Agrégateur de flux

Ça chauffe en Algérie ! Le thermomètre s’est affolé ces dernières 24 heures, plaçant trois wilayas du pays parmi les 10 plus chaudes au monde. […]

L’article Trois wilayas algériennes parmi les 10 villes les plus chaudes au monde ces dernières 24H est apparu en premier sur .

Le Centre de Recherche en Astronomie, Astrophysique et Géophysique (CRAAG) a réussi à détecter et à enregistrer avec précision une nouvelle activité séismique en Algérie […]

L’article Séisme en Algérie : tremblement de terre signalé dans la wilaya de Médéa est apparu en premier sur .

A top Russian security official refused peace talks with Ukraine until Kyiv is completely defeated on the battlefield.

Ce mercredi, Ahmed Mokrani, directeur général de la régulation des activités et de leur organisation au ministère du Commerce et de la Promotion des exportations, a […]

L’article Régulation des prix des produits de grande consommation : un responsable fait le point est apparu en premier sur .

- Agenda / Dans les Balkans

Lawmakers are frustrated at the lack of a coherent plan as Biden prepares to leave office.

Au Burundi, la libération de la journaliste Floriane Irangabiye n'a pas redoré le blason du régime. Depuis l'arrivée du président Ndayishimiye il y a 4 ans, la répression contre les membres de la société civile et les journalistes n'a pas baissé d'intensité. C'est ce que rapporte l'ONG Amnesty International, qui parle d'une "implacable répression", d'arrestations et de "procès iniques" contre les voix critiques au Burundi.

While Democratic and Republican politicians have acknowledged the importance of critical minerals, both for America’s current needs and future technology, China’s decision last week to restrict the export of one metal, antimony, underscored the urgent need for policymakers to move beyond campaign-season lip service about “bringing home supply chains” and toward realistic measures that ensure the United States has continued access to resources that directly impact its national security.

A silvery-white, crystalline solid often mined alongside deposits of sulfur or heavy metals like lead, copper, and silver, antimony (chemical symbol, Sb) has been known since Biblical times. It has a wide range of uses, ranging from cosmetics to construction. Nowadays, while about half of the global usage of antimony is for its flame-retardant qualities, an estimated 20 percent is used in the manufacture of photovoltaic glass to improve the performance of solar cells and, increasingly, in next-generation grid-scale liquid-metal electricity storage batteries (LMBs) and more efficient alternatives to current technology rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. Moreover, antimony has become strategically important because of its role in sensitive military equipment ranging from night-vision goggles to missiles and as a hardening agent for everything from bullets to tanks and warships.

Like it has done with the value chains for a host of other critical minerals—including restrictions imposed last year on the export of gallium and germanium, elements widely used in the semiconductor industry, as well as its tight grip on rare earth elements—China has steadily consolidated a dominant position in the antimony supply chain. While the U.S. Geological Survey’s most recent data show that China holds less than one-third of the world’s known reserves of antimony, it produced almost half of global production last year (Tajikistan and Russia together produce another 30 percent). Furthermore, irrespective of where the mineral is sourced, Chinese firms control most of the world’s supply of antimony trioxide, the most common form of the processed material.

According to a statement by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce cited by the Chinese Communist Party’s international affairs daily Global Times, the new export restrictions, which take effect September 15, are “to further protect China's national security and interests and fulfill the nation’s international non-proliferation obligations.” Commenting on the new decree, a retired People’s Liberation Army Air Force equipment specialist quoted by the South China Morning Post acknowledged that it was clearly intended to make it harder for the United States to produce arms: “The move is definitely a decision made after careful consideration, and it has a clear purpose—by restricting exports, it will undoubtedly impact the world’s major arms manufacturers, especially the U.S.”

