Agrégateur de flux

Summary: The U.S. Air Force is heavily investing in its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to ensure aerial supremacy through the mid-21st century. This sixth-generation platform, comprising advanced fighters and AI-enabled drone wingmen, is a response to the rapid advancements in aerial technology by Russia and China.

-With an estimated budget of $28.5 billion from 2025-2029, each NGAD airframe will cost "multiple hundreds of millions" of dollars.

-The program, rooted in DARPA’s 2014 Air Dominance Initiative Study, aims to replace the aging F-22 fleet.

-Featuring cutting-edge materials, sensors, and engines, the NGAD will likely be the first sixth-generation fighter to enter service globally, ahead of similar programs in Beijing and Moscow.

U.S. Air Force's NGAD: Pioneering the Future of Air Dominance

The U.S. Air Force is betting on its upcoming Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter in order to retain supremacy in the skies well into the middle of the century. 

The developing sixth-generation platform is the service’s answer to the current threat environment. Russia and China are rapidly expanding their own aerial programs, and the race to secure the technology of the future is ongoing. Time is of the essence.

The Air Force has drastically increased its planned spending on the NGAD program. According to recently published budget documents, the service is set to spend at least $28.5 billion from 2025-2029. While exact price estimates will probably shift down the line, each new airframe will cost “multiple hundreds of millions” of dollars, according to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall. 

NGAD may cost taxpayers a large sum over the years, but maintaining air supremacy will be well worth it.

The Origins of NGAD

Back in 2016, the Air Force released its Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan, which evolved into the NGAD. DARPA’s Air Dominance Initiative Study, published two years earlier, was at the heart of the program. 

The futuristic “family of systems” consists of a sixth-generation fighter and a constellation of AI-enabled drone wingmen. As detailed by Sandboxx News, “At the heart of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft concept is the need for capable artificial intelligence agents that can fly NGAD’s drone wingmen, take cues from local human operators, and even serve as advanced co-pilots inside the crewed fighter itself to help reduce the massive cognitive load pilots must manage while flying their aircraft in combat. The Air Force’s Project VENOM is among the efforts underway to make exactly that happen.”

In addition to the presence of uncrewed systems, the NGAD will include the output of the Advanced Engine Technology Program aimed at improving electrical power generation. The sixth-gen platform is also expected to feature innovative composite materials and structures, as well as a range of sophisticated radar, sensors, and electro-optical cameras. The ultimate goal is to fully retire the older fifth-generation F-22 aircraft once enough NGADs are produced. For now, the service plans to procure around 200 NGAD stealth fighter jets, although the number could change.

Beyond NGAD: Enter F/A-XX 

The Air Force’s NGAD is not the only next-gen platform in the works in the U.S. military.

The Navy is also developing a sixth-gen F/A-XX jet. Recently, the Navy made drastic cuts to its new fighter, however, in order to contend with congressionally imposed budget cuts. It appears the Air Force’s sixth-gen platform will be the first of its kind to enter service in the country.

If Beijing and Moscow are slower to produce their own futuristic counterparts, the Air Force’s NGAD will be the first of its kind to enter service across the globe.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons or from Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The AbramsX features advanced Chobham armor, a powerful 120mm smoothbore gun, and a gas turbine engine providing 1,500 horsepower, allowing it to reach speeds of up to 45 miles per hour.

-Additionally, it includes a digital command system and a laser warning receiver system.

-While technologically advanced, there are concerns that the AbramsX might be designed for past wars rather than future conflicts.

AbramsX: The Future of Main Battle Tanks or a Relic of the Past?

In recent years, the main battle tank has come in for a lot of criticism – especially the more advanced versions of the weapons system. 

In the Iraq War, MBTs were next to useless as the insurgency got underway. In Ukraine now, the Russians are so afraid of risking their advanced T-14 Armata tanks that they are relying on the old Soviet-era T-72 MBT to do the heavy lifting. (These systems are easy to produce and relatively cheap.) 

Nevertheless, the Americans are moving ahead with another iteration of the Abrams, the tank that did so much to help the U.S. win during Operation Desert Storm and which remains the pinnacle of active MBTs – at least until the T-14 shows what it can do. 

The coming version is known as the AbramsX.

The Abrams Tank Gets a Second Wind

Named after U.S. Army General Creighton Abrams, the Abrams is a third-generation MBT originally designed by Chrysler Defense, which is now known as General Dynamics Land Systems. 

The original M1 Abrams first entered service in the 1980s and was designed to do one thing: stop the Red Army from breaching Western Europe via the Fulda Gap in Germany. That conflict never materialized, so the Abrams was put to work in other areas, most notably during Operation Desert Storm. 

Sadly, the conflict in Europe that the Abrams was designed to fight appears to be upon us yet again in the killing fields of Ukraine. As a result, the Americans have promised 31 older M1 Abrams tanks to Kyiv. But Ukraine has resisted deploying these assets, because they are older and are too heavy for the soft ground of Ukraine. 

Geography is important in war, who knew?

