an end to the war and quit trying to find and use a NATO silver bullet. NATO’s arsenal of democracy has run empty and replacements aren’t coming anytime soon.

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.

The overhaul of the EU Customs Code reform would change the way customs authorities operate, cooperate with traders and manage goods that people order online.
Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

The European Parliament backed today more effective EU rules for combined work and residence permits for third-country nationals.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

(B2) Les navires participant à l'opération européenne EUNAVFOR Aspides continuent de faire face à la menace Houthis pour protéger les navires marchands entre mer Rouge et golfe d'Aden.

La frégate grecque Hydra (F-452) a ouvert le feu contre deux drones « représentant une menace imminente pour la liberté de navigation » ce mercredi (13 mars), annonce le QG de l'opération européenne. La veille, le destroyer italien  et assurant la protection d'un navire marchand. L'action a été efficace pour éviter tout dommage aux marins et à la marine marchande.

Mardi (12 mars), vers 2h UTC (5h locales), le destroyer italien Caio Duilio (D-554) — qui est le navire-amiral de l'opération — a « repoussé une attaque de drones venant des territoires contrôlés par les Houthis au Yémen ». Les drones ont été abattus.

Durant ce temps, la frégate allemande Hessen (F-221) a mené une escorte, accompagnant un navire marchand de Djibouti vers la partie orientale du golfe d'Aden. Il avait déjà mené une mission d'accompagnement de navires dans le sud de la mer Rouge et le détroit de Bab-el-Mandeb.

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)