Feed aggregator

Le verdict dans le procès de Corneille Nangaa et consorts interviendra le 8 aout prochain.  La Cour militaire de Kinshasa/Gombe a annoncé cette nouvelle le mardi 30 juillet, mettant ainsi fin aux débats autour de ce dossier tant attendu dans l’opinion.

A l'audience publique des conclusions, la cour a pris acte des plaidoiries de la défense.

Viral footage appears to show schoolchildren in Cape Town "selling" off black classmates.

Le parquet de grande instance de Kinshasa/Gombe a   débuté ce mercredi 31 juillet l'instruction prejuridictionnelle dans le dossier relatif au concert de l'artiste de Gospel Mike Kalambayi.

Summary and Key Points: The DF-17, China's hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV)-powered medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM), is designed to target foreign military bases and fleets in the Western Pacific, posing a significant threat to U.S. and allied forces.

-The U.S. Department of Defense's 2022 and 2023 China Military Power Reports highlighted the DF-17's capabilities, including its ability to evade existing missile defense systems like THAAD and Patriot.

-The DF-17's range, speed, and maneuverability make it a formidable weapon, with potential roles in both land-attack and anti-ship operations. U.S. lawmakers have been warned of the growing threat posed by China's advancements in hypersonic technology.

Here Comes the DF-17 Missile from China 

A few years ago, a report from the Pentagon warned that China's Dong Feng-17 (DF-17) hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV)-powered medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) had been designed to strike foreign military bases and fleets in the Western Pacific.

The DF-17 was among the platforms specifically called out in the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) 2022 China Military Power Report (CMPR), and further noted that it could replace some of Beijing's older short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) units."

"The DF-17 passed several tests successfully and is deployed operationally. While the DF-17 is primarily a conventional platform, it may be equipped with nuclear warheads," the Pentagon's report stated, while it further cautioned that the DF-17 could also be impervious to U.S. air-defense systems, such as the "THAAD [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense], SM-3 [Standard Missile-3], and Patriot" missile systems.

Last year's 2023 Report on the Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China further noted, "The PRC's deployment of the DF-17 HGV-armed MRBM will continue to transform the PLA's missile force. The system is possibly intended to replace some older SRBM units and is intended to strike foreign military bases and fleets in the Western Pacific, according to a PRC-based military expert."

DF-17: A Hypersonic Glide Vehicle Explained

The  DF-17 is the first missile designed for the operational deployment of a HGV by the People's Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF). U.S. officials first confirmed the existence of the DF-17 prototypes in January 2014 – and it was initially identified as the Wu-14 – while the Pentagon had monitored at least nine flight tests through November 2017. Tests took place at the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Centre in Shanxi Province.

China's 10th Research Institute is reported to have been responsible for developing the DF-17 along with other Chinese HGVs. Also known as the "Near Space Flight Vehicle Research Institute," the organization operates under the China Aerospace Science Industry Corporation (CASIC) 1st Academy.

The DF-17 was first noted in a PLA parade in October 2019 and is believed to have entered service in 2020.

"Although HGVs are slower than conventional ballistic reentry vehicles, their higher maneuverability and lower-altitude flight allow them to evade missile defense systems as their flight paths are harder to predict. U.S. officials have stated that the prototypes have been shown to perform 'extreme maneuvers' and 'evasive actions," the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA) reported, adding, "The DF-17 is a vital weapon in China's arsenal, as it provides the PLARF with a missile that is highly capable against existing missile defenses and sensors. With its range, the DF-17 could reach South Korea and Japan, challenging their missile defense systems."

Key DF-17 Facts

The DF-17 is a solid-fuelled road-mobile medium-range ballistic missile, and it measures around 11 meters (36 feet) in length and weighs around 15,000 kg. According to Army Recognition, the DF-17 missile is mounted on 10x10 military truck chassis with two axles at the front and three axles at the rear. The truck chassis is used as a TEL (Transporter Erector Launcher), which can carry, elevate to the firing position, and launch one or more missiles. The front of the truck is equipped with a crew cab with two doors on each side. The truck is reported to be powered by a diesel engine developing 500 to 600 hp and can reach a top speed of 70 km/h with a maximum cruising range of 650 km.

The DF-17's booster is believed to same as that used for China's DF-16 ballistic missile. Its accompanying DF-ZF HGV reportedly reaches speeds of Mach 5-10 (1.72-3.43 km/s) in its glide phase, while it is believed to have a range between 1,250 to 1,800 km (780–1,120 miles) – with some sources suggesting it could be as great as 2,500 km (1,550 miles). It may be armed with conventional or nuclear warheads.

Due to the use of a HGV instead of a conventional reentry vehicle, there has been speculation that the DF-17 could be employed to target U.S. Navy aircraft carriers operating within its effective range. While Beijing's Anti-ship Ballistic Missiles, notably the DF-21D, employ conventional reentry vehicles, which, although faster than HGVs, are less maneuverable.

As they enter service in greater numbers, it is entirely possible (and even likely) that the DF-17 and DF-ZF will be used in a land-attack role alongside an anti-ship role.

U.S. Lawmakers Have Been Warned

In March of last year, the threat of the DF-17 and similar weapons was brought before members of Congress.

"While both China and Russia have conducted numerous successful tests of hypersonic weapons and have likely fielded operational systems, China is leading Russia in both supporting infrastructure and numbers of systems," Paul Freisthler, the Defense Intelligence Agency's chief scientist for science and technology, told U.S. lawmakers.

"Over the past two decades, China has dramatically advanced its development of conventional and nuclear-armed hypersonic missile technologies and capabilities through intense and focused investment, development, testing and deployment," said Friesthler while testifying in front of the House Armed Services Committee.

The Pentagon understands the very serious threat that the DF-17 poses, but it remains unclear how it might respond.

Author Experience and Expertise

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.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Ireland has launched a public consultation to inform the development of a new National Rare Disease Strategy. The results of the consultation will be considered by a steering group tasked with developing the strategy for 300,000 patients.

Hocine Djennad a tiré à boulets rouges sur Youcef Belaïli. Il a fait une grave révélation à propos d’une altercation verbale entre le joueur et […]

L’article “Voilà ce qu’il a fait avec Belmadi avant la CAN”, Hocine Djennade dézingue Belaïli est apparu en premier sur .

La Police nationale congolaise a interpellé, ce mercredi 31 juillet, cinq personnes impliquées dans l’attaque de la résidence de l’ancien Président Joseph Kabila. Cette résidence, située dans la commune de la Gombe, a été attaquée par un groupe de jeunes munis des cocktails molotov ce même mercredi. C’est ce qu’a annoncé le bourgmestre de la commune de la Gombe, Leopold Manzambi.