Some Technical Specifications for the AbramsX

Still, the new AbramsX is on its way. One of its notable features is its advanced Chobham armor. This composite armor, developed in the United Kingdom in the 1960s, provides superior protection against a wide range of threats, including kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds. 

The new Abrams is also armed to the teeth. It’s equipped with a 120mm smoothbore gun, the mainstay gun of Western main battle tanks for decades. This gun can fire a variety of ammunition types, including Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot rounds and high-explosive HEAT rounds.

But the AbramsX isn’t just about firepower and protection. It’s also about mobility. The tank is powered by a gas turbine engine that provides a whopping 1,500 horsepower. This allows the AbramsX to reach speeds of up to 45 miles per hour on roads, making it one of the fastest tanks in the world.

The AbramsX features other advanced technologies. Its digital command and control system allows the crew to share information and coordinate their actions more effectively. It also has a laser warning receiver system, which can detect when the tank is being targeted by laser-guided weapons and automatically deploy countermeasures. 

Is the New AbramsX Really Worth It?

America’s newest AbramsX MBT is a modern marvel of engineering – like, for example, America’s vaunted fleet of aircraft carriers. The new Abrams combines advanced armor, firepower, mobility, and technology to create a tank that’s a force to be reckoned with on the battlefield. Much like the U.S. Navy’s flattops, though, the AbramsX, while advanced, might be designed to fight yesteryear’s wars.

About the Author 

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. 

Inconnue du grand public il y a encore quelques mois, la militante propalestinienne occupe désormais le devant de la scène politique. Cela pourrait continuer au-delà des élections européennes.

DÉCRYPTAGE - Les Insoumis ont fait le pari de faire voter les quartiers populaires, notamment en axant leur campagne sur la cause palestinienne.

Summary and Key Points: Aircraft carriers have long epitomized U.S. naval power, but advances in anti-ship technology, including drones and missiles, now challenge their viability.

-These massive vessels, costly and symbolically significant, are increasingly vulnerable to inexpensive, sophisticated attacks from adversaries like China.

-In a potential conflict, losing an aircraft carrier would be a devastating blow.

-If carriers become obsolete, the U.S. Navy might shift towards stealthier and more agile vessels such as submarines and destroyers.

-Despite heavy investments in new carrier classes, the Navy could adapt to maintain maritime dominance, drawing on its long history of evolution and innovation in naval warfare.

Are Aircraft Carriers Becoming Obsolete in Modern Warfare?

Aircraft carriers have long been symbols of U.S. naval power, but recent advancements in anti-ship technology, such as drones and missiles, have raised questions about their future viability.

These massive, expensive vessels are increasingly vulnerable to cheaper, more sophisticated attacks, particularly from adversaries like China.

In a potential conflict, the loss of an aircraft carrier would be a significant blow, both strategically and psychologically.

Should carriers become obsolete, the Navy might pivot towards stealthier and more agile vessels, such as submarines and destroyers, to maintain its maritime dominance.

Despite significant investment in new carrier classes, the Navy could adapt and find new ways to project power if required.

Aircraft carriers define the power of the U.S. Navy today. But the Navy has existed for 230 years – 248 years if you count the Continental Navy – and for the great majority of that time, the maritime service did not have aircraft carriers at all. If carriers become obsolete, the Navy will probably adapt and endure.

Why Might the Aircraft Carrier Era End?

Some pundits question the viability of the aircraft carrier in contemporary combat environments. Thanks to recent advances in anti-ship technologies, relatively cheap and low-tech equipment might be used to contain or even destroy advanced surface vessels. Drones, for example, can be deployed in swarms. They have caused problems for exponentially more expensive and more sophisticated U.S. warships off the coast of Yemen. Anti-ship missiles have become increasingly effective and have the potential to target and destroy aircraft carriers.

Carriers are, of course, massive targets – both in the literal and figurative sense. In the literal sense, aircraft carriers are one-fifth of a mile long. They carry 5,000 sailors and 100 aircraft, and they cost billions of dollars per unit. In the figurative sense, aircraft carriers are the symbol of a nation’s naval might and general fortune. Felling an aircraft carrier in the modern era would be a victory of a significance that is hard to calculate. Accordingly, they make a very attractive target. 

In a potential war against China, the U.S. would depend on carriers to deploy air power throughout the Indo-Pacific region. The Chinese undoubtedly would use their stockpile of anti-ship missiles, as well as their growing fleet of submarines, aircraft carriers, and surface vessels, to target American aircraft carriers. The loss of just one carrier would be devastating to any American war effort. Frankly, the American public is probably not conditioned for the casualties that the sinking of an aircraft carrier would entail – potentially double the lives that were lost on 9/11.

What Would Replace the Aircraft Carrier?

If, for some reason, the U.S. Navy had to move past the aircraft carrier, the process would be cumbersome and likely made with great reluctance.

Right now, the Navy has considerable resources invested in its carrier fleet – investment befitting a vessel type that is indeed the cornerstone of the service. But it could move on if necessary, and if the maritime service faces an existential threat, it will adjust accordingly. 

