Agrégateur de flux

Des installations de télécommunications ont été vandalisées dans plusieurs départements français au cours de la nuit de dimanche à lundi. L'accès à la fibre et à la téléphonie fixe et mobile est affectée, a annoncé la secrétaire d'État démissionnaire chargée du Numérique, Marina Ferrari. 

Democrats have been elated with their new standard bearer, Kamala Harris since Joe Biden stepped down from the ticket.

Support for the Democratic ticket has swelled, with a massive influx of cash and volunteer labor and, more importantly, genuine optimism that the ticket is now built for victory.

But can the honeymoon, the “sugar high,” sustain itself?

Kamala Harris Changes the Game 

The 2024 election has been recast. Fortunes have shifted. Vegas odds have been adjusted. Biden had been a zombie walking towards what some predicted would be a Mondale-esque defeat. Harris gives Democrats a fighting chance, and the voters are ecstatic.

The other shoe will drop. Soon. Even Harris acknowledged as much. “She is not blinded by the sugar,” one Harris aide told POLITICO. “She understands the gravity and excitement of the moment but also understands the work that needs to be done.”

Namely, Harris needs to use the critical three weeks before the Democratic National Convention to sustain her newfound momentum, expand her appeal further, and capture swing states.

A new Kamala? 

Not long ago, Democrats were asking themselves whether Biden’s ticket was suffering from dead weight at the bottom of the ticket; whether Kamala Harris had the appeal or the ability to boost Biden’s reelection chances, or whether instead she was a glaring liability.

Some Democrats, even allies of the Vice President, proposed privately that Harris needed to be dropped from the ticket. When Biden announced that Harris would indeed be his running mate, many questioned the wisdom of his decision.

Obviously, the contrast between that Harris – the one that might be a political liability – and this Harris – the one that is enjoying cult-like status – is unprecedently stark.

Chances are strong that Harris will revert back towards the mean, as one tends to do. The new cultlike status is likely unsustainable, at least at its current fever pitch, because one, the status is more about the Biden-dropping-out circumstances than anything Harris has done, and two, Harris lacks the Obama-like charisma to sustain her own cult of personality.

Expect gravity to take hold before Harris achieves escape velocity – especially given that the entire GOP will now be pivoting their attention toward maligning the once deeply unpopular Vice President.

A New Target

Republicans will do what they can to deride Harris and remind voters how unpopular she was just a few short weeks ago.

“Kamala Harris is just as incompetent as Joe Biden and even more liberal,” Trump campaign staffer Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO. “Not only does Kamala need to defend her support of Joe Biden’s failed agenda over the past four years, she also needs to answer for her own terrible weak-on-crime record in California. A vote for Kamala is a vote to continue inflation, open borders, high has prices, and war around the world.”

Then, of course, you have Donald Trump himself. Trump has a talent for sniffing out a political opponent’s weakness, rebranding them with a crippling nickname (Crooked Hillary Clinton. Lyin’ Ted Cruz. Low Energy Jeb Bush), and recasting them as an unserious choice – it may be Trump’s most significant political talent. Expect Trump to entirely shift his attention to Harris in the next few days.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Paris Summer Olympic Games opened in a dazzling ceremony on the Seine, featuring international athletes and performances despite the rain. Notably absent were Russia and Belarus, banned from the event, with some athletes competing under a neutral flag. In contrast, Russia's Navy Day Parade in St. Petersburg, attended by President Vladimir Putin, was scaled down due to security concerns, featuring just twenty surface ships, four sailing craft, and a submarine.

-The muted parade highlighted ongoing security issues, as the focus remained on the conflict in Ukraine. This year's event was a stark contrast to last year's more impressive display.

Russia's Navy Day Parade: Day Not Exactly What It Was 

On Friday, the eyes of the world were on Paris, France – even a steady rain couldn't damper the energy at the opening ceremonies of the Summer Olympic Games. From the parade of international athletes waving to crowds from boats cruising down the romantic River Seine to dramatic performances harkening back to French history, the spectacle of the City of Lights exudes a certain je ne sais quoi that was truly unforgettable.

As the rain-soaked, smiling Olympians passed by the cameras and flashing lights, some nations seemed to be absent from this treasured international event. Among the nations not present this year were Russia and its close ally Belarus, who were banned from attending. While a handful of Russian and Belarusian athletes have been allowed to compete, they must do so under a neutral flag – and were not allowed to attend the parade on the Seine.

Russia's Navy Day Parade Was a Muted Affair 

Russian officials have been silent on the matter and instead opted to focus on its own river parade in St. Petersburg – namely the annual Navy Day Parade, which is held on the last Sunday of July. The event has been greatly scaled back – with this year's main parade canceled, reportedly out of security concerns. Yet, Russian state media still attempted to hype the event to Olympic proportions.

"A naval parade involving cutting-edge combat ships and gunboats, a submarine and sailing vessels began on the Neva River in St. Petersburg to celebrate Russia's Navy Day," TASS reported, further noting that the momentous occasion was attended by Russian President, Supreme Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Putin, who reviewed the procession of warships.

Why So Small? 

Was the parade of proud Russian war machines as “Olympic” as state media proclaimed? Surprisingly, this was the smallest such Navy Day event since it was reinstated in 2017, involving just twenty surface ships, gunboats, four sailing craft, and a single submarine. These were small vessels that the Kremlin could afford to recall back to the homeland for ceremony, while the rest of the Baltic Fleet remained moored far from the Neva River.

The flotilla of ships in the parade included the Project 12700 coastal minesweeper Alexander Obukhov, as well as the Project 21631 missile corvettes Grad, Naro-Fominsk, Grad Sviyazhsk, and Serpukhov. The Project 22800 Karakurt-class missile corvette Odintsovo, the Project 20380 missile corvette Boiky, the Project 23550 icebreaking patrol ship Ivan Papanin and the Project 636.3 Varshavyanka-class large diesel-electric submarine Mozhaisk also made an appearance.

This was a stark contrast to last year, when a more impressive display of forty-five ships of all sizes, plus nuclear-powered submarines and some 3,000 military personnel, took part in the parade. This year's event also included a few notable choices, highlighting the evident ongoing security concerns.

"A group of anti-saboteur boats opened the Main Naval Parade on the Neva River. The anti-saboteur boats Nakhimovets and Yunarmeyets Tatarstana sailed along the Neva River. The Project 11770 amphibious assault craft Alexey Barinov traditionally carried a replica of Tsar Peter the Great's botik (boat)," TASS further reported.

Approximately 2,500 Russian naval infantry troops marched at the foot columns at Senate Square in St. Petersburg at the conclusion of the parade, continuing the theme of diminished assets that the military can display, as their focus is still centered on the conflict in Ukraine.

Only a handful of foreign vessels were present this year, a far less stimulating on the Neva River than what went down on the Seine. It included the Algerian Navy training ship Soummam, the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) guided missile destroyer Jiaozuo, and the Indian Navy's frigate Tabar. The presence of the latter two vessels was noteworthy for the fact – that apart from being from two nations that are currently in an arms race with one another – each was larger than Russia's own warships in the parade.

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. 

The EU’s Medicines Agency (EMA) rejects market authorisation for early intervention Alzheimer’s treatment Leqembi (lecanemab) due to concerns over side-effects.

