Agrégateur de flux

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's reliance on aircraft carriers, despite their high costs and growing vulnerability to anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems, has raised strategic concerns. The $13 billion Gerald R. Ford-class carriers, designed for long-range power projection, face new threats from advanced missile systems that can locate and target them from over 1,000 kilometers away.

-Suggestions to use carriers as tactical distractions draw comparisons to historical naval battles but overlook the potential for significant losses and the current fragility of the U.S. defense industrial base.

-Instead of focusing on carriers, the Navy should prioritize developing hypersonic weapons, unmanned underwater vehicles, submarines, and directed-energy weapons to counter the A2/AD threat. This shift is essential to maintain naval superiority and effectively respond to modern strategic challenges.

The Navy Might Use Its Aircraft Carriers as Distractions

Outside of nuclear weapons, America’s aircraft carriers are probably the country’s biggest long-term strategic investment. The newest Gerald R. Ford-class carriers cost an astonishing $13 billion per unit, although the Navy insists that costs decrease with each new unit they build. 

Since the Second World War, when aircraft carriers proved their mettle in the Pacific Theater, Washington has made the flattop its primary platform for long-range projection of naval power.

But the world has moved on. 

Specific technologies like the anti-ship ballistic missile pair with comprehensive approaches like China’s anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategy to negate many of the advantages the aircraft carrier once bestowed. The sheer cost of these platforms means that losing even one in combat – or having one significantly damaged – could punch a hole in the United States’ strategic posture, with horrific cascading effects throughout the rest of the force.

America's Obsession with Aircraft Carriers is Dangerous

The Navy, of course, understands the changing reality it now faces. 

Yet it has done little to address the A2/AD threat. Instead, Washington continues flooding hard-earned U.S. tax dollars into building more expensive flattops whose utility is in question under present strategic conditions. If the aircraft carrier cannot get within range of a contested battlespace during a crisis, then it cannot launch its airwing. If it cannot launch its airwing, its usefulness as a power projection platform is erased. 

What’s more, these large systems are increasingly easy for rival A2/AD systems to locate, track, and target with extremely long-range weapons that are devastatingly precise.
The threat of A2/AD attacks could keep an American carrier force over the horizon of a contested battlespace. Some of these systems have a range over 1,000 kilometers. 

A Distraction Won’t Work

Trevor Phillips-Levine and Andrew Tenbusch, writing in Maritime Executive, suggest using America’s aircraft carriers as a ruse in any tactical situation. Drawing inspiration from the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the two authors argue the United States should deploy their carriers as a means of distracting a potential rival in a naval battle long enough for non-carrier units to be used more effectively in combat by the Americans. It’s an interesting suggestion.

The Japanese had correctly assumed that American intelligence analysts would detect the mass movement of Japanese warships and fixate on the presence of aircraft carriers. Japanese strategists understood that the Americans placed a high value on their own carriers, and they correctly postulated that the Americans would assume the Japanese similarly valued theirs. 

Japan got one over on the Americans. 

Of course, what the authors fail to mention is that while the Japanese diversion at the Battle of Leyte Gulf was successful in tricking the bulk of the American fleet, it ultimately ended in failure. Not only did the Americans still win the battle, they went on to win the whole war not long after that incident. 

One of the biggest issues facing Japan by the time this specific battle occurred was that the Imperial Japanese Navy, like the rest of the Japanese military, no longer had a healthy industrial base supporting their efforts. The forces deployed against the Americans were basically all that was left of the Japanese military.

Once those Japanese units were stymied, that was it for Tokyo. 

America’s Broken Defense Industrial Base

The United States today, while much larger than Japan was, is in a similar predicament. Its shipyards are in shambles. The U.S. Navy is the smallest it has ever been. The military is saddled with massive, complex, and costly systems. Losing one in combat would deal a crippling blow to American morale and to its overall strategic posture. 

The greater defense industrial base is lying prostrate, too, after years of being gutted by short-sighted financial interests, inconclusive Mideast wars, and a wasteful commitment to the lost Ukrainian cause. 

If the United States and China find themselves at war, the Americans will be at a serious disadvantage. 

Further, U.S. carriers are far too costly to risk in a ruse. Even if the maneuver were successful, the U.S. lacks requisite platforms to serve as alternative power projection units in a contested environment. A2/AD is a threat to all surface combatants, and the U.S. fleet is woefully lacking in submarines. 

Sly moves and strategic feints, while always a necessity in combat, will not save the U.S. from its overcommitment to aircraft carriers. Instead, the Americans must develop counter-A2/AD systems and strategies. Once an A2/AD network is removed as a threat, more conventional moves by the Americans, such as deploying aircraft carriers, can be attempted. 

What Must Be Done Instead

Instead of ruses, the Navy needs to focus on building hypersonic weapons, swarms of unmanned underwater vehicles, more submarines, and directed-energy weapons, for starters. Other services must back up the Navy in these endeavors. 