Summary and Key Points: The Lockheed X-24C, an ambitious hypersonic aircraft project from the late 1970s, was canceled due to budget constraints, leaving its potential unfulfilled.

-Developed by NASA and the USAF's National Hypersonic Flight Research Facility, the X-24C aimed to build on the advancements of the X-15 and X-24B programs, with plans to reach speeds of Mach 8 using a scramjet engine. Had the program continued, the U.S. might have been far ahead in hypersonic technology today.

-Instead, the project remains a missed opportunity, while nations like Russia and China have advanced in fielding hypersonic weapons.

The Lockheed X-24C Was Destined to Fail 

The annals of aviation history is littered with canceled projects, concepts that for one reason or another never came to be. The projects remains as blueprints, never to be built or flown. One such cancelled project was the Lockheed L-301, or X-24C, an experimental air-breathing hypersonic aircraft that was decades ahead of its time.

While the X-24C program never got off the ground, in January 1977, the program was “tentatively scheduled to operate two vehicles for eight years and to conduct 100 flights per vehicle.” But by September 1977 – just nine months later – NASA and the United States Air Force’s National Hypersonic Flight Research Facility (NHRF), who contracted with Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works to lead the project,  abandoned the X-24C for the same reason so many promising aviation projects were abandoned: budget constraints.

X-24C: What could have been

The X-24C was expected to build upon the advancements of the X-15 and the X-24B programs. The X-15 was the vaunted hypersonic rocket-powered aircraft that the USAF and NASA operated.

The X-15 was a remarkable machine, depicted recently in the film First Man, in a recounting of an incident one-time X-15 pilot Neil Armstrong had, in which he “skipped” his X-15 off the atmosphere of the Earth. The USAF and NASA had once considered controlled flight (as in the X-15) to space rather than the capsules-launched-atop-a-rocket scheme (as in Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) that eventually won out; the X-15 was the culmination of the fly-to-space trials.  

The X-24B, meanwhile, was an experimental aircraft that was designed to build and test lifting body concepts. The X-24B was used to test unpowered reentry and landing – a technique that the Space Shuttle would later use.

The X-24C was to take the lessons learned during the X-15 and X-24B projects, with the expectation that the X-24C would be able to reach Mach 8 speeds and perform hypersonic skip-glide maneuvers for long range missions.

Scramjet Engine for X-24C

Initially, the X-24C was designed to carry the XLR-99 engine, which had been used previously on the X-15. But the design was changed; the XLR-99 was replaced with the LR-105, which was the sustainer engine used on the Atlas launcher. The LR-105 burnt RP-1 and LOX and was designed to bring the X-24C to hypersonic speeds, at which point the airframe’s hydrogen fueled, air breathing ram/scramjet (mounted in the belly of the airframe) would ignite, propelling the X-24X to speeds in excess of Mach 8 and altitudes in excess of 90,000 feet.

The ”scramjet propulsion concept is still widely considered to be the most likely candidate for hypersonic aircraft to this day,” Alex Hollings wrote for Sandboxx. “A normal jet engine uses a compressor section (fan blades) to compress air to be mixed with fuel and ignited, but at hypersonic velocities, that compressor becomes a hindrance, slowing airflow to subsonic speeds as it passes through.” A scramjet, however, “uses the immense pressure created by air flowing into the engine at supersonic speeds to handle compression, making it a far more efficient means of propulsion at such high velocities.”

As NASA estimates, scramjets could be used to achieve speeds of Mach 15 or higher. To date, NASA has achieved speeds of Mach 9.6 using a scramjet (the X-43A unmanned hypersonic aircraft).

Had the X-24C project proceeded, the US would likely be much further ahead today with respect to scramjet technology. Today, however, the US lags “behind nations like Russia and China in fielding operational hypersonic weapons.” Both China and Russia have already fielded hypersonic weapons. The US has not, although the Pentagon has indicated it will procure 24 hypersonic weapons next year. Despite the US lag in fielding hypersonic weapons, billions have already been invested in the development of the cutting edge weaponry – which are expected to fundamentally change the way wars are fought.

Why? Because hypersonic weapons will travel at about Mach 5, which means they will have enough kinetic energy to destroy targets without even using an explosive – and because to date, nothing exists that can coherently defend against hypersonic missiles. Anyways, had the X-24C program proceeded, the US likely would have fielded hypersonic missiles sooner.   

Hollings is optimistic that, had the X-24C program proceeded, Lockheed Martin could have pulled off the impressive scramjet technology. “If anyone could make a hypersonic aircraft leveraging a combination of conventional and scramjet propulsion work in the 1970s, the guys who were making rocket-assisted F-80 fighters in the ‘50s and the space-scraping SR-71 in the ‘60s probably could.”

We’ll never know, however. The X-24C was a fascinating concept that exists now only as an unfulfilled blueprint.

About the Author

Harrison Kass is a prolific defense and national security writer with over 1,000 pieces published. 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.

All images are Creative Commons. 

RÉCIT - Sur les douze nouveaux députés soutenus par LR aux législatives, certains ont choisi un autre groupe en attendant de voir comment évolue la recomposition politique.

Former Pentagon policymaker Elbridge Colby makes the case for a more transactional, common-sense approach to the world.

Summary and Key Points: A Saudi Royal Air Force F-15SA fighter jet recently crashed during a training mission at King Abdulaziz Air Base, killing both crew members, including Prince Talal Bin Abdulaziz. This follows another F-15SA crash last July, raising concerns over the safety of this advanced fighter.

-The F-15SA, a heavily upgraded version of the F-15S, features advanced avionics, electronic warfare systems, and weaponry, making it one of the most capable aircraft in Saudi Arabia's arsenal.

-Despite its cutting-edge design, the F-15SA program, worth nearly $30 billion, faces challenges as it continues to operate within the region.

The F-15SA Is Truly Unique

Earlier last year, a Saudi Royal Air Force F-15SA fighter jet crashed, killing its two crew members on board, the kingdom confirmed. The crash occurred during a training mission at King Abdulaziz Air Base in Dhahran in the eastern portion of the Middle Eastern nation.

This latest incident followed another crash of the Saudi Arabian variant of the McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle in July. That mishap occurred near the King Khalid Air Base in Khamis Mushait, during which its two pilots were also killed.

It has been reported that Prince Talal Bin Abdulaziz was one of the two pilots killed in the recent crash.