Summary and Key Points: Throughout history, warships have played pivotal roles in shaping world events and asserting naval dominance. This top 10 list highlights the greatest warships ever built, from the Carthaginian Quadrireme, which showcased advanced naval engineering, to the USS Johnston, known for its heroic stand at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

-Each warship, including Zheng He’s Treasure Ships and HMS Victory, reflects a unique blend of technological innovation and strategic importance.

-These vessels not only changed the course of battles but also left lasting legacies in naval history, demonstrating the evolution of maritime warfare from ancient times to modern conflicts.

Presenting the Top 10 Warships of All Time

World history has been defined by the ability of man to travel across vast distances.  

Until the dawn of airpower, the mighty warship allowed for these great expeditions. History is replete with famous—or, in some cases, infamous—warships. 

While certainly not exhaustive, this top ten list will take you through what this author believes are the greatest warships that ever sailed.

10. Carthaginian Quadrireme

The Carthaginians were likely the greatest naval power of the Mediterranean Sea in the ancient world. Their navy was more advanced than even the larger Roman Empire to their north. In fact, the Roman Empire, a mostly land-based power, recognized the sophistication of the Carthaginian navy and strove to crush it, realizing that Carthage was the only group standing between Rome and total dominion over the Mediterranean. 

Many have read about the ancient Greek triremes, but few may be aware that the Carthaginians perfected this design with the quadrireme. 

These boats had four rows of oars on each side, allowing for greater speed and power compared to triremes. These boats could also carry more marines and equipment for naval combat. When Rome captured some of the Carthaginian quadriremes during the First Punic War between the two powers, they reverse-engineered the boat, which in turn allowed for the larger Rome to clone Carthaginian capabilities and ultimately defeat the Carthaginians.

9. Zheng He’s Treasure Ships

Chinese Admiral Zheng He, operating under orders from the Ming emperor, led a series of missions consisting of 300 gigantic wooden warships. These great ships went from China down to India, over to the Persian Gulf, and even making it as far south as East Africa, long before Europeans ventured there. The fleet achieved its goal of “increasing the prestige of China and its emperor overseas.” 

This fleet consisted of warships that were five-masted and six-masted troop transports, as well as six-to-seven masted transports carrying grain, horses, and water. They featured divided hulls with several watertight compartments, too.  

Sadly for Zheng He, despite the magnificent success of his voyages, his chief benefactor, the Ming emperor, died and was succeeded by court Mandarins—bureaucrats—who resented Zheng He. Their goal was to turn China inward, away from the world. All that hard work that Zheng had put into his voyages, all the resources spent on building the greatest fleet that the world had ever seen—and it was at the time of its creation—was for naught. 

The ships were mothballed, their mission ended, and Zheng He fell out of favor with the court. But he showed the world just what great ships could do.  

8. Koxinga’s Junk

In 1662, the Japanese pirate known as Koxinga (or Cheng Cheng-kung) led a resistance against the ruling Chinese dynasty at the time, as well as against the Dutch East India Trading Company’s presence on Formosa (modern Taiwan). In need of a new base, Koxinga strove to dislodge the Dutch presence on Formosa. No one had dared take on the technologically superior Dutch. But Koxinga had a plan. Part of his plan involved the use of Chinese sailing ships known as “Junks.” 

Koxinga was brutal, and he especially loathed the superior and haughty Dutch who had encamped on the island redoubt he dreamed of using for his own purposes. No one believed Koxinga, with his rag-tag force, could dare to take on the might of the Dutch East India Company’s military power. But he did, and his fleet of Junks, though smaller than the warships that the Dutch deployed, were greater in number and used their maneuverability and smaller size to get in close to the Dutch warships and engage in swarming tactics. 

In a stunning turnaround, Koxinga evicted the Dutch and humiliated the powerful Europeans. The 1662 Sino-Dutch War for control over Taiwan should be required learning for American strategists today, who believe that China yearns to control Taiwan (they do) but cannot take it because of a lack of proper seapower. The Dutch said the same thing about Koxinga. His rag-tag fleet proved them all wrong.

7. SMS Emden

When one thinks of the First World War, they think of the brutal trench warfare that defined the Western Front. But an interesting fight erupted along the periphery of the war, in the Asia-Pacific. 

Germany held a port in China as a concession. From that port operated Admiral Maximilian von Spee’s East Asia Squadron, consisting of heavily armored and armed cruisers that the British had taken to calling “pocket battleships.” While the entire squadron was legendary in its own right, one warship in the group stands out. That is SMS Emden.

Led into combat by the elegant and dashing Commander Karl von Muller, this small German cruiser of 3,600 tons displacement, with two masts and three funnels, armed with ten 4.1-inch and eight 5-pounder guns, as well as two submerged torpedo tubes, turned out to be a decisive actor against Allied forces and shipping throughout the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Separating herself from the East Asian Squadron and taking on the Allies at sea on her own, this warship became the stuff of legends in the press both in Germany and throughout the Allied nations. 

Writing in 1915 of her exploits, U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander Lyman A. Cotton explained that, “German ports of any character were few and far between, being located at widely divergent points in the South Sea Islands. Thus the prospect for a small German cruiser at sea in the Pacific did not seem very favorable for accomplishing anything to injure or embarrass her enemies, which by this time included four nations possessing powerful navies—England, Russia, Japan, and France. On all sides her enemies had ships, naval p-orts and commercial ports ready and capable of naval use, while the little Emden had only her bunkers full of coal, her speed of 25 knots, her determination to accomplish something, and such facilities as the high seas afforded.”

Nevertheless, Emden captured multiple ships belonging to enemy fleets and garnered a fearsome reputation as a true raider. Ultimately, she was cornered on a small island in the South Pacific by the Royal Australian Navy warship, HMAS Sydney. Most of her crew was captured on North Keeling Island after the crippled warship was beached by her skipper, Herr Muller. Although they ended in debacle, Emden’s exploits are worth remembering. Because both she and the rest of her East Asia Squadron did more to complicate the efforts of the Allies than most other German feints had. If Japan had not entered the war against Germany, it is likely that the East Asian Squadron would have been even deadlier than it was.

6. HMS Victory

This beast was Admiral Horatio Nelson’s flagship at the decisive Battle of Trafalgar, in which Britain’s Royal Navy knocked Napoleon’s navy out of the Napoleonic Wars for good. Built and completed in 1765 (and still in commission today, more than 259 years later), Victory is docked at Portsmouth Historic Dockyard. This ship was clearly built to last. It was one of the larger warships of its era, coming in at 227 feet and carrying a whopping 104 guns among her three decks. 

Victory is the embodiment of both her era and the man who ultimately commanded her during her greatest victory over Britain’s most significant enemy to that time. The warship is entwined with Nelson’s heroism and swashbuckling attitude. It was on HMS Victory that Nelson hoisted his famous flag signal that read, “England expects that every man will do his duty.” This became a rallying call for the British. Oddly enough, Napoleon, when he had learned of the flag signal, ordered that every French warship be festooned with a variation which read, “La France compte que chacun fera son devoir” (or, “France expects that everyone will do his duty.”) 

Admittedly, like much of the French naval effort during the Napoleonic Wars, this slogan comes across as a cheap knockoff of the proper English version. 