The United States is even more vulnerable to the latest play by Beijing because 82 percent of the 22,000 metric tons used by American industry, civilian and military, in 2023 was imported (the balance was recovered from recycling spent lead-acid batteries). Almost two-thirds of the imported antimony metal and oxides came from China. No antinomy is currently mined in the United States, and the only firm in the entire country to produce primary antimony metal and oxides is the U.S. Antimony Company, which imports feedstock for its smelter in Western Montana. Another company, Perpetua Resources, which has received support from the U.S. Defense Department under Title III of the Defense Production Act as well as recently received a letter of interest from the Export-Import (EXIM) Bank for potential financing, is developing an open-pit gold resource in northern Idaho that will produce antimony as a by-product of the mining operation. Still, commercial production is not expected until 2028—and that assumes that the company successfully runs the gauntlet of environmental activists and the permitting bureaucracy.

Even by then, Beijing will still have additional cards to play. These include the type of manipulation it has engaged in to depress prices and stymie efforts to develop alternative supply chains, as the Wall Street Journal reported last month with respect to rare earth elements (REEs) used in permanent magnets in electric vehicles, wind turbines, and robots. Even the neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr), the most highly valued segment of the REE market, is down more than 20 percent since January thanks to Chinese overproduction and what the newspaper described delicately as Beijing being “willing to be a loss leader in parts of the value chain to help downstream ambitions.”

Thus, the only way to tackle this challenge is to take it on realistically, which is to say, comprehensively. U.S. policymakers must not only encourage the development of the critical mineral resource in question where access can be secured from friends—or, at the very least, non-adversarial countries—but also support the development of processing value chains and, ultimately, give them a fighting chance of competing against the Beijing’s market domination by judicious use of offtake agreements.

If U.S. policymakers fail to get real about the stakes, both for America’s current defense needs and for the potential technological applications of antimony and other critical minerals—and do so quickly—what has been an irritant in international trade will prove to be a self-inflicted strategic wound.

Ambassador J. Peter Pham, a Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a Senior Advisor at the Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy, is a former U.S. Special Envoy for the Sahel and Great Lakes Regions of Africa.

Image: Kevin Cupp / Shutterstock.com.

La compagnie nationale de transport maritime de passagers, Algérie Ferries, a annoncé ce mercredi soir une série de modifications dans son programme de voyages. Ces […]

L’article Traversées Alger – Marseille/Alicante : Algérie Ferries annonce plusieurs changements de programme est apparu en premier sur .

The Uncommitted Movement is putting pressure on Kamala Harris in key swing states, including Michigan.

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know on the Biggest Submarine Ever: The Dmitry Donskoy (TK-208), the world's largest nuclear-powered submarine and the last of the Russian Navy's Typhoon-class, was decommissioned in February 2023 after nearly 40 years in service.

-Originally laid down in 1976 and commissioned in 1984, the submarine was a formidable force during the Cold War, capable of carrying 20 RSM-52 SLBMs with multiple warheads.

-Despite previous plans to keep the vessel in service until 2026, it was retired and will await disposal.

-The decommissioning marks the end of the era for the Typhoon-class, the largest submarines ever built.

Farewell to the Typhoon-Class: Dmitry Donskoy Submarine Decommissioned

The world's largest nuclear-powered submarine, Dmitry Donskoy (TK-208) has been decommissioned, the Kremlin announced back in February of last year.

The Russian Navy's Project 941 Akula-class (NATO reporting name Typhoon) heavy nuclear ballistic submarine was laid down in June 1976 and commissioned in 1984. After almost 40 years in service, she has finally been retired.

"The Dmitry Donskoy submarine cruiser has been decommissioned from the Russian Navy. It will await utilization at a naval base in Severodvinsk together with two other units of this project," Vladimir Maltsev, the head of the Russian Movement for Navy Support, told the Russian state media outlet Tass.

Initially designated the TK-208, she was the lead vessel of the Soviet third-generation Akula-class (Russian for "Shark"), and after a 12-year overhaul and refit that began in 1990, she reentered service in 2002 as the Dmitry Donskoy, named after the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy (1359–1389), the reputed founder of Moscow.

It is worth repeating the boat is more commonly known as the Typhoon-class or by its NATO designation. 

This is a change of course for Moscow, which had previously stated that the submarine would remain in service until at least 2026.