The overcommitment to expensive, massive flattops has created a severe vulnerability the likes of which have not been since the Royal Navy’s HMS Hood was sunk within the first five minutes of its major engagement with Hitler’s navy. 

Breaking the A2/AD web that China has created throughout the Indo-Pacific is the first, and only, priority of the U.S. Navy. Its carriers are useless until A2/AD can be overcome.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Die Bundesregierung und die CDU/CSU haben sich auf Maßnahmen geeinigt, um das Bundesverfassungsgericht gegen Blockaden und Einflussnahme zu schützen. Motivation waren auch die Angriffe auf den Rechtsstaat durch rechte Regierungen in Osteuropa.

In Armenien ist in den letzten Jahren eine zunehmende politische Polarisierung zu beobachten, die den laufenden demokratischen Wandel des Landes gefährden. Jahrzehntelang haben dieselben Eliten mit weitgehend undemokratischen Mitteln regiert.

James Graham Wilson. America’s Cold Warrior: Paul Nitze & National Security from Roosevelt to Reagan (Ithaca, Cornell University Press) 336 pp., $32.95.

Ten years ago, James Graham Wilson, a historian at the U.S. State Department, wrote The Triumph of Improvisation, an insightful account of Reagan, Gorbachev, and the end of the Cold War. Mr. Wilson’s America’s Cold Warrior, a biography of Paul Nitze, now reaches back to the Cold War’s origins and the long years of nuclear negotiations that followed. Wilson portrays Nitze, who died in 2004 at age ninety-seven, as the forerunner of the post-World War II generations of American national security professionals.

Nitze may be best known for guiding the preparation in 1950 of NSC-68, allegedly America’s strategic plan for prevailing in the Cold War. By the time the U.S. government declassified NSC-68 in 1975, the seventy-page document had achieved near-mythical status. As Wilson explains, later policy planners—including Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a protege of Nitze—looked to NSC-68 as a model for rallying Americans to wage long struggles against formidable foes. No doubt today, Washington teems with aspirants who dream of drafting a new NSC-68 strategy to overcome China.

Nitze’s NSC-68 reflected the fearful era of the early Cold War, including the hot Korean conflict, threats to Berlin and Europe, and the new nuclear rivalry. Nitze had visited Hiroshima in 1945 and led surveys of strategic bombing. All his life, he worried about a nuclear showdown. His consistent solution was for the United States to secure a “preponderance of power,” both nuclear and conventional.

Nitze recognized, however, that policy plans had to be translated into actions, which he wanted to direct. Wilson recounts Nitze’s extraordinary experience on the front lines, often amid the risk of escalation to nuclear war: the Berlin and Cuban crises, the early nuclear negotiations, Vietnam, the Nixon- Kissinger treaties to limit strategic arms, and up to Reagan’s elimination of intermediate-range missiles, START negotiations, and strategic missile defense. Given all that experience, Colin Powell later reflected that working with Nitze “was like having Moses at the table.”

Moreover, Nitze was a sharp critic when out of power, so his biography targets the nuclear and arms control policies of Presidents Eisenhower, Carter, and George H.W. Bush, as well. By explaining Nitze’s views over fifty years, Wilson succinctly summarizes the nuclear debates of the Cold War.

The book also treats Nitze as a harbinger of a new technocratic cadre: the national security professional. Indeed, Nitze helped found and fund a new graduate school in Washington to train his successors, the School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS), now part of Johns Hopkins University. 

Nitze’s experience suggests some cautions for future security pros. He not only demonstrated his political independence by switching parties and working across administrations but also seemed dismissive of public attitudes, political constraints, and Congress. 

Even though Nitze began as a prodigy on Wall Street in the 1930s and later contributed to the Marshall Plan, his definition of strategic power narrowed to nuclear and conventional forces. He dismissed Eisenhower‘s balancing of economic prospects with burdens of defense spending and overlooked the USSR‘s economic weaknesses until the very end.

Nitze also failed to recognize the limits of his intellectual tenacity. According to one of his bosses, Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford, Nitze’s “peevishness“ and “unveiled contempt” for others doomed his appointment to the topmost rank. If Nitze did not receive deference, he could be vengeful.

Wilson’s biography acknowledges that Nitze’s service reflected his wealth, privilege, and formative early experience. After traveling in Europe as a boy in the summer of 1914, Nitze’s later outlook was always shaded by a sense that unexpected tragedy loomed. As a nuclear strategist, Nitze struggled to assure superior strength for the United States while maintaining stability and avoiding Armageddon. This conflict was one of the “tensions between opposites“ that fascinated him.

The author observes that today’s national security professionals still contend, as Nitze did, with issues of deterrence, nuclear threats, and confrontations among powers amidst newer dangers. In Nitze’s last years, he focused on the existential risks of climate change. Wilson has ably shown (in less than 300 pages) how State Department historians can extend their remit from publishing documentary records to enlivening the past—and educating those who seek to navigate the future.