Ultimately, Victory outlasted her famous commanding officer. Nelson was fatally shot aboard the warship during its penultimate stand at Trafalgar. To this day, no one is certain which French sailor got the kill-shot on Nelson, although several British veterans claimed to have shot Nelson’s killer afterward. Regardless, Nelson’s leadership ended Napoleon’s quest to become what Nelson described as the “George Washington of France.” 

5. Ville de Paris

Ville de Paris was considered a first-rate ship-of-the-line for the French Navy. She was the flagship of the French naval forces assigned to assist American revolutionaries during the Revolutionary War against the British Empire. This warship presided over bruising defeats of the otherwise dominant British fleet. In fact, for many of the French sailors, their campaign to aid the American revolutionaries was a bit of payback for having lost their North American empire to the British a decade before, in the French and Indian War (known in Europe as the Seven Years’ War). 

She was completed in 1764, too late to serve in the Seven Years’ War. This boat was a 90-gun first rate and one of the first three-deckers to be completed for the French Navy since the 1720s. Indeed, by the time the Revolutionary War had erupted in America, she would become the most important warship keeping the American revolutionaries in the fight. Had it not been for the French and Spanish fleets, the American revolution would have been crushed by untrammeled British seapower. 

In 1778, Ville de Paris fought at the Battle of Ushant, an indecisive battle waged 100 miles off the coast of the French island of Ushant along the mouth of the English Channel. 

Engagements like this, however, kept the British fleet bogged down and spread thin. 

Ultimately, the storied warship was lost with all hands (save one crewmember) in battle with the British. 

4. USS New Jersey

The U.S. Navy was a battleship navy for decades before making the switch to the aircraft carrier. A number of American battleships made waves in the Second World War. USS New Jersey is one such battlewagon. In fact, it is the most decorated battleship in U.S. Navy history. She fought in every U.S. conflict from WWII to Desert Storm. 

Coming in at nearly 888 feet long and displacing a whopping 57,540 tons at full load, this warship is one of America’s finest ever built. The “Big J” shelled targets on Okinawa and Guam. It clobbered the hell out of the North Koreans, too, during the Korean War. Possessing an arsenal of nine, 16-inch/50 caliber Mark 7 guns, twenty 5-inch/38 caliber guns mounted in twin-gun dual purpose turrets, and an array of Oerlikon 20 mm and Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, this battlewagon was unstoppable. 

File this under “they don’t build ‘em like they used to.”

3. USS Enterprise (CV-6)

This was, quite frankly, the greatest aircraft carrier ever. “The Big E,” or “Gray Ghost,” as she was affectionately known by her crews, was the most decorated and legendary aircraft carrier of World War II. Belonging to the Yorktown class of carriers, Enterprise was instrumental in multiple battles that defined the outcome of WWII’s Pacific Theater. 

This boat was instrumental at the Battle of Midway, which most historians believe was the turning point in the war that ensured the United States would come out victorious. Enterprise’s airwing was responsible for sinking an astonishing three Japanese aircraft carriers at this battle, as well as an additional cruiser. 

Enterprise was damaged at the Battles of the Eastern Solomon Islands and Santa Cruz Islands. Each time, she persevered and inflicted greater harm than she received. 

There was a reason the veterans who served aboard this legendary flattop fought vehemently with the United States government to convert it into a museum at the war’s end.

Instead, this boat was mothballed after the war and sold for scrap. To this day, she is fondly remembered by naval historians and the few World War II veterans who remain alive. 

2. USS Lawrence

During the War of 1812, really merely a continuation of America’s Revolutionary War, the British and their American cousins went at it again. This time the strategic picture was much bleaker for the nascent American republic. The White House, along with the rest of Washington, D.C., had been burned by the marauding British. A famous American slogan that erupted from the end of the war was “neither an inch gained nor ceded!” Considering the damage the war inflicted upon the United States, that seems hardly like a worthwhile conflict.

But, as with all wars, there were still heroes. And the platforms they utilized to achieve hero status are remembered as much as the men who rose to prominence. One of them was USS Lawrence under the command of Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry. He commanded a U.S. Navy squadron on Lake Erie. Perry’s mission was to ensure that Lake Erie became a totally U.S.-dominated zone. Lawrence was Perry’s flagship.

Lawrence’s big day occurred on September 10, 1813. In the early morning of that day, Perry spotted a squadron of British Royal Navy warships off of Lake Erie’s Rattlesnake Island. Commodore Perry is described as “brazenly ordering his man to set sail and engage the British immediately.” Perry’s group had a gust of favorable wind, allowing for the American squadron—led by Lawrence—to attack the British head-on. In the ensuing battle, Lawrence was crippled by the British warship HMS Detroit. Lawrence was abandoned mid-battle, with Perry transferring his flag to USS Niagara.

With his battle flag fluttering in the wind (which read “Don’t Give Up the Ship”), Perry won the battle from Niagara. But he transferred back to the crippled Lawrence, where he received the commanding officer of the British squadron and accepted his surrender. Famously, Perry sent a letter to William Henry Harrison saying, “We have met the enemy and they are ours.” On top of the surviving American warships, Perry took with him the captured British ships—including two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop. 

It was Lawrence, though, that had made this victory possible. And Perry understood this. That is why he demanded that the British surrender on Lawrence rather than Niagara.

1. USS Johnston (DD-557)

Named after U.S. Navy Lieutenant John V. Johnston, an officer who served in the American Civil War, Johnston was built in 1942 and launched a year later under the command of Lieutenant Commander Ernest “Big Chief” Evans (Evans was a descendant of Native Americans from Oklahoma). It was a Fletcher-class destroyer that fought in the Pacific Theater of the Second World War. Johnston was the beneficiary of newer designs bigger in size than its sister ships in the Fletcher class. This allowed for more anti-aircraft guns, electronic equipment, and their operators to be on the ship without losing its offensive potential. 

This was a relatively small boat compared to the kinds of warships one thinks of when they think back to the Second World War. She possessed four Babcock & Wilcox boilers and could hit a top cruising speed of roughly 44 miles per hour. This boat had a range of about 7,500 miles and carried around 273 sailors onboard. 

From the moment that he assumed command, Evans told his crew, “This is going to be a fighting ship. I intend to go in harm’s way, and anyone who doesn’t want to go along had better get off right now.” His crew was fiercely loyal, and they would follow him to the gates of hell on more than one occasion, including in the final, greatest battle the warship ever partook in.

Indeed, Johnston would play a pivotal role in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in the Philippines, during what historians have since come to call the “Battle off Samar.” That day, Johnston and six other destroyers were performing escort duty for a handful of small-deck escort carriers that were protecting the Marine landings on the Leyte beachhead. Johnston detected a massive Japanese Imperial Navy flotilla that was supposed to have been moving away from the island, but in fact, had come to attack the beachhead. This flotilla included the largest battleship ever built, Yamato.

The aircraft carriers were the prize the Japanese wanted to catch. Without those carriers, the Marine landings would be over, and the island would again belong to the Japanese. 

Not waiting for orders, Evans engaged in a suicidal torpedo run at the larger Japanese force. Three other destroyers followed Johnston into the fray. Shockingly, Evans’ gambit worked. Johnston drew fire away from the carriers, taking a pounding from the Japanese flotilla. Firing all ten of Johnston’s torpedoes (and hundreds of rounds from its 5-inch gun), the ship sank a Japanese heavy cruiser while providing cover for the other destroyers to launch their torpedoes.