Adjustment could look like a pivot toward stealthier, sleeker, smaller vessels. More submarines, for example, or destroyers – vessels that would be harder for the enemy to target with drones and anti-ship missiles, and harder to locate in the first place. 

The Navy is banking on aircraft carriers being the vessel of the future. That’s why they’re comfortable investing $13 billion per boat in the brand-new Ford-class carrier. But if for some reason the Navy needed to move past the iconic aircraft carrier, it would find a way.

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.

INFO LE FIGARO - Le premier ministre, qui espère un «sursaut» en vue du scrutin du 9 juin, a convié députés et sénateurs de son camp deux jours plus tard à Matignon.

A new book examines the past and present of Russian thinking on deterrence.

Le scrutin a lieu du jeudi 6 au dimanche 9 juin. Sur cette période, chaque État membre décide du jour où se tient le vote.

This time, Israel must heed Theodor Meron’s warning.

Can't wait to find out the results of the European elections? Watch live announcements and reactions from Brussels and follow us on social media.

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

Dans l'ancien camp de concentration du Struthof en Alsace, sept hommes de tous milieux sociaux participent à un stage de citoyenneté dans le cadre d'une peine judiciaire ou d'une alternative aux poursuites. Ce stage est organisé par le tribunal de Saverne en lien avec le Centre européen du résistant déporté (CERD). 

Every Monday, a member of the international academic association ‘UACES’ will address a current topic linked to their research on euradio.

 

Listen to the podcast on eu!radio.

 

 

Mechthild Roos, you are Lecturer in Comparative Politics at the University of Augsburg, in Germany. As an expert on the European Parliament, what are your expectations towards the forthcoming elections?

Well, the forecasts largely point to two major trends. First, a relatively high voter turnout, in comparison to previous European elections. And, second, a shift of votes and seats to the right. For me, as someone who looks at longer trends in the European Parliament’s institutional development, the perhaps most intriguing question is: will these shifts affect the Parliament’s established working routines and, maybe even more importantly, its self-understanding?

 

Can you explain in more detail?

Until now, the European Parliament has always understood itself as the voice of the people, as the main provider of democratic legitimacy in EU politics, but also as driver of ever-closer integration.

This is the main point I wonder about: will the shifting of seats and perhaps majorities to the right change this self-understanding? Will the Parliament adopt more of a member-state centred course – which, in effect, would imply a weakening of the Parliament itself, but which corresponds to the political aims declared by the bulk of the parties in the most right-wing groups? Or will these new MEPs – or at least some of them – be socialized into the institution’s raison d’être and find themselves defending a stronger European Parliament and the need for parliamentary involvement in EU politics at the EU (rather than national) level?

 

Do you think this is likely?

It is far from impossible! It is actually a typical pattern within the Parliament. Over its history, and throughout many changes of composition, the Parliament has seen MEPs entering with a rather Eurosceptic view, and then gradually coming to appreciate the Parliament’s strengthened involvement in EU politics, not least of course because that gives the MEPs themselves more political power.

In addition, those who are generally sceptical about European integration tend not to be very active in the Parliament. Those who are active, on the other hand, those who lead debates and negotiations with other EU institutions, who draft reports and carry the bulk of parliamentary work – are largely in favour of closer integration, and of a strong mandate for the Parliament.

 

And in what shape, if you look back at the last five years, do you think the European Parliament is going into its next term? Which of the numerous crises it had to handle, from Brexit to Ukraine and beyond, had the biggest impact on the institution itself?

In my point of view, the most influential crisis of all clearly was the COVID-19 pandemic. Because regardless of all the other crises’ broader implications, COVID-19 had by far the most profound impact on the Parliament’s own work. The combination of a dramatic urgency to act, a complete inexperience with a pandemic of this scale, and the institutional consequences of the lockdown, all of this put into question the established policy-making procedures at the EU level, and also within the European Parliament itself. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that the 2019 elections had brought a significant turnover among MEPs: 58% of them were new to the job, and consequently had hardly any networks or knowledge of formal, but also informal working routines, which are particularly important in the European Parliament as an institution that has always been fighting for more power than it formally holds.

In the pandemic, Parliament managed to uphold a remarkable level of legislative activity. It has also pushed intensely for better and more democratically legitimised crisis governance mechanisms. Nevertheless, this period of extraordinary strain has left its marks on the European Parliament and its role in EU politics.

 

Do you think the pandemic has weakened the Parliament’s position?

Time will tell. We will most likely not exit this period of polycrisis anytime soon, so for me, the question is whether Parliament will manage to formalize its involvement in EU crisis governance, which we may safely expect to become something of a new normal, or whether it will have to fight continuously to keep its foot in the door.

Overall, I choose to be optimistic: if crises are indeed the new normal, then we will get normalized crisis governance routines sooner rather than later, if only for the sake of efficiency. And I hope that these new routines will include a strong dimension of parliamentary involvement and democratic oversight.

 

Thank you very much, Mechthild Roos, for sharing your expectations with us! I recall you are Lecturer in Comparative Politics at the University of Augsburg, in Germany.