The Saudi Strike Eagle

The F-15SA is the most advanced version of the upgraded two-seat F-15S Strike Eagle, and is currently operated by the Royal Saudi Air Force's No. 3 Wing at King Abdulaziz Air Base, No. 92 Squadron RSAF; and No. 5 Wing at King Khalid Air Base, No. 6 Squadron RASF and No. 55 Squadron RSAF.

It is an advanced version of the Strike Eagle, and it was developed to incorporate features from, and even build on South Korea's F-15K Slam Eagle, Singapore's F-15SG, and the F-15SE Silent Eagle. The F-15SA is equipped with a number of enhanced systems and structural improvements compared to the basic F-15S used by the RSAF.

The fourth-generation fighter is powered by two GE Aviation F110-GE-129 afterburning turbofans, the F-15SA employs a fly-by-wire flight control system – which allows for the reactivation of additional underwing pylons stations one and nine – as well as advanced cockpit displays and Raytheon's AN/APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar

The aircraft further features a structurally redesigned wing and a new nose barrel.

The F-15SA is equipped with BAE Systems-developed digital electronic warfare system/common missile warning system (DEWS/CMWS); Lockheed Martin's AN/AAS-42 infrared search and track (IRST) system; a Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) and a Link-16 multifunctional information distribution system (MIDS). The platform can be equipped with Lockheed Martin’s AN/AAQ-33 Sniper advanced targeting pod (ATP), as well as the firm’s AN/AAQ-13 Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) system.

The F-15SA can employ a range of weapons and can be configured for both air-to-air and air-to-surface operations. In an aerial combat role, the F-15SA can be armed with the AIM-9X Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missile and the AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The multi-role fighter is also fitted with a single M61 Vulcan 20mm cannon.

For air-to-surface engagements, the aircraft can carry the AGM-84H/K Stand-off Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) precision-guided, air-launched cruise missile. In addition, it can be armed with the AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM); GBU-24 Paveway III laser-guided bomb and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), as well as Mk.82 500lb and Mk.84 2,000lb general purpose bombs.

According to Boeing, the F-15SA can carry up to 12 air-to-air missiles and 24 air-to-ground munitions.

F-15SA: A Nearly $30 Billion Aircraft Program

Riyadh announced in December 2011 that it had signed a $29.4 billion Foreign Military Sales Letter of Offer and Acceptance solidifying its plans to purchase 84 F-15SA fighter aircraft and upgrade its current fleet of 70 F-15S aircraft to the SA configuration. As part of the agreement, Saudi airmen attended Air Force technical training courses at multiple U.S. Air Force installations, including Sheppard Air Force Base (AFB), Texas, and Keesler AFB, Miss.

"The F-15SA will help deter potential aggressors by increasing Saudi's tactical air force capability to defend KSA against regional threats. The CONUS-based contingent would improve interoperability between the USAF and the RSAF. This approach will meet Saudi's self-defense requirements and continue to foster the long-term military-to-military relationship between the United States and the KSA. Saudi Arabia, which currently has the F-15 in its inventory, will have no difficulty absorbing the F-15SA aircraft into its armed forces," the Defense Security Cooperation Agency had announced in advance of the sale and noted that Saudi Arabia's fleet of F-15SAs would not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The first F-15SA was rolled out at Boeing's St. Louis facilities in April 2013, while the final F-15SA advanced fighter aircraft were delivered in December 2020.

"The F-15 Strike Eagle is a world-renowned dual-role fighter with an already exemplary reputation. These dramatically advanced versions of that battle-tested platform provide a strong deterrent capability to potential aggressors and strengthen our long and important relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," said Col. Ronald E. Dunlap III, AFLCMC F-15SA Security Assistance program manager, at the time of the transfer. "I'm extremely proud of our AFLCMC team working with Boeing and alongside the Royal Saudi Air Force over the past several years to deliver this vital capability."

Though the F-15SA primarily operates over the skies of Saudi Arabia, one of the aircraft took part in the Athens Flying Week Air Show in August 2023.

Author Experience and Expertise

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Sources familiar with the matter reported that a small number of aircraft has been delivered, with a U.S. official providing further confirmation. After a long wait, it appears that Ukraine has just received the first [...]

The post Breaking: Ukraine Receives First Batch Of F-16 Fighter Jets appeared first on The Aviationist.

Summary and Key Points: The North American XB-70 Valkyrie, conceived in the late 1950s, was an ambitious project to create the world's fastest and highest-flying bomber. With its futuristic design, six powerful afterburning engines, and advanced technology, the Valkyrie aimed to bypass Soviet defenses through sheer speed and altitude.

-However, the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and changing military priorities led to the program's cancellation.

-Despite its promise, only two prototypes were built, with one now displayed at the National Museum of the United States Air Force. The XB-70 remains a symbol of Cold War innovation and unfulfilled potential.

XB-70 Valkyrie: The Supersonic Bomber That Almost Was

In the late 1950s, the North American XB-70 Valkyrie looked like it had been ripped straight out of the pages of a science fiction comic book. With a sharp, angular design, six afterburning engines, and the latest targeting, navigation, and electronic warfare systems America could muster, the XB-70 was to become the world’s biggest, fastest, and highest-flying bomber in history… Until it wasn’t.

Today, the Valkyrie serves not just as a reminder, but arguably as the very pinnacle of the Cold War aviation philosophy of circumventing defenses through ever higher and faster platforms. The XB-70, like America’s famed SR-71 Blackbird and its defunct interceptor sister the YF-12, aimed to deliver on both in classic American style: by burning through budgets like jet fuel.

Born on the precipice of the missile age, the Valkyrie may have become America’s go-to nuclear deterrent, had the technology to build it been available just ten years sooner. But time waits for no man nor machine, and the Valkyrie was no exception.

A bomber design so big its fuel tanks were the size of other bombers

The program that was to eventually produce the Air Force’s B-70 supersonic bomber began in the mid-1950s, thanks to rapid advancements in the science surrounding supersonic flight. In an incredible bit of irony, the XB-70 was intended as a replacement for the brand-new-at-the-time B-52 Stratofortress, which despite having incredible range and payload capabilities, was already vulnerable to Soviet intercept fighters by the time it entered service in 1955. Now, nearly seventy years later, the XB-70 is merely one of the many bombers to fail to dethrone America’s mighty BUFF; a list that is soon to include the retiring B-2 Spirit and B-1B Lancer.

At the time, the primary threats a bomber faced during a mission were intercept fighters and anti-aircraft guns, both of which could be mitigated by simply flying higher than they could reach and faster than they could shoot. This approach, while simple in theory, created incredible engineering challenges that would lead to some of the most exotic, dynamic, and capable aircraft ever to take to the skies.