Three hours would go by until the tiny Johnston would buckle under the sustained assault from the Japanese flotilla. But not before the Japanese commanders assumed they were up against a much larger American force and backed down. The Japanese failure to take advantage of the weakened American state permanently ended the Imperial Japanese Navy’s ability to go on the offensive for the duration of the war. 

Johnston was lost with 186 members still onboard, including Evans. But the impact of that storied ship makes it the greatest warship of all time. Its decisive role at Leyte Gulf may have helped to end the war when it did. And we know Evans’ actions that day saved the lives of countless Marines and the carriers that were defending them (despite one of those carriers being sunk).

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 F-15SE Silent Eagle, developed by Boeing in 2009, was an advanced variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle, designed to compete with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II. It boasted stealth features, including canted vertical stabilizers and conformal fuel tanks, reducing radar cross section and increasing range.

-Equipped with advanced avionics, sensors, and weapons systems, it could perform multiple mission sets. Despite its lower cost and impressive capabilities, South Korea opted for the F-35, leading to the Silent Eagle's discontinuation.

-This decision left a gap in affordable, stealthy fourth-generation fighters, potentially limiting the diversification of modern air combat capabilities.

Why the F-15SE Silent Eagle Failed to Fly

The F-15SE Silent Eagle, developed by Boeing in 2009, was an advanced variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle, designed to compete with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II.

It boasted stealth features, including canted vertical stabilizers and conformal fuel tanks, reducing radar cross section and increasing range. Equipped with advanced avionics, sensors, and weapons systems, it could perform multiple mission sets. Despite its lower cost and impressive capabilities, South Korea opted for the F-35, leading to the Silent Eagle's discontinuation.

This decision left a gap in affordable, stealthy fourth-generation fighters, potentially limiting the diversification of modern air combat capabilities.

The F-15SE Silent Eagle: What Should Have Been

The F-15SE Silent Eagle was a proposed all-weather multirole strike fighter developed by Boeing. A variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle, the aircraft was first conceptualized in 2009. It was supposed to pull business away from Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II by offering a cheaper but still stealthy warplane.

While still a fourth-generation aircraft, the Silent Eagle’s stealth capabilities were beyond anything its F-15 siblings could offer. A number of features would have reduced its radar cross section and improved its survivability in contested airspace. 

The Specs for the F-15SE 

Possessing advanced avionics, sensors, and weapons systems, the Silent Eagle was designed for a variety of important mission sets. 

It could arm a variety of air-to-air missiles, including the AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM. Air-to-ground munitions included the Joint Direct Attack Munition and Small Diameter Bomb. The bird would have carried AGM-84 Harpoon missiles as well as AGM-65 Mavericks. 

The Silent Eagle would have flown with external fuel tanks for extended range. These Conformal Fuel Tanks increased the aircraft’s internal fuel capacity. The stealthy warbird would have possessed vertical stabilizers that were canted outward at 15 degrees. (All other F-15 models have perfectly parallel stabilizers.)

These stabilizers reduced radar cross section, but they also increased its range by 75–100 miles over the jet’s non-stealthy predecessors. 

The aircraft was to feature a Digital Electronic Warfare suite for electronic attack and protection. The Silent Eagle had Infrared Search and Track for passive detection and tracking of enemy aircraft. Advanced countermeasures dispensers for chaff and flares were included. An F-15 Silent Eagle would have packed a powerful radar system for enhanced situational awareness and electronic warfare capabilities. 

South Korea Almost Bought the F-15SE Silent Eagle

The South Korean Air Force considered purchasing these birds in 2009 at $100 million per unit (as opposed to the F-35 at $176 million per unit). Ultimately, however, South Korea went with the pricier, fifth-generation warplane. 

South Korea is a medium power, and Seoul now seeks to build its own indigenous warplane, the KF-21. It might have just made more sense to purchase a tranche of the F-15 Silent Eagles. Their capabilities would have been impressive. They come from an established global supply chain. They’re advanced, but not so complex that it would be a catastrophe to lose or damage one in combat. 

Seoul went with the fifth-generation bird. Because of that, we never got to see a stealthy variant of the ubiquitous American F-15. Too bad. It might have helped plug some significant gaps in America’s overall defense.

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?)

The Committee on Foreign Affairs elected it's Bureau on 23 July 2024 during its constitutive meeting. David McAllister (EPP, Germany) was re-elected Chair of the Committee. He is joined in the Bureau by Hana Jalloul Muro (S&D, Spain) as First Vice-Chair, Urmas Paet (Renew, Estonia) as Second Vice-Chair, Alberico Gambino (ECR, Italy) as Third Vice-Chair and Ioan-Rareş Bogdan (EPP, Romania) as Fourth Vice-Chair (elected in absentia).
Taking the floor following his election, David McAllister stressed the need for AFET to start its work as quickly as possible in this time of high geopolitical tensions: "The European Union needs to maintain a strong transatlantic relationship, strengthen the European pillar within NATO, continue its support of Ukraine in its fight against the Russian war of aggression and contain Chinese influence. We need to put continued emphasis on the necessity of European enlargement. The Foreign Affairs Committee has an important role to play in all of those tasks. I will continue to work hard to ensure that all Members have the opportunity to contribute to this endeavour".
Press release
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

The Committee on Foreign Affairs elected it's Bureau on 23 July 2024 during its constitutive meeting. David McAllister (EPP, Germany) was re-elected Chair of the Committee. He is joined in the Bureau by Hana Jalloul Muro (S&D, Spain) as First Vice-Chair, Urmas Paet (Renew, Estonia) as Second Vice-Chair, Alberico Gambino (ECR, Italy) as Third Vice-Chair and Ioan-Rareş Bogdan (EPP, Romania) as Fourth Vice-Chair (elected in absentia).
Taking the floor following his election, David McAllister stressed the need for AFET to start its work as quickly as possible in this time of high geopolitical tensions: "The European Union needs to maintain a strong transatlantic relationship, strengthen the European pillar within NATO, continue its support of Ukraine in its fight against the Russian war of aggression and contain Chinese influence. We need to put continued emphasis on the necessity of European enlargement. The Foreign Affairs Committee has an important role to play in all of those tasks. I will continue to work hard to ensure that all Members have the opportunity to contribute to this endeavour".
Press release
Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Summary and Key Points: Britain faces an identity crisis, attempting to maintain global military influence despite economic constraints. The costly Future Combat Air System (FCAS) program exemplifies this struggle. Instead of investing in an uncertain and expensive new system, Britain should consider restarting the F-22 Raptor production line with the United States.

-The F-22, though prematurely cut by the Obama administration, remains the world's most advanced air superiority fighter.

-Partnering to produce more F-22s would provide Britain with a superior warplane at a potentially lower cost and strengthen collective defense capabilities, aligning better with Britain's financial and strategic realities.

Forget FCAS! Britain Should Help Restart the F-22 Production Line

Britain is going through an identity crisis. In fact, they’ve been having one since 1945. Their empire is gone. A nation that long defined itself by leadership of a globe-spanning empire has had great difficulty coming back to Earth as just another medium-sized power in a world that is not run according to its preferences. 