Robert Zoellick served in national security and international economic posts during four U.S. administrations and is the author of America in the World.

Image: Rob Bogaerts / Anefo, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force's bomber fleet, once over 400 strong, has dwindled to just 157 airframes, many of which are outdated B-52s. This reduction poses a significant risk as tensions with China, which is developing the advanced H-20 stealth bomber, continue to rise. To maintain air superiority and deterrence, the Air Force is banking on the B-21 Raider, a next-generation stealth bomber born from the Long Range Strike Bomber program.

-However, with only 100 units planned for the next decade, concerns about insufficient production loom. The Raider, featuring a shorter wingspan for enhanced stealth and modular designs for future upgrades, is crucial for replacing the aging B-2 Spirit and ensuring the U.S. stays ahead in aerial warfare capabilities.

-Bottomline: Abandoning the B-21 program would severely compromise national security and America's ability to counter modern threats.

The Future of U.S. Bombers: The Imperative of the B-21 Raider Amid Growing Threats

The U.S. Air Force’s bomber fleet is much diminished. Fleet size has fallen to 157 bombers, and most of these aircraft are outdated B-52s. Until the early 1990s, the Air Force’s bomber fleet held more than 400 airframes. The downturn in numbers will be a problem if a full-blown war emerges in the near future. 

While the service is trying to add to its ranks by developing its latest stealth bomber program, only 100 B-21 Raiders are expected to reach the skies over the next decade. Some military experts believe such small production numbers may not match China’s own future bomber program, the Xi’an H-20 subsonic stealth bomber.

Without adequate bomber numbers, the Air Force’s air superiority over China comes under question. And in addition to their role in conventional operations, these airframes are a great deterrent to war. 

But what would make matters worse is nixing the Raider program altogether. If the Air Force does not adequately upgrade its aging bomber fleet, the service will be left unable to compete with its modernizing Chinese aerial counterparts.

What Is the Raider Program All About?

The U.S. Air Force currently flies three strategic bombers: the B-52 Stratofortress, the B-1B Lancer, and the B-2 Spirit. All three airframes remain viable, and the Spirit possesses stealth capabilities, but the service must deliver on its next-generation bomber program in order to keep up with its peers. 

The Raider was born out of the service’s Long Range Strike Bomber program in 2011.The Air Force is so committed to the Raider concept now that it seems to be purchasing the platform upfront, before the bomber has been fully vetted. This is a risk. Indeed, the “Fly Before You Buy” concept was perhaps best explained by Senator David Pryor back in the 1990s on the Senate floor: “Fly Before You Buy is not a new concept. It was first promoted in the wake of the Vietnam War after thousands of American soldiers lost their lives because of weapons that failed to perform as expected…Operational testing is of little or no use if it is conducted after the weapon system has been purchased.”

Specs and capabilities surrounding the new Raider remain highly classified, but some information and images have been shared. The upcoming platform’s wingspan is reportedly at least 15% shorter than its predecessors. This will make the Raider more challenging for enemy radar to detect – a key capability considering China’s modernizing defensive systems. Like the F-35 Lightning II fighter platform, the B-21 will also incorporate modular designs that will facilitate future upgrades as new technologies emerge.

The U.S. Cannot Afford to Nix the Raider Program

The U.S. must see the Raider program through. The B-2 Spirit is America’s sole operational stealth bomber, and its generation-old stealth technology will probably fall well short of the Chinese H-20’s eventual capabilities. Since the U.S. and its allies rely on the Air Force’s stealth bombers for deterrence, it would be a huge blow to national security if the Raider does not make it to the production line in time to properly replace the Spirit.

About the Author: Defense Expert Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, 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 and/or Shutterstock.

Anna Cavazzini, eurodéputée allemande du groupe des Verts, présidera la commission du Marché intérieur et de la Protection des consommateurs (IMCO) du Parlement européen durant la prochaine législature.

Summary and Key Points: The F-4 Phantom II, a third-generation American-built warplane, played a pivotal role in the Israeli Air Force (IAF) from the 1960s until its retirement in 2004. Known for its advanced avionics, versatile weaponry, and durability, the F-4 was integral in Israel's long-range and deep-penetration missions, especially during the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Lebanon War.

-The Israeli-modified F-4s carried sophisticated radar systems, electronic warfare equipment, and a range of Israeli-made weapons, making them formidable adversaries in both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat.

-While Israel has since moved on to more advanced aircraft like the F-16I Soufa and the F-35 Lightning II, the F-4 Phantom II remains a symbol of Israel's resilience and aerial superiority during crucial conflicts in the mid-twentieth century.

The F-4 Phantom II: A Symbol of Israeli Defiance and Military Strength

The Israeli Air Force extensively used the American-built F-4 Phantom II. This aircraft was part of the third-generation warplane family, and it was an iconic warbird that defined America’s air war in Vietnam. The F-4 Phantom II was also a highly exported plane.