Initial designs for the XB-70 leaned on what engineers called the “brute force concept,” which called for carrying an absolutely massive amount of fuel for a long-duration subsonic flight into Soviet territory and an aerodynamic design that was optimized for high performance during a relatively “short” sprint through enemy airspace. This approach led to absolutely massive concepts that leveraged external fuel tanks that could be jettisoned once they were depleted. These “tip tanks” may have been disposable, but they were neither small nor cheap. As a 1960 Congressional report pointed out, each 191,000-pound tip-tank was approximately the same size as America’s existing B-47 Stratojet long-range bomber.

When presented to legendary Air Force general Curtis LeMay, the man behind America’s B-29 bombing raids in the Pacific Theater of World War II, he dismissed the massive 750,000-pound bomber outright.

“This isn’t an airplane,” LeMay reportedly said, “this is a three-ship formation.”

With orders to go back to the drawing board, North American’s team turned to a recently published paper by Alfred J Eggers and Clarence Syverston from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. The innocuously titled document “Aircraft Configurations Developing High Lift-drag Ratios at High Supersonic Speeds” explained that aircraft that were designed from nose to tail for a single flight condition could dramatically outperform those designed to compromise between both high and low-speed flight. In fact, it went on to prove that aircraft, inlet, and engine designs meant to maintain high supersonic speeds could offer comparable fuel economy to designs meant for subsonic operation.

In other words, the paper offered the startling conclusion that the Valkyrie could reduce its fuel needs by a wide margin by adopting a specifically high-speed design and then simply keeping the pedal to the medal, so to speak.

The XB-70 Valkyrie is born

North American returned with a proposal for a bomber that was designed from the ground up to fly the majority of its missions at Mach 3 and at 70,000 feet (though some sources claim 80,000). In order to achieve and maintain these high speeds, their XB-70 was actually designed to “ride” on the shockwave it produced at supersonic speeds, using a delta-wing, slab-sided fuselage, and a large triangular intake on its belly, positioned well ahead of the bomber’s engines.

This angular intake allowed North American’s designers to intentionally position the high pressure created by the shock wave on the bottom side of the wings. In other words, the XB-70 would surf at Mach 3 on a shock wave of its own creation.

Despite its futuristic aesthetic, this new XB-70 Valkyrie wasn’t too far off in dimensions from the B-52 it intended to replace, at least when compared to the 750,000-pound behemoth originally proposed. It was longer, at 185 feet versus the B-52’s 160 or so feet, and much more narrow, with a wingspan of just 105 feet versus the B-52’s 185. It boasted a nearly 30-foot-long bomb-bay big enough to accommodate any nuclear or conventional weapons in Uncle Sam’s arsenal that was marketed as adaptable to suit Special Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) suites or reconnaissance pods to allow the high-speed bomber to serve in non-kinetic roles.

The bomber was powered by six General Electric YJ93-GE-3 afterburning turbojet engines that were rated at 30,000 pounds of thrust each with their afterburners engaged, though the engines actually produced closer to 29,000. Even if they were a bit over-sold, that still shakes out to more than 174,000 pounds of thrust, which was almost three times that of the brand-new-at-the-time B-58 Hustler, which was the world’s first operational Mach 2 bomber. These engines were lined up on the centerline of the underside of the aircraft, giving it a tail view that now looks almost reminiscent of an Imperial Star Destroyer from the Star Wars franchise, despite being thirty or so years earlier.

The XB-70 was operated by a four-man crew comprised of a pilot (and aircraft commander), co-pilot, bomb and navigation officer, and defensive systems officer. Incredibly, the cabin was designed to provide each crew member with an “encapsulated ejection seat” that would enclose around them to provide pressurized oxygen for the descent from 70,000 feet. This approach wasn’t unheard of, as a similar ejection capsule had already been designed for the B-58.

If the encapsulated seat landed in water, it worked like a boat and even came complete with a radio and fishing equipment. Documents show that the aircraft would also carry 45 pounds of survival equipment, including cold-weather clothing, a hunting rifle, and a week’s worth of rations, for each crew member—though it’s unclear if that was stowed in the ejection seat capsule or not.

This system included a provision for the pilot to remain with the aircraft in a sealed capsule while the other crew members ejected, allowing him to ensure the damaged bomber didn’t careen into populated areas or nearby American forces before ejecting himself.

The fuselage, and in fact most of the aircraft’s external surfaces, were all made using a stainless steel honeycomb-style “sandwich” approach to construction, which offered a great deal of strength and low weight. In a report penned by future president Lyndon B. Johnson and other members of the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee, North American was credited with leveraging lessons learned in development of programs like the the intercontinental supersonic SM-64 Navaho cruise missile and, of course, the hypersonic X-15 research plane in their construction methods. Wherever possible, high-strength titanium alloys were used to further cut down on weight.

The materials used in the Valkyrie’s construction were chosen specifically for their ability to manage the high heat of flight at Mach 3, well above what was commonly known as the “thermal barrier” for aircraft that leveraged aluminum in their fuselage construction. As a result, aluminum-based fighters like many of those employed by the Soviet Union couldn’t be upgraded to close this speed gap, and entirely new platforms would have to be designed.

The Valkyrie’s large delta-wing was paired with forward canards, referred to as horizontal stabilizers in some source materials, which provided lift ahead of the aircraft’s center of gravity and allowed for better trim control and a reduction in trim drag at high supersonic speeds. The canards themselves had flaps, which coupled with using the aircraft’s elevons as flaps and that large delta-wing allowed for lower speeds on take-off and landing than would otherwise be possible with such a design.

Secondary power for the Valkyrie’s onboard subsystems was touted as extremely lightweight and efficient and was described as able to provide “the equivalent horsepower of a modern V-8 engine in one-third the volume and two-thirds the weight.”

Despite the design’s dedication to high speeds, the outer-most portions of its wings, or outer wing panels, were actually hinged to allow for improved subsonic and supersonic flight. The panels would lie flat during take-off and low-speed flight, effectively extending the wing surface and improving the aircraft’s lift to drag ratio. Once the Valkyrie was flying at supersonic speeds, the wingtips would angle down to reduce the wing area behind the bomber’s center of gravity (reducing trim drag) and increase directional stability at high speeds.