Typhoon-Class: Project 941 Boats

The Sevmash Shipyard built six of a planned seven Project 941 submarines - or what the West calls the Typhoon-class - for the Russian Navy, and all of the boats were operational with the Northern Fleet. Though the oldest of the submarines, Dmitriy Donskoy was the last of the class to remain in service.

The TK-202, TK-12 – later renamed the Simbirsk – and T-13 were withdrawn from active service between 1996 and 2009, and scrapped with the financial support of the United States. Two other boats: the TK-17/Arkhangelsk and TK-20/Severstal remained in service until they were decommissioned circa 2013.

A seventh boat, TK-210, was laid down but scrapped before completion.

Typhoon: Large and Powerful

With a displacement of 48,000 tons, a length of 175 meters (nearly 600 feet), a 23-meter beam, and a 12-meter draught, the Typhoon-class were the largest submarines ever built.

Developed with multiple pressure hulls, including five inner hulls situated inside a superstructure of two parallel main hulls, the Typhoon-class was also wider than any other submarine ever built.

Each contained nineteen compartments, including a strengthened module, which housed the main control room as well as an electronic equipment compartment above the main hulls and behind the missile launch tubes. It even was reported that there was a sauna on board as well as a small swimming pool for the crew. The sheer size of the submarines was likely welcomed by the approximately 160 sailors who called the submarine home on voyages lasting 120 days or longer, oftentimes without surfacing for months at a time.

The Typhoon-class subs were designed to counter the United States Navy's Ohio-class subs, which were capable of carrying up to 192 100-kiloton nuclear warheads. By contrast, the Soviet Typhoons could carry a primary cache of 20 RSM-52 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), each of which contained up to 10 MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) warheads.

The submarines were powered by OK-650 pressurized-water nuclear reactors, two 50,000 horsepower steam turbines, and four 3,200 KW turbogenerators and this provides the boat with the ability to sail at a speed of up to 22.2 knots on the surface and 27 knots whilst submerged.

The boats of the Typhoon-class could reportedly operate at depths as great as 400 meters and travel at speeds in excess of 27 knots. The class was designed with an advanced stern fin with a horizontal hydroplane fitted after the boat’s screws, while the nose horizontal hydroplanes in the bow section were designed to be retractable into the hull.

The retirement of Dmitry Donskoy ends the saga of the largest submarines ever built. RIP, Typhoon-class. 

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. 

Le Premier ministre Nadir Larbaoui a récemment signé un décret exécutif visant à modifier les horaires de travail dans les établissements et administrations publics de […]

L’article Fonction publique : changement officiel des heures de travail dans 20 wilayas est apparu en premier sur .

The pinprick attacks boost morale, but they don’t much dent Moscow’s energy earnings.

Summary and Key Points You Need to Know: The Zumwalt-class destroyer, intended to revolutionize naval warfare with stealth capabilities and advanced technology, has become emblematic of strategic misjudgment and wasted resources.

-Initially planned as a fleet of 32 ships, only three were built, each plagued by exorbitant costs and operational failures, including a non-functional main gun.

-Despite its shortcomings, the U.S. Navy continues to invest in the Zumwalt, replacing the failed gun system with costly hypersonic weapons that are not yet fully operational.

-Critics argue that funds should have been allocated to more practical military advancements, such as expanding the Seawolf-class submarine fleet.

How the Zumwalt-Class Destroyer Became a $22.4 Billion Blunder

The Zumwalt-class destroyer, designed to revolutionize naval warfare with stealth capabilities and advanced armaments, has instead become a symbol of strategic misjudgment and wasteful spending. Initially envisioned as a fleet of 32, only three Zumwalts were built, each plagued by exorbitant costs and functionality issues. The main gun remains broken, and attempts to retrofit the destroyers with hypersonic weapons have proved equally problematic. Critics argue that funds spent on Zumwalt should have been directed toward more practical and reliable systems, such as expanding the Seawolf-class submarine fleet or advancing hypersonic weaponry earlier.