Brexit, while an important step for the nationalist-populist movement sweeping across so much of the developed world, did not help to allay the identity crisis. 

The British economy cannot support an imperial military the way it once did. Nevertheless, London has persisted in its commitment to become a primary world military power again. 

They’re investing in the systems designed to accomplish this task. Well, they’re trying to invest in those systems.

Creating Wasting Assets

Britain has two modern aircraft carriers. But operating these behemoths is a challenge. In fact, the British have struggled repairing HMS Queen Elizabeth after it suffered a freakish onboard fire. This has created a significant capability gap in the Royal Navy. 

To pay for these monstrosities, by the way, the Royal Navy had to mothball several other ships that it could have used, and it needed to redirect finite resources away from platforms that were cheaper and might have given Britain greater leverage over its enemies.

Now comes the Future Combat Air System (FCAS). The Royal Air Force is trying to build a “systems of systems,” and emulate the U.S. Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. 

The NGAD is replete with problems. So, too, is the British program.

The FCAS faces budgetary woes. It’s simply too expensive. Especially because it’s not just a plane, it’s an entire ecosystem of next-generation, era-busting aerospace and computer technologies. 

Such wonder weapons are a fanciful dream, especially considering the dire financial and economic straits facing Western nations. Britain itself is a tiny country with finite resources. It cannot complete such a herculean project.

Britain Should Stick with the Fifth-Generation Warplane

The British have already purchased a tranche of the American-designed F-35 Lightning II fifth-generation warplane. Trying to reinvent the wheel, as the NGAD and FCAS programs attempt to do, when there are plenty of excellent and advanced warplanes available for purchase, is a waste of limited resources and time. 

If Britain is really looking to build something new, they should look to something slightly older than the FCAS: the F-22 Raptor.

Here is the world’s most advanced air superiority fighter, cut down in its prime by a shortsighted Obama administration. Every expert has assessed that the F-22 remains the world’s most powerful warplane and will be for many years to come. 

But there are too few F-22s, because the Obama administration killed the production line in 2009. If Britain really wanted to be a pal and to ensure the ideal of collective defense in the air lives on between the U.S. and UK, then they would help restart the F-22 production line.

In the long run, it would be cheaper and more effective – and still allow Britain to have an advanced warplane capability. 

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?)

Measures the new EU Commission will set out for insurers in the second half of the year risk thwarting policymakers’ efforts to boost Europe’s competitiveness and private funding capacity if not re-calibrated differently, the sector has warned.

Regions cannot authorise the hunting of wolves if their population numbers are still low at the national level, as is the case in Spain's Castilla Leon region, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said on Monday (29 July), weeks after upholding strict protection measures in Austria.

Malnutrition is rising in northern Nigeria, with many families struggling to feed their children.

Summary and Key Points: The USS George Washington (CVN-73) has completed its midlife refueling and overhaul and is heading to Japan as the U.S. Navy’s forward-deployed aircraft carrier. However, the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) may face a Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) extending beyond five years. Meanwhile, the USS Boxer (LHD-4), a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship, recently returned to service following rudder repairs but will undergo significant maintenance next spring, potentially lasting 18 months.

-Despite these issues, the USS Boxer earned seven Navy-wide awards for sustained superior performance, highlighting its resilience and operational excellence amidst ongoing challenges.

The Navy's Aircraft Carriers Challenges 

The United States Navy has a new problem involving one of its aircraft carriers. After an extended midlife refueling and overhaul, the USS George Washington (CVN-73) is now finally on her way to Japan, where she will become the sea service's forward-deployed aircraft carrier. The troubles with the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier are over, but the U.S. Navy is expecting that her sister vessel, USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74), could face a Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) that will extend to more than five years.

Another issue is impacting another carrier – namely the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD-4). What makes this notable is that the vessel, only returned to service earlier this month following an emergency rudder repair. The flattop was deployed on April 1 but was forced to return to San Diego Bay just 10 days later to deal with the problems.

"Following a successful operational test of its rudders, the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD-4) and embarked elements of the 15 Marine Expeditionary Unit departed San Diego, conducting pre-deployment training and operations in U.S. 3rd Fleet," the U.S. Navy said in a statement to USNI News earlier this month. "It remains on schedule for an Indo-Pacific deployment."

Is The Boxer Going Down For the Count?

In recent years, the 843-foot-long warship has spent more time undergoing repairs than actually on deployment – and while LHD-4 is finally en route to the Indo-Pacific, the amphibious assault ship will be forced to undergo more significant repairs next spring.

The U.S. Navy hasn't said what kind of further repairs are required, nor did it say where the work will be carried out, but it was reported that USS Boxer could be pierside for as long as 18 months.

The U.S. Navy released a solicitation notice on May 17 that sought contractors capable of conducting maintenance on the vessel – and it noted the work could begin in April 2025 and run through October 2026. The sea service has sought "a highly capable contractor with substantial human resources capable of completing, coordinating and integrating multiple areas of ship maintenance, repair, and modernization," while the anticipated scope of the procurement includes all labor, supervision, production, testing, and quality assurance necessary to prepare for and accomplish this CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) Availability."

The solicitation called for the work to be completed on the West Coast, which may be necessary given that LHD-4 is homeported in San Diego, California.

"Given that this Availability will be greater than 10 months in duration, the Navy would compete the acquisition on a coast–wide basis (West), without limiting the place of performance to the ship's homeport," the U.S. Navy stated.

It would seem that the problem isn't so great that the current deployment needs to be further delayed; yet, it may be significant enough that the vessel will be out of service for a year-a-half. The issues aren't entirely new either.

As Breaking Defense reported, USS Boxer has suffered a plethora of problems, including engine component failures and now the rudder mishap.

The sea service can ill afford to have the amphibious assault ship down for such an extended period, especially after it was forced to scrap USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6), following a fire that broke out while the ship was undergoing maintenance at Naval Base San Diego in July 2020.

Honored Warship

USS Boxer is the fourth Wasp-class LHD. She was constructed by Ingalls Shipbuilding at Pascagoula, Mississippi, and was commissioned in February 1995.

Despite the maintenance issues, in March, the United States Navy announced that USS Boxer earned seven Navy-wide awards for sustained superior performance. That included the Battle Effectiveness Award; the Maritime Warfare Excellence Award; the Command, Control, Communications and Information Warfare Excellence Award; the Logistics Management Excellence Award; the Self Sufficiency Award; the Force Health and Wellness Unit Award or Green 'H'; and the Captain Edward F. Ney Memorial Food Service Award.

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. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy is exploring modifications to its Virginia-class submarines to enhance seabed warfare capabilities. This comes as underwater infrastructure, such as cables and pipelines, faces increased threats, highlighted by last year's Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.

-Currently, the USS Jimmy Carter, a highly modified Seawolf-class submarine, performs such specialized tasks, equipped with unique features like the "Multi-Mission Platform" for special operations and seabed missions.

-While the Virginia-class Block V variant may introduce advanced seabed capabilities, the Jimmy Carter remains a critical asset in safeguarding underwater infrastructure and conducting covert operations.