Cabin pressurization was achieved by using the immense pressure of the air pouring into the intake during supersonic flight, with an engine-driven compressor assisting as needed to keep the interior feeling like a comfortable 8,000 feet above sea level. This pressurized cabin created what the Air Force referred to as a “tee-shirt” flight environment, which not only made long-duration flights more comfortable but also eliminated the need for special pressure suits like those worn by SR-71 and U-2 pilots. Skipping this time-consuming suit-up step would allow for faster scramble times in the event of a nuclear war.

The Valkyrie leveraged a bombing and navigation system developed by IBM that incorporated gyro-stabilized inertial navigation alongside automatic star-tracking to continuously provide up-to-date information about time and distance to target. A search-radar system with such high definition that its imaging was compared to “taking a photograph” was intended, and the aircraft’s defensive systems operator would be capable of jamming radar frequencies as well as operating conventional countermeasures like flares and chaff.

On paper, the XB-70 would provide the altitude and speed necessary to defeat Soviet defenses, the payload capacity to carry America’s most powerful weapons, and the fuel economy to fly more than 6,000 miles without a top-up. In the age of speed and altitude, the Valkyrie would rule the roost. But unfortunately for this envelope-pushing design, the world was changing quickly around it.

The XB-70 was a cutting-edge design that cut the wrong edges

In a lot of ways, the XB-70 promised to be the most advanced and capable bomber ever built, but it came at a time when the very future of bombers was in flux. In 1959, the SM-65 Atlas missile, America’s first operational Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), entered service. That same year, testing began on the UGM-27 Polaris missile, America’s first submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). These new weapon systems revolutionized America’s approach to delivering nuclear munitions to far-flung targets. No longer was it necessary to put bomber crews in harm’s way, nor did it seem as appropriate to invest heavily into new bomber designs at the dawn of what many thought would be “the missile age.”

On December 3, 1959—one day after taking office—newly appointed Secretary of Defense Thomas Gates cut the XB-70 program back to a single flyable prototype, bereft of any of the military-specific subsystems it would need to serve as a bomber… but even with the fangs removed from the Valkyrie, the program itself still had quite a bit of fight left in it. Despite this decision, the program was given injections of funds in 1960 and again in 1961.

In 1960, then-senators John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson both made public statements in support of the program shortly before winning the year’s presidential election against sitting Vice President Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. Johnson even oversaw a 60-page argument in favor the XB-70 from the Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee, writing a full-page letter to open the report calling for it to be restored as a military weapon system. As a bit of historical humor, Johnson cites the B-52’s “obsolescence” as reason for continuing the program (the B-52 is now expected to remain in service beyond the 2040s).

But it wouldn’t be long before both politicians changed their tunes. Just a year later, in 1961, newly elected President Kennedy would give the XB-70 the final ax. The program limped on for eight more years as a technology demonstration effort that would field two prototype aircraft designated XB-70As. One prototype was destroyed after colliding with an F-104 Starfighter during a flying photoshoot in 1966, and the other would find a lasting home at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright Patterson Air Force Base.

But even that still wasn’t the end for the XB-70 Valkyrie. The Air Force and North American would go on to pitch that platform for a wide variety of jobs, including launching and recovering spacecraft in flight, serving as a supersonic refueler, a supersonic personnel transport, and even an ICBM launch platform. None of these efforts, however, we enough to pull the expensive program back off the page and into real production.

Before long, bombers would once again come back into fashion, thanks initially to the fact that they can be recalled once launched, making them a good rapid-response option for early warnings of a potential nuclear threat. As time went on, the benefits of crewed bomber platforms coupled with the advent of stealth would place strategic bombers right back at the top of America’s nuclear strategy heap. But with stealth came a reduced focus on speed and altitude, relegating the XB-70 Valkyrie’s incredible new capabilities to the scrab bin for good.

Today, with hypersonic flight increasingly an area of focus for the United States and its near-peer competitors, it seems likely that we’ll see a resurgence of aircraft that are capable of flying at such blistering speeds. If so, we may yet see some of the lessons learned from the XB-70 program manifest in future bomber platforms. But the Valkyrie itself will always remain another what-if filed away neatly in the bowels of the Pentagon.

About the Author

Alex Hollings is a writer, dad, and Marine veteran who specializes in foreign policy and defense technology analysis. He holds a master’s degree in Communications from Southern New Hampshire University, as well as a bachelor’s degree in Corporate and Organizational Communications from Framingham State University. This first appeared in Sandboxx News. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's California-class cruisers, developed in the 1970s, were among the first nuclear-powered missile cruisers and were designed to counter the growing Soviet submarine threat. These heavily armed ships, featuring advanced missile systems and nuclear reactors, represented cutting-edge naval technology.

-However, the high operational costs and asbestos-related issues significantly impacted their long-term viability. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the introduction of the more cost-effective Ticonderoga-class cruisers, the California-class was eventually phased out.

-Despite their short service life, these cruisers marked an important era in naval warfare innovation.

From Cutting-Edge to Costly: The Short-Lived Era of California-Class Missile Cruisers

The U.S. Navy missile cruisers developed in the 1950s possessed some of the newest and most cutting-edge weapons systems available on existing hulls.

To counter the rapidly growing Soviet threat, the Navy prioritized its sea-based capabilities.

Before the Second World War, a ship was designated a cruiser when its primary missions involved raising enemy commerce and generally engaging in enemy ships of equal or lesser size. Over the years, however, the cruiser designation grew to refer to defense vessels surrounding an aircraft carrier.

By the time the Cold War began heating up, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were rapidly expanding their respective submarine fleets, rendering the need for more advanced nuclear-powered defensive shifts. 

Introducing the California-class cruisers:

Prior to the California-class cruisers, the Navy relied on its Belknap-class predecessors. These singe-ended guided-missile cruisers were originally developed by the 1960’s. The ships were designated as destroyer leaders (known today as frigates) and were later re-classified as guided missile cruisers.

 Armament-wise, the Belknap-class ships could pack a punch. Armed with a twin-rail RIM-2 Terrier Mk 10 Missile Launcher, the cruisers could launch RURi-5 ARSOS. Belknap-class cruisers were also fitted with two twin-caliber guns and later were outfitted to spot RIM-67 Standard missiles. Once these cruisers hit the water, the Navy began developing its successor class.

Specs and capabilities:

The USS California (CGN-36) was the fourth nuclear-powered cruiser to ever enter service with the U.S. Navy.

This cruiser led its class, which were all built between 1970 and 1975. The USS California was joined by the USS South Carolina.

Like its predecessor, this class of cruisers was armed to the teeth. Each ship in this class featured 2 Mk 13 missile launchers which used RIM-66D Standard missile air targets. Additionally, the ships carried 4 single Mk 32 torpedo tubes, each capable of using Mk 46 anti-submarine torpedoes. 