Today, the isolated Islamic Republic of Iran still utilizes some vintage F-4 Phantoms. But back in the 1960s, the F-4 was a gamechanger for the IAF and played a significant, productive role in several conflicts in the mid-twentieth century. 

Israel’s F-4 Phantom IIs engaged in long-range missions and delivered substantial firepower. 

Specifications 

What made Israel’s version of this plane so special was the special modifications installed to meet the specific needs of the IAF. The Israeli F-4s were equipped with advanced avionics, including a more sophisticated radar system, and they carried a variety of Israeli-made weapons. The IAF’s Phantom variants were fitted with electronic warfare systems, enhancing their survivability in hostile environments.

The Israeli F-4s could carry a multiplicity of air-to-air missiles, notably the AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder, along with a variety of air-to-ground munitions. Thus, the IAF’s Phantom was a lethal interceptor fighter capable of engaging both aerial and ground targets. 

Defensively, the F-4 Phantom was equipped with chaff and fire dispensers to confuse enemy radar and infrared-guided missiles. The Phantom’s frame could withstand a hit better than most other warplanes. 

Important Wars that Israel Used the F-4 Phantom II to Fight

The last squadron of Israel’s F-4 Phantom II fleet was retired in 2004. For nearly half a century, the F-4 was a mainstay of Israel’s fleet. This warbird served in a variety of conflicts, including the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Lebanon War. The first two wars were widely considered to be existential fights in which Israel was nearly destroyed by its Arab neighbors.

F-4 Phantoms were one of the symbols of Israeli defiance and ultimate victory over their Arab neighbors. 

The IAF chose the Phantom due to its excellent performance, versatility, and ability to carry a substantial payload. That last point, coupled with the Phantom’s long range, made it ideal for Israel’s operational requirements, notably for deep penetration missions into enemy territory. This is a key point, considering how far-flug many of Israel’s rivals are. 

The Future of Israel’s Air Force

The F-4 Phantom was a crucial asset for the Israeli Air Force. This system helped to deliver multiple strategic victories to the Israelis in key conflicts they were involved in throughout the last half of the twentieth century. 

Inevitably, Israel purchased for themselves other, more advanced warplanes, notably the fourth-generation F-16I Soufa. More recently, Israel has acquired the F-35 Lightning II, a fifth-generation warplane built by the Americans. 

Nevertheless, the F-4 Phantom II was a critical platform for Israel when it needed advanced systems most. For that reason alone, the F-4 will always hold a special place in the hearts and minds of Israeli aviators. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points: Nearly 900 days into Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the skies over the battlefield remain fiercely contested, prolonging the conflict. The Ukrainian Air Force, initially reliant on an antiquated fleet of Soviet-era fighter jets, is on the verge of receiving significant reinforcements from NATO countries, including around eighty-five F-16 Fighting Falcons from the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark, and an unspecified number of Dassault Mirage 2000D fighter jets from France.

-This influx of modern Western aircraft, coupled with intensified drone strikes on Russian air defenses, aims to achieve air superiority, potentially paving the way for an operational breakthrough on the ground.

-Training and logistical support from the UK and US are also bolstering Ukraine's aerial capabilities. Establishing control of the skies is seen as a crucial step towards ending the prolonged conflict.

Ukraine Prepares to Transform Air Warfare with F-16s and Dassault Mirages

Nearly 900 days after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the skies over the battlefield remain contested. This is the main reason why the war has dragged on for so long.

A lack of air superiority means that the Ukrainian Air Force and Russian Aerospace Forces haven’t been able to use aircraft consistently to take out ground targets and thus pave the way for an operational breakthrough somewhere along the contact line.

But now, Ukraine seems determined to change that and wrestle control of the skies.

F-16 Fighting Falcons, Dassault Mirages, Drones, and Deep Strikes

When the war began, the Ukrainian Air Force operated a largely antiquated fleet of Soviet- and Russian-made fighter jets. But now, Kyiv is getting close to receiving dozens of F-16 Fighting Falcon and Dassault Mirage fighter jets from several NATO countries. The addition of these Western combat aircraft will most likely change the dynamics over the skies of Ukraine and could lead to progress on the ground.

As it stands, Ukraine is set to receive approximately eighty-five F-16 fighter jets. Specifically, the Netherlands has committed up to forty-two F-16 Fighting Falcons, while Norway has committed to sending twenty-two and Denmark nineteen.

However, the type and condition of each aircraft varies. As a result, it is very likely that a smaller number of these aircraft will be operational, with the rest acting as a ready reserve of spare parts. In addition to the aircraft, several other countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, have been providing training and logistical support to the Ukrainian Air Force.

The Ukrainian Air Force expects to receive a yet unspecified number of Dassault Mirage 2000D fighter jets from France. In June, French president Emmanuel Macron announced his decision to transfer the combat aircraft to Ukraine to help it win control of the skies.

In the meantime, the Ukrainian military has been using suicide drones to target and harass Russian air defenses with the goal of creating a gap that could be exploited later on by Kyiv’s new fighter jets.