The US Navy’s refusal to innovate and rethink its long-time assumptions about what constitutes its power has been evident for decades since the Cold War ended. It was evident in the decision by Navy planners to not only continue building expensive aircraft carriers, but to build newer models of aircraft carriers that were far more expensive than the previous set. The Navy’s shortsightedness was apparent when it opted to build only three (out of a planned 30) of its Seawolf-class attack submarines. But nothing screams strategic ignorance and cultural decadence like Navy’s commitment to building the Zumwalt-class destroyer.

America’s first Zumwalt-class destroyer, the U.S.S. Zumwalt, was the costliest destroyer it had ever built—far surpassing the cost of the magnificent Arleigh Burke-class destroyer which still protects US Navy aircraft carrier battle groups. Three units of the Zumwalt were built, a small class of warships for sure. 

They are also the largest destroyers in the world. Their distinctive hull design that makes them look like something from Babylon 5 and less like a US Navy warship is because they are the world’s first true stealth warships. These destroyers were so next-generation technologically that General Dynamics, the company that built the Zumwalt-class, had to spend $40 million just to build a special facility for these next-generation warships.

A Snapshot of 1990s America and the U.S. Navy

The Zumwalts were meant to be a complete break from the way things had been done by the US Navy. The warship produces the same amount of power as an aircraft carrier. It possesses 80 vertical launchers for various types of missiles. A key part of the Zumwalt’s mission was to be able to conduct deep-ranging sea-to-shore strikes. Remember, the Zumwalts were designed back when the United States was the undisputed unipolar power. 

At that time, America was more concerned with rogue states, transnational terrorist groups, and the scourge of ethno-religious sectarian conflicts abroad. The Navy was constantly trying to keep itself relevant at that time and having a “multi-mission” stealth warship seemed like a worthwhile investment.

There was just one problem: the Zumwalt-class destroyer didn’t work as advertised. It took years longer to build and was around 50 percent more expensive than what the defense contractors had sold to Congress. Initially planned to have a fleet of 32 Zumwalts, today, the Navy has just three. 

And they’re constantly needing repairs. 

The armaments alone are egregiously expensive, partly because the supply chain was designed to provide cheaper armaments once the Zumwalt fleet reached its 32-unit goal. Since that goal will now never be met, the costs for the unique armaments for these warships will remain exorbitant. In the age of constrained budgets, this is not a worthwhile investment. 

End The Madness Already on Zumwalt-Class

Besides, as it turns out, the main gun on the Zumwalt is broken and cannot be repaired. Rather than cut its losses, though, the Navy is insistent on trying to make the Zumwalt work. It’s getting rid of the 155-milimeter non-working Advanced Gun Systems (with its $800,000 per round ammunition). Instead, the Zumwalts will be fitted with the equally expensive, non-functional hypersonic weapons platform that the US Navy has been desperately trying to build. To be clear, investing in hypersonic weapons is a good move. 

Unfortunately, these systems are clearly not ready for showtime (whereas Russia’s, sadly, are ready and China’s hypersonic weapons are right behind Russia’s). And deploying these boondoggles—which, according to some assessments, are not as stealthy as they were designed to be—is absurdly wasteful.

But the Zumwalt-class is another example of the kind of decadence at the Department of Defense and from Congress that I’ve been railing about. These warships were designed and deployed at a time when America could afford to indulge its wildest strategic fantasies. It was still basking in its Cold War victory, there were no serious challengers to American global primacy, and things at home were going well. 

Those days are gone.

With China on the rise, Russia pushing hard against US-backed NATO, Iran agitating for a great regional war against American allies in Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and North Korea poised to go nuclear at any moment, the last thing the Navy should be doing is continuing to support the wasteful Zumwalt.

What Might Have Been…

Just imagine if, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, the Navy planners simply stuck to the basics. Instead of blowing the $22.4 billion on researching and developing the Zumwalts, just imagine what would have been if the Navy invested in building up its unbelievably tiny fleet of Seawolf-class attack submarines. 