Naval Encyclopedia has outlined additional specs and capabilities surrounding the California-class cruisers: “These missile cruisers defined as “fleet escorts” (“cruisers” in 1975) were defined from the experiments carried out on USS Truxtun and USS Bainbridge in nuclear propulsion. They were the first of this type in “serial” production. Extremely expensive they used a new generation of reactor, the D2G whose lifetime of the heart was three times longer. Their arrangements required the adoption of a long and massive hull without recess, returning to this standard defined in the thirties. Their armament was much larger than previous cruisers, including two of the new 127 mm Mk42 guns, two launchers of the new standard SAM, and one ASROC.” 

Rising costs and asbestos plagued the California-class’ long-term survival in the fleet:

Even though the California-class cruisers were nuclear-powered, which minimized expenditures for fueling the ships, the hefty costs associated with operating both California and South Carolina were debilitating.

Once the Soviet Union collapsed, the Navy could no longer justify its massive budget concerning the California-class vessels. Additionally, the newer Ticonderoga-class cruisers were developed at this time and proved to be more cost-effective to operate and maintain than its predecessor. 

Besides its price tag, the California-class cruisers faced asbestos issues. The cruisers’ manufacturer, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock, used asbestos pretty extensively in its construction as thermal insulation for pipes.

The consequences have been detailed by Shrader & Associates: “Asbestos lagged pipes were common in all ships built before the late 1970s, including the nuclear-powered California. The absence of boilers did not preclude the use of asbestos in engineering spaces, in fact, the increase in piping and the lagging to insulate it caused by the several cooling systems required by nuclear power may have increased it. Asbestos-lagged pipes ran throughout the ship, in nearly every compartment. Maintenance requirements regarding asbestos and potential for exposure began to be promulgated in the late 1970s and early 1980s, they were often ignored. Asbestos insulation was not scheduled to be removed unless it was damaged or required to support other maintenance.” 

What about the Virginia-class cruisers?

The California-class cruisers’ successor- the Virginia-class- was no more successful in its service history.

Although the Virginia vessels were given a 38-year service life trajectory, all ships in this class were decommissioned less then 14 years after first setting sail for the Navy. The cruisers in this class received a New Threat Upgrade in the early 1980s, which included a large overhaul aimed at enhancing the ship’s responses to modern threats.

Due to this enhancement, in addition to other notable specs and capabilities possessed by the Virginia-class boats, this class did prove to be ideal escorts for the fast-powered aircraft carriers in the service like the Nimitz-class ships.

However, similar cost constraints suffered by the California-class plagued its long-term success. 

About the Author 

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. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The USS United States (CVA-58) was an ambitious post-WWII supercarrier project that was ultimately canceled just days after its keel was laid. Designed as a massive, flush-deck carrier to accommodate long-range bombers, the vessel faced significant practical challenges, including lack of an island for command operations and difficulties managing aircraft on deck.

-The program's cancellation, driven by opposition from the U.S. Air Force and budget concerns, led to a significant shift in naval strategy, paving the way for more practical supercarrier designs like the USS Forrestal.

-The USS United States is now seen as a bold but flawed vision of naval aviation's future.

USS United States: How a Bold Carrier Design Became a Naval Miss

Since the founding of the United States Navy on October 13, 1775, there has been only a single vessel named USS United States – it was one of the original six frigates that served as the core of the U.S. Navy in the first half of the 19th century. Three other vessels were to bear the name, and that included a Lexington-class battlecruiser that was canceled due to the Washington Treaty when just slightly over 10 percent complete.

Much more recently, the U.S. Navy's ninth nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the eighth in the Nimitz-class was to be named USS United States – but her name was changed to honor President Harry S. Truman in February 1995 at the direction of then-Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton.

President Truman it should be noted had approved the construction of five new "supercarriers" in July 1948 and the proposed class was to be for the United States. It was never to be, and that's likely for the best.

USS United States: An Overly Ambitious Carrier Program

The USS United States (CVA-58) was meant to be the lead ship of a new class of supercarriers developed after the Second World War. It remains unclear why it had the CVA designation, but it was either for attack or atomic.

Its design was seen as ambitious and even cutting edge but was likely entirely impractical and as a result just five days after her keel was laid down, the program was canceled.

Truman approved the construction of the new class of carriers after funds had been provided in the Naval Appropriations Act of 1949. The design was quite the radical departure from the World War II-era flattops and in some ways evoked the "streamline modern" of the Art Deco architecture and design movement that became common with post-war automobiles and aircraft.

It truly was a flattop in the literal sense, as the proposed 65,000-ton carrier (83,000 tons fully loaded) would feature a flush deck that was designed to launch and recover large aircraft of 100,000 pounds, which in turn could carry the nuclear weapons of the era that weighed as much as five tons.

The chief proponent for the proposed supercarrier was Admiral Marc Mitscher, who saw the need for the warship to be able to handle the latest and most effective aircraft of the day.

A Floating Airbase for Bombers

The vessel was to be 1,000 feet long, without an island, and equipped with four aircraft elevators and four catapults, while the flight deck was axial, not angled.

That flush deck was meant to provide more space for large bombers – such as the B-29 Superfortress or its successor – although those aircraft would have to be secured to the flight deck as it would have been impossible to move them up or down in an elevator to the hangar. In addition, a small hanger was to have been provided for the fighter escort. As the design evolved, additional space was given for those escorts.

It was planned that the vessel's air wing would be made up of about a dozen bombers as well as nearly fifty fighters.

Whereas the primary mission was to carry long-range bomber aircraft, the United States-class was also intended to provide tactical air support for the air and amphibious forces, as well as to conduct sea control operations.

A Floating Island Without an Island

The lack of an island on the flight deck presented a number of issues that the designers had to deal with. 

First, it meant the ship lacked a position for radar, but also other command and control capabilities. A small tower-like platform could help direct movement on the flight deck, but radar, navigation, war planning, and other operations would have been relegated to a specially outfitted command ship cruiser.

As a result, instead of being the flagship of a strike group, the USS United States and the other carriers of the class would have been floating airfields or arsenal ships.

The U.S. Navy's bombers would have had to remain on the flight deck during an entire voyage. That would have been a serious concern for the carrier during high winds – a fact noted in July 2022 when a F/A-18 Super Hornet flew off the deck of the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) while the carrier was deployed to the Mediterranean.

Then there was the issue of how the smoke from the power plants and how it would be diverted away from the flight deck had to be resolved.