“Ukrainian drone strikes deep within Russia continue to pressure Russia's air defense umbrella and force the Russian military command to prioritize allocating limited air defense assets to cover what it deems to be high-value targets,” the Institute for the Study of War assessed

in a recent operational estimate of the war.

F-16 Fighting Falcons and Dassault Mirage 2000D fighter jets equipped with modern Western munitions would have an easier job establishing air superiority and taking out high value targets if the Russian air defense umbrella is sufficiently weakened.

“Ukrainian forces continue targeting Russian air defense systems in occupied Ukraine and in Russia’s border areas to set conditions to field F-16 fighter jets following their anticipated Summer-Fall 2024 arrival to Ukraine,” the Institute for the Study of War added.

Taking control of the skies is an important first step in creating the conditions for an operational breakthrough on the ground that could finally end this brutal conflict.

About the Author: 

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Trois des plus influentes commissions du Parlement européen, chargées de l’énergie et de l’industrie, de l’environnement et des transports, ont élu mardi (23 juillet) leurs présidents pour les deux ans et demi à venir.

Die Europäische Kommission hat eine offizielle Kartelluntersuchung gegen die Essenslieferdienst-Apps Delivery Hero und Glovo eingeleitet. Laut einer Pressemitteilung vom Dienstag (23. Juli) wird untersucht, ob die beiden Unternehmen an einem Kartell beteiligt sind.

Carmen Crespo Díaz, a Spanish lawmaker from the European People's Party (EPP), was elected by acclamation chair of the European Parliament's Fisheries Committee on Tuesday (23 July), an appointment welcomed by the industry and environmental NGOs.

Während die Abgeordneten die Führungspositionen der einzelnen politischen Ausschüsse im neuen Europäischen Parlament auswählten, blieben die einflussreichen Ausschüsse für Wirtschaft und Währung (ECON) und Haushalt fest in der Hand der bisherigen Parteien - der Sozialdemokraten beziehungsweise der rechtsnationalen EKR.

Summary and Key Points: The United States Air Force and the newly elected UK Labour government are both showing hesitation towards their respective sixth-generation fighter jet programs due to rising costs. The US Air Force's Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program and the UK's Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) face scrutiny, with concerns paralleling past budget overruns seen in the B-2 Spirit and F-22 Raptor programs.

-UK Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard emphasized the importance of the GCAP but noted the need for cost-effective procurement. The Labour government is currently reviewing its defense strategy, potentially impacting the £12 billion commitment to GCAP.

-Both programs involve multinational collaborations, including Japan and Italy for GCAP, highlighting the global implications of these cost concerns.

Labour Government Hesitates on GCAP Amid US Air Force's NGAD Apprehensions

The United States Air Force is apparently getting cold feet regarding the development of a sixth-generation fighter, which is being developed as part of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program that calls for a system of systems, including an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that could act as a loyal wingman. The cost of the manned fighter component of the NGAD is a major concern, and the U.S. Air Force can ill afford an expensive mistake – possibly noting how both the B-2 Spirit and F-22 Raptor programs were significantly scaled back.

It would seem that the apprehension over the cost of the future fighter isn't one limited to the U.S. Air Force, as it was reported last week that the new UK Labour government, which took power earlier this month, now views the UK-led Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) as "important," yet isn't ready to go all in.

"It is a really important program for us. It's important for our partners in Japan and Italy … and we're meeting both those partners next week to underline that. But it's not right for me to prejudge what might happen in the [Strategic] Defence Review." explained Armed Force Minister Luke Pollard at the Global Air and Space Chiefs Conference in London on Thursday, according to a report from Breaking Defense.

"We need cutting-edge capabilities," added Pollard. "We need to make sure that when we're procuring systems, high-end systems, future systems that we need to keep our people safe, we do it in the most cost effective way and that is by working with our partners."

As Breaking Defense further reported, the Tory government had committed spending upwards of £2 billion ($2.6 billion) on GCAP until 2025 and an additional £12 billion ($15.5 billion) on the program overall, yet, it is unclear if  Labour will stick to that level of funding.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who took office on July 5, had launched a strategic defense review. Labour is expected to continue the efforts of the Conservative Party that called for greater investment in military defense, and to maintain the UK's prominent role in the NATO alliance.

Will Lack of Confidence in the NGAD Shoot Down the GCAP?

However, there is also speculation that the UK could follow the lead of the U.S., and that could be the breaks on the GCAP.

"It's notable that the US Air Force is saying it can't potentially afford NGAD, and given that NGAD already has prototypes flying around is their third or fourth attempt to build a combat stealth aircraft, they're very good at it and it's US funding, if the US thinks it is maybe unaffordable … then I think we probably need to look very carefully at how we're going to do this in Europe," Justin Bronk, senior research fellow for airpower and technology at the Royal United Services Institute, also said at the Global Air and Space Chiefs Conference. "But for the immediate term, you’ve got to stop the Russians from trying to test NATO militarily in this decade, otherwise, everything else is kind of irrelevant."