Meet the USS Jimmy Carter

A report published by The Drive indicates that a modified Virginia-class submarine variant capable of carrying out seabed warfare might be in the midst. Over the last decade or so, underwater cables, infrastructure and other networks have grown exponentially. Considering seabed attacks are very challenging to defend against, the potential for attacks under water pose a significant threat. In September of last year, a series of bombings and subsequent gas leaks damaged the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natural gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea. This sabotage and the consequences surrounding it highlight the role seabed warfare may play in future conflicts.

While a specially modified Block V Virginia-class submarine aimed at defending U.S. underwater infrastructure would provide an instrumental asset to the Navy, the service already sails an SSN built for these types of tasks. The USS Jimmy Carter is a highly modified variant of the formidable Seawolf class of submarines.

A brief history of the Seawolf-class

During the height of the Cold War, America and the former-USSR were embroiled in a grueling arms race. Both nations were working hard to achieve Naval superiority over the other. In an effort to contend with the Soviet’s ballistic missile and attack submarines, including the Typhoon-class and the Akula-class, U.S. engineers designed the Seawolf SSNs. The Seawolf vessels were developed to replace the aging Los Angeles-class submarines, which were less advanced than its Soviet counterpart in terms of acoustic strength. By the late 1980’s, the Navy began constructing its new class of submarines in hopes of restoring its edge over the Soviets.

Production time on the Seawolf was lengthy, and by the time the new submarine was commissioned in 1997 the geopolitical landscape had altered quite a bit. For this reason, the number of Seawolf boats expected to be built decreased from 29 to just 12. The ship’s whopping price tag of over $3 billion per vessel also hindered additional submarines from being constructed. Ultimately, only three Seawolf-class submarines were ever launched.

The USS Seawolf (SSN-21) was the first vessel in the class to be constructed. Built by the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics and Newport News Shipbuilding, the new submarine was officially launched in 1995.

During the boat’s trial period, the Seawolf proved to achieve unprecedented speed. Three years later, the Connecticut (SSN-22) was commissioned and followed closely by the Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) in 2004. 

Specs and capabilities

Designed to destroy Soviet ballistic missile submarines before they could locate and target U.S. cities and military installations, the Seawolf-class SSNs immediately became the mainstay of the Navy’s underwater arsenal. The new submarines were equipped with a modular design that enabled future upgrades such as ordnance development of sonar systems to be easily incorporated. Two turbines rated 52,000 hp, a single shaft, a pumpjet propulsor and a GE PWR S6W reactor helped make the Seawolf-class vessels so powerful.

All vessels were constructed out of high-strength steel to enable the ships to dive as deep as 490 meters beneath the sea-level. Additionally, the SSNs hosted a S6W pressurized water reactor which allowed the subs to travel at a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour.

Weapons-wise, all three Seawolf-class vessels could pack a punch. An eight-tube, double-deck torpedo room allowed the vessels to engage multiple targets simultaneously. In comparison, the class’ Los Angeles predecessors could only sport half this number of torpedo tubes. The three Seawolf vessels have recently undergone facelifts and now feature a Lockheed Martin AN/BQQ-10 (V4) sonar processing system.

What makes the USS Jimmy Carter special?

While all three Seawolf-class submarines are sophisticated vessels, the USS Jimmy Carter hosts several modifications differentiating it from its peers. In fact, the Jimmy Carter’s capabilities are so unique that some industry experts consider it to be its own class of submarines.

Due to the ship’s “Multi-Mission Platform,” the Jimmy Carter is around 100 feet longer than the USS Connecticut and USS Seawolf counterparts. This platform allows the vessel to engage in special operations, including the deployment of Navy SEALS or seabed missions. According to Popular Mechanics, “Because of the USS Jimmy Carter’s advanced stealth and unique troop-deployment bay, it is considered the most dangerous submarine currently carrying out missions.”

Although a new Virginia-class Block V variant could feature more advanced seabed capabilities, the USS Jimmy Carter’s unique operations over the years should not be discounted.

About the Author: Defense Expert 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. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Britain's new Dreadnought-class SSBNs are essential for maintaining its nuclear deterrent, set to replace the aging Vanguard-class submarines. Designed to carry Trident II/D5 ballistic missiles, these nuclear-powered subs will feature advanced sensors, increased autonomy, and artificial intelligence.

-Despite economic challenges and competing defense priorities, Britain must invest in more than the planned four Dreadnought-class subs to ensure robust defense capabilities in the Atlantic.

-By focusing on submarines rather than aircraft carriers, Britain can enhance its naval strength and strategic deterrence, addressing threats closer to home while maintaining a potent maritime presence.

Britain Needs to Get Behind Its Dreadnought-class SSBN

The Dreadnought class is a new generation of ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) being developed for the British Royal Navy. 

The lead boat in the class, HMS Dreadnought, is currently under construction. The class is intended to replace the existing force of Vanguard-class SSBNs that have been in service since the 1990s, and it will carry the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons deterrent. 

It is expected that Dreadnought will enter service in the early 2030s.

Britain has sought to replace its aging Vanguard-class submarine force since 2011, when the Dreadnought class was first announced.

Currently, the UK intends to build just four of these submarines, likely because the British military is a shadow of its former glory. Further, whatever funds the British military had at its disposal were likely blown on aircraft carrier vanity projects over the last decade. 

Indeed, the Dreadnought-class submarines would have been a much better investment by Britain’s Ministry of Defense than were Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.

What Can the Dreadnought-class Do?

In terms of capabilities, the Dreadnought class is a nuclear-powered submarine, giving it a great range. While it is not known specifically what the maximum range of this boat will be, it will likely be akin to that of its Vanguard-class predecessor, thereby exceeding 10,000 nautical miles. 

Details on this program are murky, but what is known is that the Dreadnought class will feature a Common Missile Compartment (CMC). 

According to the UK Defence Journal, “CMC aims to define the missile tubes and accompany systems that would be used to launch new ballistic missiles, successors to the current Trident II/D5 missile fleet used by the USA and Britain.”

In terms of nuclear weapons capabilities, the key element of any SSBN, British designers are expanding the diameter of each vertical launch tube from 2.21 meters to 3.04 meters, meaning the Dreadnought will have greater interoperability with its allies. The U.S. Navy’s replacement for the Los Angeles-class attack submarine, the Virginia-class Block III submarine, did something similar with their cruise missile launch tubes, installing the Common Weapon Launcher.

A Dreadnought-class submarine will carry Trident II/D5 ballistic missiles that can arm multiple nuclear warheads. 

The Dreadnought-class SSBN is believed to cost Britain’s MOD the equivalent of $39.9 billion. The costs include the design, construction, and testing of these new boats. But the British have to spend gobs of their taxes on modernizing the country’s rather depressing shipyard capabilities in order to reliably build and maintain these advanced submarines. 

The Dreadnought intends to employ cheaper sensors, increased autonomy, and artificial intelligence capabilities. Further, the Dreadnought-class SSBN is expected to carry a crew of around 130. 

Britain Isn’t a Superpower Anymore

Britain has yet to come to grips with the fact that it is no longer the world’s superpower. Indeed, it is a middle power in relative decline. Their budgets do not comport with their lofty ambitions. 

For example, British strategists still speak seriously about going “East of Suez” with their two-aircraft carrier fleet. Yet at the same time, they struggle to maintain these two ships and are faced with significant threats much closer to their shores, emanating from Russia, but also from Argentina in relation to the Falkland Islands, an issue that has never been fully resolved. 