The Imperial Japanese Navy's light carrier Ryūjō had proved that a flush flight deck presented such problems and it addressed the smoke by moving the funnels higher up the side of the hull and curved them downward. The Japanese warship was noted for not being particularly stable in rough seas, however.

Massive Size That Would Have Massive Costs

Designed as a conventional carrier, as nuclear technology was still in its infancy, the USS United States would have required eight Foster-Wheeler boilers and four Westinghouse turbines, which could produce 280,000 hp while four screws could allow the massive vessel to reach speeds in excess of 33 knots.

Construction costs were estimated to be around $190 million ($2.4 billion in 2023 dollars), while the cost of the task force to accompany the massive warship would have driven the total price tag to more than $1.265 billion in 1948 dollar – more than $16 billion in 2023 dollars.

The Program Ended Just After It Began

As noted, the USS United States was canceled just five days after the keel was laid down – in no small part due to pressure from the United States Air Force, which had viewed the carrier as an embodiment of the U.S. Navy's nuclear aspirations. The Joint Chief of Staff and then Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson seemed to agree that such an aircraft carrier's main function would only serve to duplicate the role of the Air Force.

After the program was scuttled, then Secretary of the Navy John Sullivan immediately resigned, while the subsequent "Revolt of the Admirals" resulted in Admiral Louis Denfeld being relieved of his position as Chief of Naval Operations.

USS United States and the Birth of the Modern Supercarrier

The cancelation of the USS United States didn't mark the end for the supercarrier. Instead, just five years later the U.S. Navy moved forward with the more conventionally figured USS Forrestal-class.

As nuclear weapons shrank in size it was also determined that a massive warship designed to accommodate bombers wasn't actually required. In fact, during the 1950s, nuclear weapons were sent to sea on the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt – a carrier far smaller than the planned USS United States.

Though some look back on the USS United States as a missed opportunity, it should be seen that the U.S. Navy really dodged a torpedo-sized bullet. The flush flight deck carrier wasn't a step forward.

 Art Deco was fine for cars and architecture – it was simply wrong for a carrier.

Author Experience and Expertise

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.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

President Joe Biden’s abrupt announcement to terminate his presidential re-election campaign upended the U.S. political landscape just a few months before the November election. While foreign policy rarely features prominently in a presidential campaign, the start of his political downturn can be traced to the disastrous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. As we approach the third anniversary, the horrific scenes of chaos and confusion in Kabul will be revisited, and this unfortunate chapter in American foreign policy will torment his political legacy long after he leaves office. 

Although Biden enjoyed a “honeymoon period” at the start of his presidency, his approval rating noticeably dropped after the Afghanistan withdrawal, falling from 49 percent at the start of August 2021 to 43 percent a month later, according to Gallup polling. One year later, his approval rating plunged further to the 38 percent line, where it has languished since then. To be clear, Afghanistan was not the only factor affecting public opinion. The administration’s COVID-19 recovery policies created a sharp rise in inflation that compounded economic fears, intensified the (already fraught) political tensions in Washington, and exacerbated the sour mood of the country. Nevertheless, this foreign policy blunder provided an opening for his critics and political rivals to exploit during his re-election bid.

As I have written previously, President Biden deserves credit for ending America’s longest war. He concluded (correctly, in my view) that “nearly twenty years of experience has shown us that the current security situation only confirms that ‘just one more year’ of fighting in Afghanistan is not a solution but a recipe for being there indefinitely.” There was no clear path to “victory,” and the costs of continuing military operations in Afghanistan exceeded the benefits, especially given competing national interests in Europe (Russia) and the Indo-Pacific (China). Moreover, Biden inherited the flawed Afghanistan Peace Agreement from his predecessor, which included an infeasible deadline for withdrawing all U.S. forces by May 1, 2021. Although he subsequently extended the deadline, this did not provide nearly enough time to plan, coordinate, and execute an orderly retreat, as the administration would come to learn with horrendous consequences.

Some argue that President Biden should have maintained a small, enduring military footprint in Afghanistan (approximately 2,500 troops). Unfortunately, the Taliban would have likely viewed this as an abrogation of the agreement and created a daunting force protection challenge for U.S. troops remaining in the country. In fact, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley recently testified that he thinks “the probability is greater than not that the Taliban would have reinitiated combat operations.” In the White House, Biden described the choice in starker terms: “There was only the cold reality of either following through on the agreement to withdraw our forces or escalating the conflict and sending thousands more American troops back into combat in Afghanistan, and lurching into the third decade of conflict.” Shortly after the last U.S. troops departed Afghanistan, he took “responsibility for the decision” to terminate military operations in a war that “should have ended long ago.” While his words are commendable, Biden also deserves criticism for the conduct of the withdrawal itself.

Congress is investigating the botched withdrawal operation that resulted in the deaths of thirteen U.S. service members, including numerous interviews and hearings on the subject. Veterans testified about the “organizational failure at multiple levels,” a sentiment shared by senior leaders including Milley and former CENTCOM Commander General Kenneth McKenzie. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-TX) bluntly concluded that “what happened in Afghanistan was a systemic breakdown of the federal government at every level—and a stunning, stunning failure of leadership by the Biden administration.” More recently, Gold Star family members appeared on stage at the Republican National Convention, where they criticized the chaotic withdrawal—and Biden—in a genuine display of emotion that captured the human costs of foreign policy decisions going awry. 

While these events keep Afghanistan in the public eye (and collective memory), they also raise a question of whether there is time for Biden to notch any major foreign policy “wins” on his scorecard to offset the withdrawal fiasco before he retires from office. Two obvious possibilities come to mind: the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

To his credit, Biden quickly pivoted from the debacle in Afghanistan by proactively responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and galvanizing international support to blunt President Vladimir Putin’s territorial ambitions. In addition to coordinating tough multilateral sanctions and increasing diplomatic isolation against Russia, his administration established the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a coalition of some fifty nations that has provided over $100 billion in foreign assistance and support to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty. 

Russia’s aggression also provided NATO with a renewed sense of purpose. The alliance just celebrated its seventy-fifth anniversary in Washington, DC, where President Biden proclaimed that “today, NATO is more powerful than ever” while emphasizing the importance of collective security to confront autocrats who “want to overturn global order.” Alarmed by Putin’s belligerence, previously “neutral” countries Finland and Sweden have joined the alliance. Moreover, twenty-three NATO member states are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2 percent of GDP in defense, compared to only three allies in 2014.