The post The Post-Pandemic Parliament appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

La séance a été suspendue, mardi, à l'Assemblée nationale française, après qu'une députée du groupe La France insoumise (LFI), Rachel Kéké, a brandi un drapeau palestinien. D'autres députés de la gauche se sont présentés habillés en noir, rouge, blanc et vert pour manifester leur soutien à ce peuple.

© Sam Forson sur Pexels

Every Monday, a member of the international academic association ‘UACES’ will address a current topic linked to their research on euradio.

 

Listen to the podcast on eu!radio.

 

 

Jannik Jansen, you are Policy Fellow at the Jacques Delors Centre in Berlin, and together with your colleagues, you express serious doubts about the famous anti-green backlash among European voters. Tell us where this narrative comes from in the first place.

When Commission President Ursula von der Leyen took office in 2019, the European Parliament had just been elected amidst a wave of climate strikes, led by young people demanding more ambitious climate policies to secure their future. Five years and an ambitious European Green Deal later, climate policy debates are again central in the run-up to the European elections in June. However, the tone has shifted: instead of young people, it is farmers taking to the streets with their tractors to voice their frustration about environmental regulations.

Far-right parties have been quick in capitalizing on these protests, portraying climate policies as unfair and overly burdensome for citizens and farmers. Their narrative of a widespread backlash against green policies has gained traction. As a result, liberal and centre-right politicians have become increasingly hesitant to endorse Green Deal initiatives, calling for a pause or even a rollback of climate legislation.

 

But does this political U-turn truly reflect a general shift in public sentiment?

Good question. To explore this, we conducted a survey with 15,000 citizens in Germany, France, and Poland at the end of last year. Our findings challenge the notion of general climate fatigue.

Citizens in all three countries remain concerned about the negative effects of climate change on themselves and their families. For instance, 4 out of 5 respondents in France indicated that they were already negatively impacted by climate change or expect to be so in the next five to ten years.

These concerns translate into continued support for more ambitious climate action, with a majority of citizens in each country expressing this sentiment. Notably, this support spans beyond green and left-leaning party supporters, among liberal and conservative voters as well.

 

How much climate scepticism did you find in your survey?

There is a sizeable minority skeptical of more ambitious climate policies: roughly 30% of the population in Germany and Poland, slightly less in France. But despite the politicized debate, this group has not grown significantly compared to previous studies. Moreover, this group of “climate sceptics” is largely dominated by supporters of far-right parties, which increasingly treat climate debates as an ideological battleground.

Therefore, democratic parties should refrain from rushing into a “race to the bottom” in scaling back their climate ambitions. The tale of a broad anti-green backlash appears largely overstated; however, mainstream voters do have clear preferences for how the EU’s climate-policy mix should be shaped going forward.

 

What are these mainstream preferences?

Green industrial policies and public investments into infrastructure, such as electricity grids and railways, are amongst the most popular policies. Similarly, targeted regulatory measures such as green standards for the industry and the power sector enjoy broad support. In contrast, broad bans and CO2 pricing mechanisms are relatively unpopular, especially in areas such as transport and heating, where households would be directly affected by higher prices. This is particularly relevant, as the European Emissions Trading System is set to be extended to these areas in 2027.

Our findings underscore that to garner voter support for these necessary but unpopular policies, it will be essential to combine them with a more substantial redistribution of carbon-price revenues, providing some sort of compensation to all citizens while privileging those who are hit hardest. In general, it should be a key priority to reassure citizens that the costs and benefits of the green transition are equitably distributed.

 

What are your recommendations to the political parties?

It is clear that ideology and partisanship have a significant impact on people’s climate policy positions. If parties compete over the best recipes on how to fight climate change, explain trade-offs, and try to convince voters of necessary but unpopular steps, voters will take notice. However, if parties outbid each other over who scales back climate ambitions the most, they would not only misread where most voters stand on the issue but could inadvertently create the very climate fatigue they aim to address.

 

Thank you very much, Jannik Jansen, Policy Fellow at the Jacques Delors Centre in Berlin, for sharing your research on the perception of green policies by European voters.

The post Is there an anti-green backlash? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Summary: The U.S. Navy's procurement of the Constellation-class frigates has faced significant issues due to rushed oversight, as highlighted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

-The $22 billion program awarded Fincantieri a contract in April 2020 before the ship design was complete, leading to potential cost increases and delays.

-The GAO criticized the Navy for not demonstrating key systems and suggested land-based testing to mitigate risks.

-Delivery of the first ship, USS Constellation, has been delayed from 2026 to 2029, with costs projected to exceed initial estimates.

-Despite these setbacks, the Constellation-class frigates are expected to enhance the Navy's multidomain warfare capabilities significantly.

GAO Report: U.S. Navy's Constellation-Class Frigate Program Faces Major Delays and Cost Overruns

The U.S. Navy mishandled one of the largest procurement programs of recent years, according to the Congressional watchdog.

In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) assesses that the Navy botched the procurement of the new Constellation class frigates because it was in a rush.

A Contract Too Soon

According to the GAO report, the Navy fell short on its oversight of the Constellation-Class Guided-Missile Frigate (FFG 62) Program, which is expected to cost approximately $22 billion.