The British Royal Navy is as ever the most important aspect of Britain’s military. But it is not, and never will be, big enough or well-funded enough to do everything British strategists want it to do. London should refocus its intentions and tailor its capabilities accordingly. Rather than trying to be a global power projection force, perhaps Britain should focus instead on being a potentate in the Atlantic, specifically the North Atlantic. 

The Dreadnought class sounds like a solid investment for Britain. Rather than continuing to seek power via aircraft carriers, Britain should get smaller in its power-projection platforms. 

Submarines, such as the Dreadnought class, are the future, as are unmanned underwater vehicles. Only four Dreadnought-class subs are being built. That’s a problem. They should be building an armada of them to dominate the North Atlantic and deter Argentina in the South Atlantic. 

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?)

L'"Africa Corps" russe, composé principalement d'anciens mercenaires de PMC Wagner, a perdu plusieurs dizaines de ses combattants à la frontière entre le Mali et l'Algérie. Un convoi de soldats russes et maliens a été pris en embuscade dans une tempête de sable par des Touaregs, qui prônent la création de l'État indépendant de l'Azawad.

Summary and Key Points: France is building its first new aircraft carrier in decades, the PANG (Porte-Avions Nouvelle Génération), designed to replace the aging Charles De Gaulle. Set to be one of the largest carriers globally, the PANG will boast an impressive airwing and advanced defenses.

-However, given France's current economic challenges and strategic needs, investing in such a colossal project seems misguided.

-France's real threats lie in Russia and the Greater Middle East, where cheaper, unmanned underwater vehicles, submarines, and advanced technologies like hypersonic weapons and military space capabilities would be more effective.

-The PANG may symbolize power, but it doesn’t address France's strategic priorities.

France’s New PANG Aircraft Carrier is a Bad Idea

France is the most recent medium-sized power to pursue building a massive nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Under the acronym of PANG, which means “Porte-Avions Nouvelle Génération,” France is building its first new indigenous aircraft carrier in decades. 

It is designed to replace the aging French carrier Charles De Gaulle. The French Navy intends to create one of the largest warships ever built by France.

An Unnecessary Expenditure for France

With a length of 310 meters and a width of 85 meters at its widest point, the PANG will be one of the largest aircraft carriers in the world. She’ll displace approximately 75,000 tons, which is far larger than the Charles De Gaulle, which displaces 42,000 tons. 

Never mind that the French, with their current economic woes and domestic political instability, are unlikely to actually build this monstrosity. Egos must be stroked. And the French must remind everyone that, many centuries ago, they were a dominant imperial power. 

The French Navy plans on building only one PANG aircraft carrier, which will also serve as the flagship of the French fleet. It will undoubtedly be interoperable with the wider NATO naval capability. 

PANG’s Airwing

PANG’s airwing will be substantial, with the carrier expected to carry up to 30 new-generation maritime variants of France’s New Generation Fighter aircraft and remote carrier vehicles, all of which are part of the Future Combat System, or FCAS. As I’ve written elsewhere, Europe’s FCAS is the most promising of the sixth-generation warplane systems being developed by the world’s great powers, if only because of the many countries burden-sharing to build this system. 

Besides these new systems, the PANG will host an undisclosed number of Dassault Rafale M multi-role fighter aircraft, E-2D Hawkeye airborne early warning and control aircraft, various helicopters, and other unmanned aerial vehicles.

Specifications of the PANG Aircraft Carrier

France’s proposed PANG carrier will have a crew of around 2,000 personnel, including aircraft engineers to undertake repairs onboard that would normally be done by the manufacturer. 

PANG is expected to be delivered to the French Navy in 2037 and will be made operational by the French Navy a year later, at which point the ancient Charles De Gaulle will be retired from service. 

According to specifications, the PANG will be equipped with advanced defenses, including the SeaFire radar system and a variety of satellite communication systems. The carrier will also have a catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) system, which will allow the onboard aircraft to launch from the deck using electromagnetic catapults, and to land using arresting wires. 

As for her weapons, the PANG will be armed with a variety of advanced missiles, including the Aster 15 and Aster 30 surface-to-air missiles, the Exocet MM40 Block 3 anti-ship missile, and the SCALP naval cruise missile. The carrier will have a range of other defensive systems, including the Sylver A50 vertical launch system. 

A Fundamental Mismatch of Resources and Needs

It's true that the PANG represents a significant leap forward for the French Navy. If constructed according to her designs and the preferred timeline, the PANG carrier will provide a powerful and versatile platform for projecting sea-based airpower across the globe. 

Of course, to what end is a question that few in Paris apparently dare to ask. 

Even more so than Britain, France is a European power. Its problem set and the threats it currently faces derive from Russia to the east and the Greater Middle East to the south.

Sure, an aircraft carrier can help deal with terrorism issues in the Greater Middle East, but what can it do against Russia? 

More important, as evidenced by the French experience fighting in Mali, no amount of firepower will assist the French in winning back North Africa. It goes deeper than mere firepower. Their problems in that part of the world are cultural, historical, and ideological. 

As a medium power, France should instead be focused on building their fleet of cheaper, unmanned underwater vehicles, as well as submarines and possibly destroyers. And if Paris really wanted to get ahead of the rest of the advanced militaries of the world, they’d focus on military space issues as well as developing hypersonic weapons capabilities. 

An aircraft carrier, like the proposed PANG, may make them feel like a great power again. But it won’t actually make France a great power again. 

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: Britain's Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, commissioned in the 1990s to replace the Polaris-equipped Resolution-class, are crucial for maintaining the country's continuous at-sea deterrent (CASD) posture.

-Despite their impressive capabilities, these subs have faced controversies, including collisions and maintenance issues. Britain's strategic vision and post-industrial challenges have compounded these problems, raising concerns about the fleet's sustainability.

-With the first Dreadnought-class replacement not expected until the 2030s, the Vanguard-class subs must remain operational longer than intended, highlighting the need for a clearer defense strategy and increased investment in submarine capabilities.

The Struggles and Strengths of Britain's Vanguard-Class Nuclear Submarines

Although a medium-sized power, Britain is a nuclear weapons-armed state. A key component of Britain’s nuclear capabilities is the Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) operated by the British Royal Navy. 

There are only four Vanguard-class subs in operation today, and they were designed initially in the 1980s to replace the aging Polaris-equipped Resolution-class nuclear submarines that defined the British Royal Navy throughout the Cold War. 

The first Vanguard-class submarine, HMS Vanguard, was commissioned in 1993. 

Some Interesting Points

These subs were constructed by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering (now BAE systems) at the Barrow-in-Furness Shipyard in Cumbria, England. They were designed to carry the Trident II/D5 missile, a submarine-launched ballistic missile capable of delivering multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles. Each Vanguard-class submarine can carry up to 16 Trident II missiles with multiple nukes on top. 

They are legendary mass killing machines.

The Vanguard-class sub is powered by a single Rolls-Royce PWR 2 nuclear reactor, providing virtually unlimited range and endurance. They can accommodate a crew of 135 officers and sailors. These subs are designed to operate for extended periods at sea, maintaining a continuous at-sea deterrent (CASD) posture that is vital for Britain’s national defense. 