Or if the Navy had invested in getting its hypersonic weapons ready for deployment years before they started taking the concept seriously. This isn’t hindsight, many were skeptical, for example, that the Navy’s investment into the Zumwalt-class was going to pay off.

Now the Navy is stuck with a sunk cost. It should cut its losses now. Instead, it seems to be doubling-down on failure. 

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: The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and remains one of the most significant carriers in U.S. Navy history.

-Its nuclear propulsion allowed for indefinite deployment, fundamentally altering naval strategy and enabling the U.S. to project power globally without the need for frequent refueling.

-Commissioned in 1961, the Enterprise played crucial roles in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the War on Terror, among other conflicts.

-As the longest naval vessel ever built, it was a technical marvel with extensive capabilities. The carrier was decommissioned in 2012 after over 50 years of service.

USS Enterprise: The Game-Changing Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier

While CVN-65 was the eighth U.S. Navy vessel to bear the Enterprise name, she was the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the world, marking a watershed moment in the way that U.S. forces are deployed around the world.

Some even say this aircraft carrier just might be the Navy's most important and even best aircraft carrier ever. 

USS Enterprise and Endless Possibilities

An aircraft carrier is a unique piece of military technology, for an aircraft carrier is essentially a mobile airfield that can be stationed (theoretically) anywhere atop the 75 percent of the Earth’s surface that is covered with water. The aircraft carrier is like an airbase on foreign soil – only more valuable – because an airbase is of course a fixed location. The aircraft carrier is a flexible location, allowing the United States to project airpower on any continent.

In the past, before the Enterprise, carriers relied on non-nuclear power such as diesel, which meant that the carriers relied upon refueling as a crutch.

Without refueling, the carriers could not continue to operate, limiting their range and endurance and presenting logistical challenges for refueling an aircraft carrier that could be parked on some far-flung continent. That changed with the Enterprise, however, which relied upon nuclear power – and was able to stay at sea indefinitely, for decades if needed.

Foreign Policy Implications

The U.S. employs the most hyperactive, adventurous foreign policy of any nation on Earth. One could argue that the endurance, range, and flexibility of the Enterprise – and the succeeding fleet of nuclear-powered vessels – seems to have manifested itself in the U.S.’s hyperactive foreign policy.

Today, the U.S. has eleven nuclear-powered submarines, each capable of patrolling the world’s oceans indefinitely – a capability that U.S. leaders employ liberally.

Or was it the other way around? Was the Enterprise created, in the late 1950s, to meet the needs of a foreign policy that was embroiled in global conflict with the Soviets and increasingly looking to assert itself globally?

The U.S. had been successful in Europe and the Pacific and had grown to appreciate the need for projecting its power on multiple fronts, simultaneously. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier offered a practical solution.

Chicken or egg? It’s probably a little bit of both. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was a practical solution – and U.S. war planners have adjusted their war planning to accommodate the remarkable capabilities that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers provide.

A Technical Marvel

The USS Enterprise is the longest naval vessel ever built. At 1,123 feet, the Enterprise is only about 300 feet shorter than the Empire State Building. The Enterprise is only ten feet shorter than the RMS Queen Mary 2, the massive ocean liner.

The Enterprise is over three hundred feet longer than the famed RMS Titanic.

Yes, the Enterprise is long – with a 132-foot beam at the waterline and a 39-foot draft. To propel such a massive ship eight Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors powered four Westinghouse geared steam turbines, which turned four propeller shafts producing 280,000 horsepower.

With the propulsion system operating at capacity, the Enterprise was able to achieve speeds of 33.6 knots per hour.

And while the Enterprise’s main offensive feature was the 60+ aircraft she carried; the ship was also outfitted with some armament. Notably, the Enterprise was outfitted with a prototype Basic Point Defense Missile System (BPDMS). The BPDMS carried two eight-round box launchers filled with Sea Sparrow missiles. The Enterprise was also outfitted with two NATO Sea Sparrow (NSSM) and three Mk-15 Phalanx CIWS gun mounts.

Later in Enterprise’s service career, one of the Phalanx CIWS mounts would be removed to make room for two 21-cel RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launchers.