In April 2020, the Navy awarded Fincantieri the initial contract for one plus nine frigates even though the design was incomplete. As such, costs could skyrocket before there is an operational capability.

“The frigate is using many mission systems already proven on Navy ships. However, the Navy has yet to demonstrate two systems—the propulsion and machinery control systems,” the GAO report stated.

“A planned update to the frigate test plan—combined with the opportunity afforded by schedule delays—could offer the Navy the chance to conduct land-based testing of these two unproven systems. This testing would reduce the risk of discovering issues after the ship is at sea,” the GAO report added.

To make matters even worse, Fincantieri is behind schedule with the first warship of the class, USS Constellation, and instead of delivering it on 2026 will have it ready by 2029.

In terms of costs, the new class of warships is expected to average at less than $1 billion per frigate. The USS Constellation is projected to cost approximately $1.4 billion, and in May the Navy awarded a $1 billion contract for an additional two Constellation frigates. In total, the Navy has ordered six ships as of June.

GAO has made several recommendations to the Navy that could get the program back on track. These proposals include a restructuring of the design stability metric to ensure quality over quantity; the use of an improved metric to better estimate the design stability before construction begins on the second frigate of the class; the identification of opportunities to improve the acquisition strategy; additional land-based testing of technology and systems.

The Constellation Class Frigates

Despite their cost, in terms of capabilities, the Constellation class frigates are going to boost the Navy’s ability to conduct multidomain warfare across the world. For example, the new warships will be able to operate in both open water, such as the open Indo-Pacific, and littoral, such as the first island chain, environments.

“This ship class will be an agile, multi-mission warship, capable of operations in both blue-water and littoral environments, providing increased combat-credible forward presence that provides a military advantage at sea,” the Navy states about its upcoming warship.

According to the Navy, the new class of frigates will be able to conduct surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, air warfare, and electromagnetic warfare. As multirole warships, the Constellation frigates will be able to fill many gaps and potentially free up larger warships, such as destroyers, for more demanding missions.

To be effective in its role, the new frigates will pack quite an arsenal, including torpedoes, Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), Baseline Ten (BL10) Aegis Combat System, and a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System.

Through the Constellation class, the Navy is reviving the concept of frigates. Although in use by many navies around the world, frigates have been absent from the Navy roster since the early 2000s when the last Oliver Hazard Perry ships were retired.

About the Author 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Un observatoire géré par Microsoft affirme que la Russie a accru ses activités de désinformation en amont des Jeux olympiques de Paris 2024.

Summary: Congress is pushing the U.S. Air Force to purchase more F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets and keep the production line open longer amid rising tensions with China. A proposal in the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) aims to increase the Air Force's fleet to 122 F-15EXs, more than the current target of 98 but still short of the original goal of 144.

-The move reflects lawmakers' belief in the F-15EX's potential and aims to avoid issues faced with the prematurely closed F-22 Raptor production line.

-The F-15EX, capable of Mach 2.5 speeds and carrying 30,000 pounds of munitions, offers versatile capabilities for both near-peer and less advanced conflicts. While not a fifth-generation aircraft, it complements the F-35 and F-22 by handling various missions and freeing up these advanced jets for critical tasks. Congress's intervention underscores the importance of maintaining robust and adaptable air capabilities in an era of global competition.

Congress is forcing the Air Force to buy more F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets and keep the aircraft’s production line open for longer as tensions with China continue to rise.

A recent proposal to the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – the military budget – seeks to force the Air Force to buy more F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets and prevent the production line from closing too early.

Congress’ move suggests that the lawmakers see a lot of potential in the F-15EX Eagle II and don’t want to limit options for the Air Force down the line. Congress is likely trying to prevent what happened with the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet, which had its production line close too soon with the result of having extreme difficulties keeping an operational F-22 fleet.

With the new proposed amendment to the NDAA, the Air Force would end up having a total of 122 F-15EX Eagle II fighter jets, which is still fewer than the initial goal of 144 aircraft but more than the current target of 98 aircraft.

Indeed, the F-15EX Eagle II looks like is here to stay and play an important role in the Air Force’s deterrence capabilities. As the overall U.S. military enters a phase of increased competition across the globe, aircraft like the F-15EX Eagle II with versatile capabilities that can prove useful in both near-peer warfare and against less advanced adversaries are invaluable.

Congress understands that and is looking to safeguard the F-15EX Eagle II capability well into the future by ensuring that the Air Force buys an adequate number of aircraft. Although it might sound strange that Congress, which is the approver of military funds, is forcing the Air Force to spend more money on a capability, this is the way the American democracy works, and it generally works well because Congress has a better view of long-term threats than the Air Force, which is focused on its own turf.

THE F-15EX EAGLE II

The F-15EX Eagle II is truly a beast in the air. It can hit speeds of up to Mach 2.5 (close to 2,800 miles per hour) while carrying around 30,000 pounds of munitions. It has an operational range of 2,000 miles without refueling and a combat radius of about 800 miles. Depending on the mission, it can carry a large number of both air-to-air (up to 12 missiles) and air-to-ground munitions (up to 24 bombs and missiles), making it a versatile platform able to undertake several mission sets, including air superiority and ground attack.