Despite dire predictions that Russia would seize Kiev in days or weeks, the war continues two years later. Additionally, Biden overcame months of stiff resistance from some Republicans in Congress to provide Ukraine with the resources to continue the fight. That said, Moscow retains a formidable military force in Ukraine with a resilient economy and deep resources. As a result, the situation remains a stalemate, with the stakeholders looking to November’s U.S. presidential election as a significant indicator of conflict resolution.

Notwithstanding intense domestic criticism (including members of his own political party), President Biden has maintained steadfast U.S. support for Israel following Hamas’s monstrous attacks on October 7, 2023, that killed 1,200 people and took some 240 people hostage. During his recent speech to a joint session of Congress, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed gratitude that “[Biden] came to Israel to stand with us during our darkest hour, a visit that will never be forgotten.” That said, the two leaders have clashed over the conduct of the nine-month-long war in Gaza. Biden reportedly pressed Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire agreement during their subsequent meeting at the White House.

Meanwhile, in Gaza, the Israeli Defense Force continues military operations to defeat Hamas militants, and civilians suffer the devastating collateral effects of the war. While ongoing diplomatic efforts to achieve a ceasefire might succeed, a long-term political solution remains frustratingly elusive. Moreover, the situation in the Middle East remains tense, and events such as the appalling rocket attack in the Golan Heights that killed twelve children and Israeli retaliation against Hezbollah could provoke a wider expansion of the conflict.

The next president of the United States will inherit a wide array of foreign policy challenges that will require difficult choices and tradeoffs. Although national interests and strategy can (and should) guide these decisions, the Afghanistan withdrawal serves as a reminder they also produce political consequences. While President Biden’s emotional address to the nation formalized the end of his political re-election campaign, his political misfortune began years earlier with the calamitous events in Afghanistan and the associated stigma of “strategic failure” after nearly two decades of conflict. Although his foreign policy legacy can be framed by an unwavering support for democracy and the global order, as well as an enduring commitment to alliances and partnerships in a time of tremendous strategic uncertainty and conflict, he will always be associated with this tragic episode in U.S. history.

Jim Cook is a Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed here are entirely his own and do not reflect those of the U.S. Naval War College, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. Follow him on LinkedIn and X @jlcookri.

Image: Jonah Elkowitz / Shutterstock.com.

Cet article Un premier lot de chasseurs-bombardiers F-16 aurait été remis à la force aérienne ukrainienne est apparu en premier sur Zone Militaire.

Nigerian officials are trying to work out how Favour Ofili’s name was left off the entry list for the women’s 100m at Paris 2024.

ALGER, mer. 31/07/2024 – Le ministre des Affaires étrangères, Ahmed Attaf, est revenu, lors d’une conférence de presse tenue aujourd’hui (mercredi 31 juillet), sur les […]

L’article Avenir des relations Algérie – France : les prévisions sombres d’Ahmed Attaf est apparu en premier sur .

Summary and Key Points: Russian Tu-95 bombers, escorted by Su-35S and Su-30SM fighters, recently conducted a 10-hour flight over the Sea of Japan, marking another strategic patrol amid heightened military activities.

-This follows a joint patrol with Chinese bombers near Alaska's Air Defense Identification Zone. The Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed the operation complied with international airspace regulations, but did not specify which foreign fighters intercepted the bombers.

-This incident is part of Russia's increased bomber patrols in the region, with the Tu-95, a Cold War-era aircraft, continuing to play a crucial role in Moscow's long-range aviation strategy.

Russian Tu-95 Bombers Escorted Over Sea of Japan Amid Rising Tensions

Less than a week after Russian Tupolev Tu-95 and Chinese Xi'an H-6 bombers conducted a joint patrol near the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), the Russian Cold War-era long-range aircraft were deployed over the Sea of Japan on Tuesday.

"Two missile-armed Tu-95MS strategic bombers of the Russian Aerospace Force's long-range aviation have carried out a scheduled flight in the airspace over the international waters of the Sea of Japan. The flight lasted more than 10 hours," the Russian Ministry of Defense told state media outlet Tass while noting that the bombers were escorted by Sukhoi Su-35S and Sukhoi Su-30SM fighters.

"At certain stages of the route, the strategic bombers were escorted by foreign fighters," the ministry added. The flight followed international rules involving the airspace over the neutral waters. "Long-range aviation pilots regularly fly over the international waters of the Arctic, the North Atlantic, the Black and Baltic seas, and the Pacific Ocean."

International Response to Tu-95 Bear Bomber

Though the Kremlin acknowledged that the bombers were "escorted by foreign fighters," it didn't indicate which nations intercepted the Russian aircraft. However, according to a report from Stars & Stripes, South Korean jets "made sorties and the military took the necessary measure," while the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) also "scrambled fighters to intercept the Russian aircraft."

The exact type of fighters sortied by South Korea and Japan have not been confirmed.

This marks just the most recent offense in which Russian bombers took part in a flight over the Sea of Japan. Just last December, another pair of Russian Aerospace Force's Tu-95s were joined by two Chinese H-6 bombers and took part in a maritime patrol flight over the same waters. That air armada consisted of seventeen aircraft, a scene that the JASDF was quick to notice and respond to by scrambling its fighters to intercept the Russian and Chinese planes.

As with its flights to the waters near Alaska, Moscow has increased its bomber patrols in the Sea of Japan – often employing the Tu-95

The Old Bear Continues to Fly

The Tupolev Tu-95 (NATO reporting name Bear) is among the oldest aircraft designs still flying anywhere in the world, and it is further noted for being the only propeller-powered bomber currently in operation. The Russian Aerospace Forces operates the highly updated Tu-95MS variant, which was actually newly built at the latter stages of the Cold War.

Much like the United States Air Force's Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, the Tu-95 has been steadily upgraded and will likely remain in service well into the 2040s or later.

The choice of propeller-driven engines was made due to the fact that jet engines burned through fuel far too quickly, and the Soviet Air Force lacked the capability to refuel its bombers in flight. Instead of being a speedy bomber, the Tu-95 was noted for being able to fly slowly and steadily to get the job done. Moreover, it was among the only Soviet-era bombers that could fly a distance of 5,000 miles and strike targets within the United States from territory within its borders. The updated variants are reported to have a range that is greater than 9,300 miles (15,000 km).

Though the name "Bear" was originally employed by NATO, it was adopted by the Kremlin as the aircraft's official nickname. The bomber was also a symbol of pride for the Soviet Union and often was demonstrated at European Air Shows.

Despite its first entering service 70 years ago, the Tu-95 wasn't employed in combat until 2015 – when a pair of Tu-95s were used in a series of long-range airstrikes as part of the Russian military intervention in Syria.

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.