A Storied Service Career

The Enterprise was commissioned in 1961, just in time for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

When President Kennedy learned that the Soviet Union was on the verge of deploying nuclear missiles to Cuba, he ordered a blockade of the island nation to physically prevent Soviet ships from delivering the missiles. Five U.S. aircraft carriers participated in the blockade – Independence, Essex, Lake Champlain, Randolph, and the newly commissioned Enterprise. The blockade helped prevent the missile shipment and ultimately contributed to the crisis’s diffusion.

The incident is generally considered the closest that the U.S. and Soviet powers ever came to a nuclear exchange.   

Forty years later, the still-serving Enterprise would again respond to crisis. In September 2001, the Enterprise was beginning to sail home from a deployment in the Persian Gulf.

When news of the September 11th terrorist attacks reached the Enterprise, the ship turned around without orders and returned to the Persian Gulf. One month later, aircraft from the Enterprise would run hundreds of sorties against al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan.

The Enterprise was finally decommissioned in December 2012, after a half-century in service.

About the Author

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

Summary and Jey Points: In response to the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, the U.S. Navy will deploy two additional Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers to Europe.

-USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79) will change its homeport from Norfolk, Virginia, to Rota Naval Base, Spain, this fall, increasing the number of forward-deployed destroyers in Europe to five.

-This move reinforces U.S. and NATO maritime presence in Europe and Africa. The Oscar Austin, named after Medal of Honor recipient PFC Oscar P. Austin, is a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyer with advanced capabilities, including ballistic missile defense and anti-submarine warfare.

U.S. Navy Deploys Additional Destroyers to Europe: What It Means for NATO

As the political situation continues to be fluid in Europe and the Middle East – with the ongoing war in Ukraine and the continued fighting in Gaza, the United States Navy announced this month that it would deploy two additional Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers to the region.

USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79) will be one of the two vessels that will change its homeport from Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, to Rota Naval Base, Spain. The change will be made this fall, and DDG-79 will "join the current Forward Deployed Naval Force-Europe (FDNF-E) force – adding additional capabilities to the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) areas of responsibility."

This will be a "phased" change of homeports, and a second still-to-be-named Arleigh Burke-class destroyer will be sent to Spain in 2026. The deployment of USS Oscar Austin will increase the number of U.S. Navy forward-deployed destroyers in EUCOM to five, which will reinforce the service's commitment to NATO but also enhance operation security in Europe and Africa.

"Shifting Oscar Austin's homeport to Rota is the next step in bolstering U.S. and NATO maritime presence and combat power in Europe as well as increasing the capacity to execute the One Atlantic concept," explained Adm. Daryl Caudle, commander, of U.S. Fleet Forces Command. "The One Atlantic concept improves the ability to share, leverage, and fully utilize naval forces in response to threats and strategic competitors while conducting multi-mission operations across the Atlantic by multiple Combatant Commanders."

Former President Obama first announced the U.S.-European Phased Adaptive Approach in 2009.

Part of the Backbone of the Surface Fleet

USS Oscar Austin has been readying for the homeport change to Spain since last December. The destroyer was named to honor Private First Class Oscar P. Austin, United States Marine Corps, who was killed during the Vietnam War in 1969 when he sacrificed his own life to save an injured fellow Marine. PFC Austin was "recognized with numerous medals and decorations, including the Purple Heart, the National Defense Medal, and the Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze stars, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Medal of Honor," according to UScarriers.net.

DDG-79 is also the first Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer to be produced, while she is the 29th warship of the destroyer class. She was commissioned in 2000, and according to the U.S. Navy is, "ballistic missile defense, anti-submarine, and anti-surface warfare capable. The ship can embark two MH-60R Seahawk helicopters to assist in anti-submarine and other warfare areas. Destroyers can work with Carrier Strike Groups, Surface Action Groups, Expeditionary Strike Groups or independently."

The U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) destroyers are also noted for having the longest production run for any of the service’s surface combatants, and with nine more on the way that record will only be further extended.

"Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are the backbone of the surface fleet and one of the most successful shipbuilding programs in the history of the Navy," U.S. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said in a statement last year.

Those sentiments were shared by Rear Adm. Brendan McLane, commander, of Naval Surface Force Atlantic, when it was announced in March 2023 that the first warships of the class would receive a service life extension.

"DDG 51s are the best warshipsin history. They demonstrate that there are no limits to what we can accomplish with a strong American Navy-industrial partnership," McLane said. "Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are the backbone of the Navy’s surface fleet and critical to the Nation and the Navy today and long into the future."

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. 

As the Indian prime minister meets Ukraine’s president on Friday, it marks a departure in New Delhi’s foreign policy.

Summary and Key Points: The F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Super Hornet are iconic U.S. Navy aircraft, with the former prominently featured in the original Top Gun and the latter in the sequel Top Gun: Maverick.

-The F-14, known for its sweep wings and two-seat cockpit, was larger and faster, reaching speeds up to Mach 2.34. However, it had reliability issues and a tendency to enter flat spins.

-The F/A-18, with fixed wings and more reliable systems, is easier to land on carriers and excels in close-quarters dogfighting. While the F-14 remains a fan favorite, the F/A-18 is the Navy's current workhorse.

F-14 Tomcat vs. F/A-18 Super Hornet: A Top Gun Showdown

When the general public considers either the F-14 Tomcat or the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the Top Gun film series is likely top of mind. In the first Top Gun, the F-14 features prominently. In Top Gun: Maverick, Cruise reprises his Maverick role, 36 years later. One of the most recognizable differences in the sequel is that the F-14 has been replaced with the F/A-18 Super Hornet. 

Of course, the Top Gun sequel concludes with an F-14 cameo, giving viewers the opportunity to consider the active duty F/A-18 against the retired F-14. Let’s take a moment to do the same here. 

The Obvious Differences

The two airframes are different in subtle and obvious ways. Let’s first consider the obvious distinctions. 

The F-14, unlike the F/A-18, had sweep-wings. These are visually identifiable even to many laymen, because the wing can pivot along a joint at the fuselage, allowing the wing to sweep forward, or back, flush against the fuselage. When the wings are swept forward, drag increases, slowing the plane down but increasing maneuverability. When the wings are pulled back, drag is reduced, speed is increased, but maneuverability is decreased. So an F-14 would have the wings pushed forward when performing a carrier landing, but would have the wings pulled back when intercepting a foreign aircraft. 

The F/A-18 has a fixed wing position, like the vast majority of aircraft. 

The F-14 also had a cockpit for two, whereas the F/A-18 seats one or two depending on the variant. This is why sometimes, throughout the Top Gun sequel, the F/A-18 was piloted with a back-seater, and other times, it was not – different variants were used throughout the film. 

Differences in the Air

The F-14 was larger and significantly faster than the F/A-18. While the F/A-18 had a top speed of Mach 1.6-1.8, the powerful F-14 could hit Mach 2.34. The F-14 was “amazingly fast” said Tom “Trots” Trotter, boasting that he once went from 150 knots to 610 knots in less than ten seconds. While generally outdated relative to the F/A-18, the F-14’s speed was enviable.

Trotter is an ex-flyer who was qualified in both the F-14 and the F/A-18. He told the Fighter Pilot Podcast that the F-14’s speed was a top draw of the airframe. 

“You know what, most of my combat time…I’ll honestly tell you, you’re gonna be in combat and they’re shooting at you, boy it’s good to be in combat in an F-14 to go fast and the other dude is head down, running the laser and it’s like so most of my bomb dropping I’d go, ah, put me in a Tomcat please.”

Trotter also pointed out that the F-14 had reliability issues. The F/A-18 is much more reliable – to the point where the Navy didn’t bother keeping a spare on standby.

The F-14 also had a tendency to enter flat spins, as depicted in the original Top Gun, during the scene where “Goose” ejects into the canopy and dies. The scene was an accurate depiction, according to Trots. F-14 crew were instructed to blow the canopy, look up to confirm that the canopy had cleared, and then eject – a procedure that requires immense awareness during the hectic moments of whatever is prompting the ejection.