The F-15EX Eagle II iteration is very similar to the older versions of the F-15 and thus pilots and maintainers need less time to get accustomed to it. Although not a 5th-generation aircraft like the F-35 and F-22, the F-15EX Eagle II is advanced enough to be competitive in a 5th-generation battlefield. But what makes the aircraft particularly useful is its ability to excel in any mission in between, thus freeing up 5th-generation resources for the most pressing missions.

The Air Force intends the F-15EX Eagle II as a temporary solution to the delays of the F-35 program. As we have discussed previously at Sandboxx News, the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet production is facing serious delays due to a software suite. The delays are becoming so serious that assembly lines are producing brand-new F-35 fighter jets that can’t be delivered and are instead stored up.

Perhaps the most interesting fact about the F-15EX Eagle II is that it wasn’t intended to be an aircraft for the U.S. Air Force. Indeed, the Air Force didn’t envision the need for another version of the venerable F-15 –which happens to be the most effective air superiority fighter jet currently in the world with a kill ratio of 103 kills to three losses across all of its versions. Instead, the F-15EX Eagle II came to be because a group of U.S. partners in the Middle East, mainly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, worked with Boeing and funded upgrades for their fleets of F-15 aircraft. As a result, the F-15SA and F-15QA were developed for the Saudi Air Force and Qatari Air Force, respectively. Eventually, when the U.S. Air Force expressed an interest in an advanced version of the F-15, Boeing had already done the research and development.

About the Author: 

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a Greek Army veteran (National service with 575th Marines Battalion and Army HQ). Johns Hopkins University. You will usually find him on the top of a mountain admiring the view and wondering how he got there.

This article was first published by Sandboxx News.

Summary: Throughout history, fire has been a devastating weapon, from the Byzantine Empire's secretive "Greek fire" to modern flamethrowers and incendiary weapons. The U.S. military has largely abandoned such weapons, but Russia has continued to develop and deploy them. The TOS-1A Solntsepek, a thermobaric rocket launcher mounted on a T-72 tank chassis, exemplifies this trend. Designed to incinerate targets with a massive, high-temperature explosion, the TOS-1A has seen use in Ukraine, where its destructive power has been highlighted.

-Despite their effectiveness, thermobaric weapons are controversial due to their indiscriminate nature and potential for civilian casualties. The latest version, the TOS-2 Tosochka, is currently undergoing trials, further advancing Russia's incendiary capabilities.

The Resurgence of Fire Weapons: Russia's TOS-1A in Modern Warfare

During the Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire developed its infamous "Greek fire" – a weapon that was so devastating that its military kept it largely a secret. Even today it remains somewhat of a mystery of how it was made or who "invented it." Yet, it is known that it harnessed the power of fire and literally burned a trail of destruction in its path, while it was nearly impossible to extinguish.

In addition to burning the enemy alive, Greek fire was also used for psychological warfare, as the sight and sound of the weapon alone were intimidating and disheartening to enemy soldiers. It was arguably one of the first "terror weapons" to see widespread use.

Though fire as a weapon largely diminished over time, it was revived during the First World War with the advent of the man-portable flamethrower. The ability to shoot fire at an enemy proved highly effective, so much so that the United States military even developed specialized flamethrowing tanks!

However, even before the end of the Cold War, many nations including the United States ceased using such horrific weapons. Yet, Moscow had essentially gone in another direction and it has since doubled down with its efforts to utilize fire on the modern battlefield. Rather than the backpack-and-nozzle systems that were employed with infantry throughout both World Wars, Russia developed its TOS-1A Solntsepek ('Scorching Sun'), a multiple rocket launcher platform mounted on a T-72 tank chassis to launch thermobaric rockets.

In this way, it is more about launching weapons that start a fire than shooting flames!

TOS-1A: Scorching Sun Weapon Indeed

The TOS-1A was an updated version of the TOS-1 'Burantino,' a heavily armored rocket launcher that could launch incendiary and thermobaric rockets – and meant to kill or rush any "soft target" in its path.  It was essentially a 220 mm 24-barrel multiple rocket launcher that was mounted on the chassis of a T-72/T-90 main battle tank.

The system's first combat tests took place in 1988 and 1989 in the Panjshir Valley during the Soviet–Afghan War. Much like the Byzantine Empire's Greek Fire, the Solntsepek proved to be a terror weapon that caused panic. It has been employed in the ongoing war in Ukraine, where Russian airborne troops have been equipped with the TOS-1A.

"You are being given a formidable weapon, which has no equal in the arsenals of the collective West," one Russian colonel said in the statement posted by the defense ministry, Newsweek reported.

According to Russian state media and defense exporter Rosoboronexport, the TOS-1A has a maximum range of 5.6 miles and can be combat-ready within a minute and a half.

Improved Model, The TOS-2

The latest TOS-2 'Tosochka' heavy flamethrowers are currently undergoing trial tests, the Russian military announced last Friday according to Tass.