Where the UK may have an advantage is that it has lined up foreign partners. The UK and Italy's Tempest program merged with the Japanese F-X project. In December 2022, the UK, Japan, and Italy signed an international treaty to collaborate on the development of an advanced front-line fighter.

Tempest was initiated to develop a replacement for the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is operated by both the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Italian Air Force, while the F-X program was jumpstarted to produce an aircraft to replace the aging Japanese F-2 fighters. It is worth noting that all three nations have adopted the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II multirole fifth-generation stealth fighter – but appeared to be looking towards a sixth-generation combat aircraft.

The multi-national industry team includes BAE System, Rolls-Royce, Leonardo, MBDA UK, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, IHI, and Mitsubishi Electric.

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.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Ces dernières semaines, Niamey affiche clairement son intention de lancer la construction d’un nouvel oléoduc qui reliera ses champs pétroliers à ceux du Tchad, mais le pays a-t-il les moyens de le faire ?

Summary and Key Points: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched an aerial strike on Houthi-controlled targets near Hodeidah, Yemen, in response to recent drone attacks on Israel that resulted in casualties.

-Utilizing at least a dozen aircraft, including the advanced F-35I Adir, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) executed a mission reminiscent of the 1985 "Operation Wooden Leg."

-This marked a significant demonstration of the F-35I’s long-range strike capabilities. Israel, the sole operator of the F-35 in the Middle East, has enhanced its fleet with unique electronic warfare systems and other upgrades, solidifying the F-35I Adir’s role in its defense strategy.

F-35I Adir Leads IDF Strike on Iran-Backed Houthi Rebels in Yemen

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced that it carried out strikes on targets controlled by the Iran-back Houthi rebels in Yemen on Saturday, hitting positions close to the port city of Hodeidah. It came following a months-long series of Houthi attacks on Israel, including a drone assault on Friday that killed one Israeli citizen and injured 10 others.

The militant group may not have anticipated that there would be such a response as Israel has not struck back previously, but it was clearly wrong if that was its thinking.

The aerial raid carried out by the Israeli Air Force (IAF) has been compared to that of "Operation Wooden Leg," the IAF's attack on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) headquarters in Tunis. In that operation – the IAF's longest aerial strike to date – nearly 30 years ago, the IAF employed eight F-15 Eagle fighters assisted by two aerial refueling tankers.

During Saturday's raid on the Houthi rebels, the IAF utilized at least a dozen aircraft, including the F-35I Adir – the Israeli-specific variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fifth-generation multirole fighter. Videos of the stealth fighters being refueled over the Red Sea have been shared on social media.

"A short time ago, warplanes attacked military targets of the Houthi terrorist regime in the Hodeida port area in Yemen, in response to the hundreds of attacks against the State of Israel in recent months.

There is no change in the directives of the Home Front Command. If there are changes we will update.

More details to come," the IAF announced in a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

The first F-35I Adir landed in Israel eight years ago, and the fifth-generation multirole fighter has been employed in numerous combat operations. On May 22, 2018, Israeli Air Force commander, Major General Amikam Norkin, reported that the F-35 was used to strike Iranian missile launch sites in Syria, while in April 2022, an Israeli F-35 was credited with shooting down a pair of Iranian drones for the first time.

The F-35's ability to target the Houthi militants in Yemen further confirms that it is well-suited to long-range strike missions.

The F-35I Adir in the Spotlight

Israel remains the sole operator of the F-35 Lightning II in the Middle East. Currently, 36 of the original 50 ordered by the Jewish state have been delivered, but the total force could grow to as many as 75 within the next decade, as Israel signed a deal last month for an additional 25 of the fifth-generation fighters – to be delivered at a rate of three to five annually beginning in 2028.

Though an "early adopter" of the F-35, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) expressed concerns that the aircraft's stealth capabilities could be partly overcome within a decade despite the 30 to 40-year service life. To address that very serious issue, Israel sought to utilize its own electronic warfare system (EWS). Initially, the U.S. refused to allow such changes over security concerns.

However, it eventually agreed to allow Israel to integrate its own EWS, including sensors and countermeasures, on top of the U.S. systems. Additional changes included a special, IAF-tailored helmet-mounted display, and bespoke datalink functionality that is specific to the IDF, while other enhancements further improved the F-35's already-potent data gathering and processing capabilities.

Those enhancements to the stealth aircraft were also significant enough to warrant an 'I' designation, making the F-35I one of just a handful of formally acknowledged F-35 variants. The Israeli Air Force gave the F-35I the name Adir, meaning "Mighty One" in Hebrew.

It was now used in a mighty strike against the Houthis.

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. 

Am Montag (22. Juli) appellierten Vertreter der französischen Energiewirtschaft in einem gemeinsamen Schreiben an die frisch gewählte französische Nationalversammlung. Darin wird die Befürchtung geäußert, dass sich Frankreichs politische Instabilität negativ auf die Energiepolitik auswirken könnte.