The F/A-18 was also much easier to land on an aircraft carrier than the F-14. Indeed, the Top Gun series opens with a pilot struggling to land his F-14 on a carrier at night.

With respect to dogfighting, according to Trots, the F-14 would give an F/A-18 a run for its money. However, the F/A-18 was superior in-tight, in the “phone booth,” during slower and more intimate engagements.

“I think any Tomcat can give a Hornet a run, but you know, the Hornet’s way better in the phone booth,” Trotter said. “The slow fight, gunning a guy, going a high angle of attack.”

In all, both aircraft are legendary and well regarded. The F-14 retains something of a cult following that the F/A-18 has never quite replicated. 

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

America’s Middle Eastern adversary is occupying an arena typically dominated by Russia and China.

Summary and Key Points: The B-21 Raider, the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation stealth bomber, is undergoing flight testing and is set to replace the B-2.

The Question: What Weapons Will it Carry? Designed for offensive missions, the B-21 will carry a wide array of weapons, including penetrating bombs like the 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), precision-guided munitions like the AGM-158B, and nuclear bombs such as the B-61.

-What sets the B-21 apart is its advanced stealth capabilities, allowing it to evade sophisticated air defense systems and deliver its deadly payloads undetected, making it a crucial component of the U.S. nuclear triad.

B-21 Raider: The Future of U.S. Air Force Power Projection

The U.S. Air Force’s next bomber is undergoing flight testing. 

The B-21 Raider is scheduled to replace the B-2 and is being developed as the future of Air Force power projection. Built purely for offensive reasons, the bomber is essentially a vessel of death and destruction, limited in purpose to the delivery of ordnance on target. 

Let’s take a look at the weapons the B-21 is expected to carry.

An Impressive Array of Weaponry

The B-21’s wide variety of weapons will outfit the new bomber to fulfill a number of mission profiles. Everything from penetrating weapons to precision-guided munitions and nuclear bombs will be compatible with the B-21.

Penetrating weapons are used for attacking hardened targets like a bunker or a cave dwelling. One example we can expect to find on the B-21 is the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). The 30,000-pound bomb is referred to as a “bunker buster” and, as the name suggests, is absolutely massive. By comparison, the next-largest available bunker busters in the Air Force inventory are the 5,000-pound GBU-28 and GBU-37. 

Designed by Boeing, the MOP measures 20.5 feet in length with a 31.5-inch diameter. With a 5,300-pound warhead, the MOP can penetrate to depths of 200 feet.

When a little bit more finesse is needed, the B-21 can deploy a precision-guided munition like the AGM-158B or the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range – or something equipped with a Joint Direct Attack Munition kit. Precision-guided munitions, or “smart bombs,” are built to minimize collateral damage and to maximize effectiveness against very specific targets. One example is the AGM-158, a stealth weapon with long-range capabilities and a 1,000-pound armor-piercing warhead. With inertial navigation and GPS, the AGM-158 homes in on a target using a data link throughout its flight trajectory. 

And of course, the Raider will be capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The B-21 will be a primary component of the U.S. nuclear deterrent triad. It will lead the airborne leg of the triad, which includes nuclear options over air, land, and sea. The B-21 will carry the B-61, a thermonuclear gravity bomb with a unit cost of $28 million. At 715 pounds, the B-61 has a blast yield believed to be between 0.3 and 340 kilotons.

Stealth Capabilities

The varied arsenal of the B-21 will be especially concerning to America’s adversaries given the B-21’s stealth capabilities. With a radar cross section lower than the B-2’s, the B-21 is expected to be able to penetrate sophisticated air defense systems. The B-21 will thus be able to deliver its arsenal without being detected first – and that’s what should make the B-21 special. 

Many bomber airframes are capable of dropping the weapons that the B-21 will be able to drop. There’s no unique capability there. But no other bomber has the B-21’s expected stealth capabilities. 

About the Author: Harrison Kass, Defense Expert 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons/Shutterstock.