"Heavy flamethrower TOS-2 is one of the newest weapons with the RCBD [Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense] troops," Chief of Russia's Chemical, Biological, and Radiation Protection Forces Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov said in an interview with the Russian Defense Ministry's Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper. "The pilot batch of the weapons at the issue was delivered to the military this year and it is currently under a trial test."

Thermobaric – a Truly Barbaric Weapon

When deployed, thermobaric ordnance is a devastating weapon as it employs oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion. Also known as aerosol or vacuum bombs, these can create a  massive shockwave followed by a fire cloud where the temperature can reach 2500-3000 degrees Celsius (4500-5450 Fahrenheit). In addition to certainly killing anyone within the blast radius, the heat from the weapon can cause significant damage to structures and vehicles –igniting any fuels and lubricants, as well as setting off any ordnance. Many targets are essentially vaporized.

Anyone who survives the blast can't be described as the "lucky one," as they often have severe injuries to the lungs, eyes, ears, and colon.

The weapons are not unlawful or prohibited by the Geneva Convention, but their use on civilian targets would violate the law of armed conflict (LOAC). Thermobaric weapons are "likely to cause civilian casualties due to their indiscriminate and uncontained nature," the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has warned.

The first reported deployment of thermobaric weapons in Ukraine occurred in the early stages of the ongoing Ukraine war when 70 Ukrainian fighters were killed in the northeastern town of Okhtyrka. Russian doctrine appeared to be that the best way to attack people in buildings in urban combat was to ensure that people inside could never make it out – or would be wounded so badly they were not capable of continuing to fight.

The Russian military is not alone in using such insidious weapons.

The United States had employed thermobaric weapons in Vietnam, but those tended to be air-dropped over enemy positions. During the War in Afghanistan, the U.S. military employed such weapons against the cave complexes in which Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters had taken refuge in the Gardez region.

Ukraine's Revenge

In late October of 2023, a video circulated online that showed a Ukrainian drone strike a Russian TOS-1A. Soon after the first-person view (FPV) drone hit the Russian vehicle, it set off a secondary explosion that produced a massive fireball. The TOS-1A appeared to have been destroyed by its own ordnance, and its crew was left burning – not in hell, but quite literally within the TOS-1A.

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. 

Summary: The U.S. Army's new M10 Booker light tank has ignited debate over its necessity and effectiveness in modern warfare.

-Critics argue that the M10 is an outdated concept, unnecessary in today's changing combat landscape as demonstrated in conflicts like those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine.

-Despite its advanced sensors and communication systems, the M10 faces operational challenges due to its lighter weight and reduced armor compared to heavier tanks like the Abrams.

-Detractors claim that the M10 offers redundant capabilities and that the funds spent on its development could have been better invested in emerging technologies such as cyberwarfare, unmanned systems, and long-range precision strikes.

-This debate highlights broader concerns about the Army's ability to innovate and adapt to contemporary warfare demands.

Critics Question the Role of M10 Booker in Today’s Combat Scenarios

The US Army’s M10 Booker, a light tank recently added to the Army’s arsenal, has sparked a debate about its necessity and role in warfare. The Army’s officials insist that it not be referred to as a light tank (that’s what it is). 

Meanwhile, the detractors of the M10 argue that it is a weapon system not worth the money invested into it because the nature of ground warfare, as proven by the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have fundamentally changed. A Twitter user derided the M10 by tweeting, “Let’s be real, the M10 ‘totally not a light tank’ Booker light tank is named after a private noone [sic] heard of before as well.”

The Army Doesn't Know What to Do with the M10 Booker

It's just yet another example of the wastefulness—and lack of innovation—that the US Army has struggled to overcome since the end of the Cold War (lest we forget the rather accurate 1998 HBO comedy film The Pentagon Wars starring Kelsey Grammer detailing the disastrous development of an armored personnel carrier?) 

Even in the Global War on Terror, the US Army struggled to adapt to what was then a novel warfighting environment. The US Marines, the other major ground force in the US military, adapted almost seamlessly to the kind of counterterrorism missions that were required in the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while the Army struggled. 

In the post-9/11 era, when great power conflict is again upon us, the other branches have sketched out new warfighting concepts whereas the Army keeps repurposing its old AirLand Battle concepts from the Cold War era.

Without a reliable doctrine to guide the force, it’s no surprise that the Army’s development of warfighting equipment is as listless as the rest of the force. 

The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle designed to support infantry brigade combat teams (BCT) by providing a mobile, protected direct fire capability. It is intended to suppress and destroy fortifications, gun systems, and trench routes. Further, the M10 is meant to protect against enemy armored vehicles. The Booker is equipped with a 105mm main gun and a suite of advanced sensors and communication systems.

But light tanks have not fared very well in modern combat, especially against near-peer adversaries. Just look at Ukraine’s experience with the admittedly older French AMX-10RC units that were so poorly matched against Russia’s armor that the Ukrainians unilaterally withdrew the French light tanks and forbade their further use in combat. Sure, the Booker is more advanced than the AMX-10RC. But the issue isn’t sophistication. It’s armor and firepower.