A Vanguard-class SSBN displaces 14,900 tons and, when submerged, can displace 15,900 tons. Such a boat has a length of 491 feet, 10 inches, a beam of 42 feet, and a draught of 39 feet, four inches. 

Currently, all four Vanguard-class SSBNs are in service with the Royal Navy. 

Vanguard-class Complications

While these submarines are impressive, they have suffered through controversy. About a decade ago, poor seamanship led a Vanguard-class submarine to crash into an allied French submarine underwater. Similarly, another incident occurred in which a bad depth measurement nearly led to one of these boats sinking with all hands. Thankfully, a secondary depth finder gave an accurate reading of the ship’s true depth, allowing for the crew to correct and save the ship. 

Britain is also struggling with an identity crisis. 

On the one hand, they have their imperial legacy. On the other, Britain is not an imperial superpower anymore. Further, they are no longer part of the supranational European Union. They have become a small, independent country that needs to better define its overall strategic objectives. 

Submarines are expensive. In fact, modern militaries are expensive. Britain is struggling, like so many other Western nations, to maintain a reliable fighting force. This is partly because of limits of resources and bad leadership. It’s also because Britain is much smaller than other countries and is inherently limited.

Britain’s Post-Industrial Mistakes Catch Up with Them

Beyond that, Britain is a post-industrial country. It has difficulty sustaining physical platforms that are highly complex and require gobs of money to build and maintain. There are several woes afflicting the Vanguard-class submarine fleet. These problems include complications in Britain’s ability to maintain these boats and refit them as needed. The Vanguards are old and require expensive maintenance and refit schedules to remain in fighting shape. 

For example, HMS Vanguard recently returned to service in the Royal Navy after a seven-year-long refit – a refit significantly longer than originally planned. Thus, concerns have arisen from British leaders about the availability of the fleet and ability to maintain CASD.

The Royal Navy is invested in building the Dreadnought-class SSBN as a replacement for the Vanguard class. But the first vessel in the class, HMS Dreadnought, is not expected to enter service until the 2030s, meaning Vanguard-class subs will need to remain operational for several more years, probably longer than their designers ever intended.

General Decline

Also at issue is a decline in the quality of the Royal Navy sailors. Because of increased operational tempo (and not having enough of these units on hand), reports have surfaced over recent years about significant declines in crew well-being and morale aboard these SSBNs. Indeed, one of Britain’s Vanguard-class subs recently returned from a record-breaking tour of over half a year at sea, raising questions about the sustainability of such deployments.

Overall, significant capabilities gaps have formed in Britain’s undersea fleet. Not only with the Vanguard class, but also with Astute-class attack submarines. 

If British leaders had a cogent vision for what they wanted British military power to achieve, they would find a way to build submarines in greater numbers, which is what they need. But British leadership still thinks they’re running an empire. The elite in London’s government clearly believe that their military can do everything, everywhere, all at once. But, they are wrong. And Britain’s submarine force is showing dangerous signs of decline as a result of this faulty thinking. 

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: China boasts about its anti-ship missiles, nicknamed carrier killers, but sinking a U.S. aircraft carrier is no easy feat. The USS America, a conventionally powered Kitty Hawk-class carrier, demonstrated incredible resilience during explosive tests almost a decade after its 1996 retirement.

-Despite sustained simulated attacks meant to mimic wartime conditions, it took four weeks before the America was finally scuttled.

-This exercise revealed the carrier’s robust design and ability to withstand significant damage.

-Lessons learned from the USS America’s endurance have informed the design of future carriers, like the Gerald R. Ford-class, underscoring the complexity of sinking these formidable vessels.

USS America: The Carrier That Showed Why Sinking a U.S. Supercarrier is No Easy Task

China lauds its anti-ship missiles that are nicknamed carrier killers, but just how difficult is it to sink U.S. aircraft carriers?

The USS America is a case in point. The America had a distinguished service history since its commissioning in 1965. The flat-top was retired in 1996 and the Navy wanted to know how a carrier would react to explosions that would simulate an attack. During explosive tests almost ten years later it took four weeks to the carrier before America was finally scuttled. So, this action showed that the America could take a punch and not go down easily.

Let’s take a look at why the carrier was so resilient: 

USS America: An Exemplary Service Record

The USS America was a non-nuclear conventionally powered carrier of the Kitty Hawk supercarrier class. The America was a mainstay during the Vietnam war with three deployments in theater and later patrolled the Persian Gulf and saw action during Operation Desert Storm. The America had a nose for difficult jobs having been deployed off the coasts of Libya, Iraq, Haiti, and Bosnia during its service history.

Big and Dangerous

The vessel displaced 83,573 tons. It had four hangar elevators. These serviced 79-aircraft. The air wing was made up of fighters, bombers, and anti-submarine airplanes such as F-4 Phantoms, A-6 Intruders, A-7 Corsair IIs, and SP-2 Neptunes.

Air Defense Was Effective

The America had a full complement of air defenses including radars and sensors that at the time of the Vietnam War were of advanced quality. It also carried surface-to-air missiles and a close-in weapons systems for better protection and survivability from any bogeys that made it past the main air defenses.

USS America: No Pilots Lost Over Vietnam

The USS America had an excellent record during Vietnam. Amazingly, it lost zero pilots while flying 10,500 sorties and dropping over 11,000 pounds of bombs.

Enviable Record in the Middle East

During the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan, the America saw more combat off the coast of Libya. By then it carried F-14 Tomcats and was engaged in battle with Libyan surface-to-air missiles and small ships which it destroyed or damaged. 

But Middle East service for the America was not complete. The carrier sent 3,000 sorties to attack Iraqi positions during the First Gulf War. After the war, the America sent its aircraft to patrol the no-fly zone over Iraq.

Simulated Battle Testing

In 1996, the USS America was decommissioned. Rather than converting it into a museum, the Navy selected it for testing in 2005 to study how huge ships would cope with explosions on board and respond to the flooding that took place after.  

Dario Leone of the Aviation Geek Club unearthed this quote on Quora about the America from mechanical engineer Blake Horner that is quite telling: “[T]he whole point of the tests was to make future carriers more survivable, as well as see how warships reacted to underwater explosion and damage. Clearly, after taking a beating for four weeks, they can survive a LOT due to just their sheer bulk. But at the same time, the tests were not meant to truly sink her immediately. Thus, there was no ‘shoot to kill’ mindset of the naval officers conducting the test, versus the whole point of attacking enemy battleships was to sink them,” Horner said.

The USS America was thus the largest ship in the U.S. Navy to ever sink. The evaluators learned that a double-hulled ship of its size was difficult to destroy. They concluded, according to Horner, that missiles would have to penetrate deeply through numerous rooms and empty spaces to mortally wound a large carrier. These lessons helped the Navy design future carriers such as the Gerald R. Ford-class.

Now, the USS America, after a notable 30-year service record, is at the bottom of the sea between Charleston, South Carolina, and Bermuda.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

July 27, 2024 marked the 75th anniversary of the first flight of the de Havilland Comet, the world’s first jet-powered airliner. This airliner had a troubled start to service, but eventually became a reliable workhorse. [...]

The post The de Havilland Comet at 75: From Troubled Jetliner to Military Icon appeared first on The Aviationist.