Le Parlement européen envisage la création d’un organe de surveillance pour la mise en œuvre du règlement sur l’intelligence artificielle (AI Act), qui entrera en vigueur en août, a déclaré à Euractiv un des principaux législateurs de l’UE sur ce dossier.

Summary and Key Points: Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine has drained its resources, leading to potential cuts in its naval fleet. The Kirov-class battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy, one of Russia's two nuclear-powered surface warships, may soon be decommissioned due to high maintenance costs.

-These formidable vessels, designed during the Cold War to counter U.S. carriers, are the largest surface combatants after aircraft carriers.

-While the Admiral Nakhimov, the other surviving Kirov-class cruiser, is expected to return to service soon, Moscow’s financial constraints and the war’s demands raise questions about the future of these naval giants.

Each day Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine continues, the Kremlin is funneling scores of resources into fueling its offensive efforts.

Experts estimate that Moscow has lost more than half of its main battle tank arsenal, in addition to loads of munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles and other military systems.

Crippled by hefty international sanctions amidst its ongoing war, the Kremlin is looking to make cuts where it can. In April, the Russian state-run news outlet TASS reported that the country’s Pyotr Velikiy battlecruiser may soon be decommissioned due in part to excessive maintenance and repair costs.

As one of two nuclear-powered surface warship in Russia’s Navy, the Pyotr Velikiy plays a significant role in the service. Strapped for cash, however, Moscow will likely retire this colossal sized vessel.

That is a shame, at least for Moscow, as these warships are pretty powerful. 

Introducing the Kirov-class

Second in size only to large aircraft carriers, the Kirov-class nuclear-powered guided missile cruisers are the largest ships in Russia’s arsenal.

During the Cold War, the Kirov-class vessels were designed to counter American aircraft carriers. The Baltic Shipyard in Leningrad launched its warship in 1977. Four more vessels we laid down up until the collapse of the USSR. Initially, the boats were named to honor Bolshevik revolution heroes, but these names were changed to coincide with the end of the communist state.

Only two battlecruisers survived the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the financial woes of the Russian Navy- the Pyotr Velikiy and the Admiral Nakhimov. 

Both ships are massive in size and can pack a punch. When designed during the Cold War, the ships were intended to function primarily as missile cruisers. However, over the next decade, the Soviets shifted gears and wanted the vessels to prioritize anti-submarine warfare instead.

In terms of air-to-air armament, these Kirov-class ships can sport 96 S-300F, 40 4K33, and 192 3K95 short-range surface-to-air missiles in addition to six Ak-630 close-up defense systems.

These battlecruisers were also fitted with various fire control radar, air/surface search radar, and hull-mounted sonar. 

As detailed by one defense expert, “The propulsion system was a combination of nuclear power and steam turbine, with two nuclear reactors coupled to two oil-fitted boilers, which superheated the steam produced in the reactor plant to increase the power output available during high-speed running, while it also provided an essentially unlimited range.”

An Overview of Russia’s Two Remaining Battlecruisers

Both Pyotr Velikiy and the Admiral Nakhimov were expected to undergo repairs to enhance their capabilities.

However, reports now indicate that only the latter will actually make it past this phase.

As the latest move in a series of reductions to Russia’s sea-based fleet, this decision was likely influenced by the ongoing Ukraine war.

These hefty ships are pricey and Moscow could allocate resources planned for the Pyotr Velikiy to its offensive efforts in Kyiv.

The Admiral Nakhimov was supposed to return to service just two years after initially being laid up for refit back in 1997. Since the early 2000’s, a series of delays have pushed back this timeframe.

Within the last five years alone, Russian officials purported that the Admiral Nakhimov would re-enter service by 2018, 2018 and 2021. 

The Altered Fate of Admiral Nakhimov

Latest estimates indicate that the Admiral Nakhimov is expected to re-enter service with the Russian Navy over the next two years. Analysts predict that country’s sole remaining Kirov-class cruiser will serve under the Northern Fleet.

As explained by Bulgarian Military, this move will reflect “the Russian Navy’s Arctic region prioritization due to its emerging importance as a key trade route and geopolitical battleground. The Northern Fleet’s positioning also allows the warship to contribute significantly to Russia’s strategic missile defenses.”

While exact details concerning Admiral Nakhimov’s refitting remain unclear, industry experts predict the ship will feature Russia’s new Tsirkon missiles which are currently under development. Earlier this year, Putin sent a frigate to the Atlantic Ocean with this new generation hypersonic cruise missile in tow. According to Russia’s defense minister, the Tsirkon (or Zicron), is capable of overcoming all missile defense systems and can fly at speeds reaching Mach 9.0 with a range of over 1,000 km. 

While the Admiral Nakhimov’s claimed firepower would make it one of the most potent surface combatant ships globally, the Kremlin does have a history of exaggerating the true capabilities of its military systems.

This spring, Moscow deployed its top-of-the-line T-14 Armata to Ukraine. Widely touted to be the most formidable tank to ever trek across the battlefield by the Kremlin, the tank’s service in the war was short-lived.

By summertime, Moscow withdrew its Armata tanks from the conflict, despite its already dwindling available tank arsenal. Obviously, the T-14 did not perform up to standard. Once the Admiral Nakhimov re-enters service with the Russian Navy, only time will tell if the ship’s claimed capabilities are realistic. 

About the Author: Maya Carlin

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points: The Kirov-class battlecruisers, once the centerpiece of the Russian Navy's offensive strategy, have not lived up to their initial hype. Launched in 1977, these nuclear-powered warships were designed to counter U.S. submarines and carrier groups with a formidable array of missiles and heavy armament.

-However, only four were built, and today just one remains in service while another languishes in drydock. In the era of advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems, the utility of large surface warships like the Kirov-class and American aircraft carriers is increasingly questioned.

-Both nations may need to rethink their naval strategies to focus on more relevant and resilient capabilities.

Kirov-Class Battlecruisers: A Costly Boondoggle in Modern Naval Warfare

If the centerpiece of the United States Navy’s offensive strategy was the aircraft carrier, since the Cold War era, the Russian Navy’s main offensive system was their battlecruiser. Heavily armed, nuclear-powered, and seriously armored, the Kirov-class battlecruiser was to be the most important strategic asset in the Russian fleet. 

Yet, as my colleague, Peter Suciu, outlined in an article in these pages last year, the Kirov-class “never lived up to the hype.” 

Of course, one could say the same about America’s vaunted aircraft carriers in the age of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) defensive systems of the kind that both China and Russia possess (as well as their partners in Iran and North Korea).

The fact of the matter is that the era of surface warships might be at an end because of how sophisticated A2/AD has become (and how ubiquitous these systems have become). As for the Kirov-class, they struggled in ways that America’s flat tops never did. The Soviets and, later the Russians, envisaged these beasts raging across the world’s oceans in ways that sent shivers down the spines of even the Americans. 

The Kirov-Class Never Lived Up to Its Hype

Launched in 1977, the Kirov-class’s eponymously named warship was the second largest warship to traverse the oceans (next to America’s aircraft carriers). Four of these behemoths were built since then. They inspired so much fear-and-loathing among the US Navy’s brass that the Iowa-class battleships were refurbished and brought back into service in the 1980s as a counterweight to the Soviet battlecruiser threat. The Kirovs were loaded with potent long-range missiles rather than the traditional “big guns” that usually armed the decks of similar sized warships.

These warships carried an assortment of other missiles as well as torpedoes. They also housed three helicopters. 

Despite these beastly armaments, the Kirov-class lacks the staying power those other systems, such as those belonging to the US Navy, enjoy. Four warships were built between 1977-1988. 

Of those four, only two remained until 2023. The Admiral Nakhimov has been languishing in drydock since 1999! The other battlecruiser, the Pyotr Veliky, was slated to be modernized but the Russian Navy ultimately announced it was being retired last year. 

As for the Admiral Nakhimov, it has been undergoing “modernization” in port for years. There is real concern among Russia’s military planners that the warship will never leave port; that it will simply be constantly upgraded. Nevertheless, the Russians appear committed to refurbishing this weapon of war—giving it all new and deadlier weapons, to boot!

The Russian Battlecruiser and American Aircraft Carrier Aren't Useful Today

Although, this gets back to a point raised earlier: are large surface warships even relevant in today’s era of A2/AD and hypersonic weapons? 

The Americans have overcommitted to their aircraft carrier capability to the detriment of other, more relevant capabilities, such as their submarines. Meanwhile, the Russians appeared to have done something similar with their Kirov-class battlecruisers. 

In fact, the Russians should have gotten the wake-up call when their warship, the Moskva, which belonged to the smaller and cheaper Russian battlecruiser Slava-class, was sunk by the Ukrainians at the outset of the Russo-Ukraine War.  

Investing heavily into modernizing the remaining Kirov-class battlecruisers is a waste. 

Circumventing A2/AD with Distance

A similar fate which befell the Moskva could easily befall the Kirov-class, modernization notwithstanding. A better use of resource for any navy today would be to spend its money on developing effective countermeasures against drone swarms, hypersonic weapons, and massive numbers of antiship missiles. 

At the same time, being able to deploy offensive systems far beyond the range of A2/AD systems would ensure that a navy remained relevant in this age of contested environments. 

The Russians are making the same mistake that the Americans are in investing so heavily into their surface prestige weapons. These systems will not prove decisive. They are boondoggles. 

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.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Der Landwirtschaftsausschuss des Europäischen Parlaments (AGRI) wählte am Dienstag (23. Juli) die tschechische Abgeordnete Veronika Vrecionová zur Vorsitzenden. Die Abstimmung über einen der stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden wurde nach einem Streit über die Geschlechterverteilung verschoben.