Here are just a few things that the critics in multiple publications have raised as downsides to the Booker. 

Some Problems with the Booker

First, the M10 Booker is believed to offer redundant capabilities. It’s meant to fill a gap in the Army’s capabilities, providing a light tank option to support infantry brigades. Yet, the M10 offers nothing new that older, cheaper vehicles in the Army’s inventory doesn’t already offer. Both the Abrams Main Battle Tank and the Stryker Mobile Gun System do the same things that the M10 is meant to do.

The M10 cost $1.14 billion in the production and fielding of up to 96 units of these vehicles. The money spent on developing and deploying these light tanks could have been spent on other areas of need for the US Army, such as improving existing systems or investing in new technologies.

The M10 Booker is not without its operational challenges. Its smaller size and lighter weight compared to the M1 Abrams make it more vulnerable to enemy fire. Additionally, the M10 Booker’s reduced armor protection and firepower could limit its effectiveness in certain combat situations (such as the kind currently being experienced in Ukraine). 

The M10 is an Unnecessary Throwback 

In the last decade alone, the face of warfare has changed so much that it is almost unrecognizable. It is, understandably, hard for some in power to keep up with those changes. But it is their duty to try to keep up. That means not designing a force that is meant to fight yesterday’s wars. The Army needs to focus much more on enhancing cyberwarfare capabilities, unmanned systems, and long-range precision strikes.

The M10 Booker offers none of these capabilities. 

The M10 Booker is yet another example of the US Army failing to learn and adapt. Failure to adapt means that a force becomes rigid and unable to improvise in combat. Being unable to fully improvise in unique combat situations means that the force will be unable to overcome the enemy.

And that spells defeat. 

About the Author 

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. 

Summary: Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Moscow has reportedly lost around 330 aircraft, including the advanced Su-34 "Fullback" fighters.

-Ukraine's use of Western-developed weapons, notably the U.S.-delivered Patriot air defense missile system, has significantly contributed to these losses.

-The Su-34, an evolution of the Cold War-era Su-27 Flanker, officially entered service in 2014 and is known for its distinctive platypus nose and side-by-side cockpit.

-Despite its advanced capabilities and robust armament, the Fullback has proven vulnerable in the conflict, with numerous videos showing its destruction.

-The ongoing war threatens to further deplete Russia's stockpile of these crucial aircraft.

Russian Su-34 Fighters: Vulnerable in Ukraine's Conflict

Since invading Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has reportedly lost some 330 aircraft. Moscow’s fighter airframes have proven vulnerable to Ukraine’s stockpile of advanced Western-developed weapons. 

Ukrainian officials claimed that nine Russian jets were destroyed in May alone. While these numbers cannot be independently verified, the U.S.-delivered Patriot air defense missile system has certainly aided Kyiv’s ability to take down Moscow’s top-tier fighters, including the Su-34. Nicknamed the “Fullback” by NATO, this all-weather supersonic fighter has been an essential asset for Russia for many years.

Introducing the Su-34 Fullback

The Soviet-era Su-34 fighter derived from the Su-27 Flanker during the Cold War. While the Su-34 took its maiden flight before the collapse of the USSR, evolving requirements imposed by the Russian Aerospace Forces pushed back the fighter’s official introduction to service until 2014. 

The Fullback’s several unique characteristics include a platypus nose and side-by-side cockpit. Aside from these external characteristics, the jet retains its predecessor’s basic layout, engine, construction, and wing structure. The jet is powered by a pair of Saturn AL-31FM1 engines, which give it a top speed of Mach 1.8 and a service ceiling of around 56,000 feet.  

The Fullback can lug more than 17,000 pounds of weapons across a dozen hardpoints positioned underwing and beneath the fuselage. The jet can also carry a wide range of precision-guided and unguided bombs and rockets, including KAB-500 laser-guided bombs. As detailed by Airforce Technology, the jet can also carry Vympel R-27, Vympel R-73, and NPO-R-77 missiles used primarily for defense against adversarial aircraft if detected by the rear-facing radar.

Two distinct variants of the Fullback have been produced, both of which Russia exports to foreign client states. The Su-34FN is the maritime strike fighter version of the Fullback, equipped with anti-submarine warfare systems, a Sea Snake radar, a radio sonobuoy system, and other unique attributes. Since this model is designed to elevate the fighter’s naval warfare capabilities, it is highly sought out across the globe.

How Has the Fullback Fared in Ukraine?

The Kremlin may claim that its Su-34 fighter is essentially invulnerable, but the platform’s performance in Ukraine suggests otherwise. As explained by Ukrainian Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat, "Our experience suggests that after Russian planes are downed and destroyed, the occupiers do not dare come closer – this is the case across the northern, southern, and eastern fronts. The closer the aircraft armed with guided bombs approach, the farther those bombs can reach into our defenses." 

Countless videos have circulated in recent months purporting to show the destruction of Russian fighters, including Fullbacks. As the war rages on with no end in sight, Moscow’s Su-34 stockpile will surely dwindle further.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons.